Eve, thanks for covering this.

Unfortunately, after a couple hours of comments... the school board simply ignored our experts (on pools maintenance and systems) and voted to continue on with a new Southern California consultant to perpetually study the problem instead of simply fixing it and opening our pools.

The school board is wasting a lot of time and money and DESTROYING the opportunities of our students who are pursuing swimming and water polo opportunities for college.

We had an expert speak who has been responsible for 100's of pool modifications in California and along the west coast that deal specifically with the cited issues. None of these pools ever had to shut down and it wasn't that expensive. (at most, 15k.)

Our pools are not wonderful but they ARE functional. Why AUSD wants to endlessly study the needs for improvements we can't afford is beyond our comprehension. As one parent (who is a construction and pools expert) said: This is not rocket science... it's plumbing!

Hi J Boeger, Thanks for your note. I heard your frustration last night at the board meeting. I think everyone is rightly very sad/disappointed/angry that the pools are closed. It seems almost unbelievable. And, from what I am learning, it sounds like the city/district did not handle preparations for compliance well. But it is also worth recognizing that pool closures have been a problem for many other pools in Alameda County as well. A Wall Street Journal article that came out on Sept. 2 noted this: "Since the law went into effect July 1, Alameda County officials say that noncompliance has been a major reason behind shutting down 125 pools, or 8% of the total in the area—all amid the prime summer season. Among the casualties: the private Piedmont Swim Club in Piedmont was closed for almost a month. And the Oakland Hills Tennis Club, a private recreation club in the Oakland Hills, was informed two weeks ago they would be shut down in September if it didn't produce the required paperwork."

That article is here: http://patch.com/buNQv

Eve, yes it's been a problem for many but as Rod pointed out... he has managed the compliance of 100's of pools (this county, California, west coast.)

AUSD Business Manager Robert Shemwell said that there are different scenarios for each pool ranging from very low impact to very high impact. According to Shemwell, it could be as simple as getting certification in the next 3-5 days (what we've been saying all along.) So why does the school board vote to spend $10,000 on a 3RD consultant last night? The consultant they just agreed to hire is in the business of designing and building very large, expensive pools. No doubt their findings are going to be we need new pools. Well, we'd all love a modern facility but as we all know their isn't money for that.... so, this will effectively shut us down for years. Why does AUSD choose to go down this rabbit hole?

Anyway... my take on it is here....

http://www.aquaticsfan.com/alameda/blog/swimmers-swamp-city-hall-ausd-meeting-and-school-board-ignores-us-anyway

I hope that the new collaboration between the city and the AUSD will bear fruit. One thing I have to say in support of Ann Marie Gallant: she really likes to get things accomplished. I expect her to be a major force in getting the pools reopened ASAP now that she is aware of the problem and engaged. Too bad she did not realize sooner that the fate of the pools was a city responsibility...

At last, it's refreshing to see a gesture towards accountability at City Hall, although Mayor Beverly Johnson still seems reluctant to acknowledge the City's role in maintaining and monitoring the condition of public property when she says that "really the fundamental issue is the age of the pools."

Excellent news!! Emma Hood will re-open next week and Encinal to follow...

http://aquaticsfan.com/alameda/blog/pool-update-emma-hood-will-re-open-next-week-encinal-follow-later-november

Hooray! let's hear it for the Lai-Bitker/Gilmore/Tam/Bonta team! :-)

Does that mean the district won't be spending that $10,000 for a consultant? (Note to district people: This type of waste is why measures for badly needed parcel taxes fail.)

Hi Jill! I hope you are well. I am never quite sure why the word/job function "consultant" has such a bad rap. I think expertise/decades of experience/training is generally a good thing, and I'd rather seek advice/guidance from someone who really knows their stuff, who is at the top of their particular game, then someone who is not. While pool engineering is not brain surgery, I suspect there is a great deal to know about how best to proceed.

Marie Gilmore, Lena Tam, and Rob Bonta were apparently instrumental in getting Supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker's office involved, which led to a rapid resolution to reopen the pools in November.
I still wonder , though, why City of Alameda staff (and possibly AUSD staff) seemed to mishandle this whole saga, going back 1-3 years. There seemed to be far too many players in this scenario who did not know what was going on, were not communicating well with each other, and/or were misinformed. It is hard to know for sure from the outside looking in, but the questions are there....

I agree, AUSD has hired Mr Dennis Berkshire of Aquatic Design Group of Carlsbad. Dennis was able to meet with Alameda County env health org. And Dennis was able to give a persuasive reason to open the Emma Hood Pool at AHS.

Hi Jill, do you want to take a crack at persuading the county to open the pools? That is why consultants are needed, because they have expertise in the technical matters and in this case, pools, and federal and california laws. Don't you hire auto consultants to fix your cars, and medical consultant to treat your diseases? Would you rather have a ignorant person doing heart surgery?

For more information about the meeting today with more details. Please check out

http://bit.ly/cJGDPC

Hi Jon, I appreciate you're so in LOVE with Gilmore, Bonta, Tam. Sis boom Bah!

I appreciate supervisor Alice Lai-Bitker being in the meeting today. But I did not see neither Gilmore, Bonta, or Tam attend the Oct 27 4pm AUSD public meeting today.

Present at this Oct 27 meeting were Mayor Beverly Johnson, Supervisor Lai-Bitker, Mr Ruben Briones from the County, Interim city manager Gallant, Superintendent Vital, Board president Ron Mooney, board member Trish Spencer. Also present were Mr Robert Shemwell and Daniell Houck, and Robbie Lyng from AUSD, and Mr Dale Lillard from ARPD. Also present was Mr Don Krause, president of Alameda Island Aquatics.

Shiners,

My source for the involvement of Gilmore, Tam,and Bonta (obviously outside one of the dramatic meetings, at which little substantial progress can ever be made) was the Aquatics Fan blog:

http://aquaticsfan.com/alameda/blog/pool-update-emma-hood-will-re-open-next-week-encinal-follow-later-november

Showing up at public meetings is all well and good. But working effectively behind the scenes with multiple jurisdictions and parties to negotiate solutions is even more important, which is why Jack B.'s account is significant.

Hi Jon,

I see you point about working behind the scenes. Thank you for the link to the blog.
I want to say that I definitely appreciate the city, county, and AUSD officials to worked together to get to this point.

But I want to point out that could we possibly have avoided this pool closure situation? I believe the city officials (mayor, vice-mayor, city council) and Alameda Park and Rec, and AUSD (superintendent, and school board) they all dropped the ball in the first place. Did other cities close their pools?

There was a repeated failure of the elected leaders to respond to Alameda County inspectors who have been sending emails since 2008. I contacted Mr Ariu Levi from Alameda County Environmental Health dept. The AUSD owned the pool, but the city's Park and Rec department were running the pools.

They can take the glory, but also take the blame. We are not blind.

Shriners,
At this point it appears that locally, balls were getting dropped all over the place for years before and after the state legislature implemented the "new" federal standards.

There seem to have been too many cooks in the kitchen, or at least not enough coordination and cooperation between the players, in the mix leading up to the closures. Perhaps everyone involved (county, city, and AUSD officials and contractors, elected, appointed, and otherwise) will be communicating and cooperating better now that the crisis *seems to be* past? I am an optimist in this hope - for now....

This incident points out that we are all interconnected politically, and that the City Council and staff need to be working more smoothly and closely with the Board of Education and AUSD staff.
This is real evidence that Gilmore's and others' claims in city races that they want to support the schools are valid City Council goals. (I was skeptical of Marie's education-oriented platform before this incident.)

If there are too many cooks in the kitchen. Who are the cooks that need to leave? Who are the cooks that can serve Alameda?

Jon, who are your top choices for city and AUSD posts this election. And PLEASE don't give me a straight party endorsed list.

We need to pick smart, productive leaders for Alameda. I'm not voting for people because they are Democrats or Republicans or tea drinkers. I expect you are intelligent critical thinker and can produce a frank and honest list of strong effective and proven leaders. Don't just push for candidates because they are on a party list. Otherwise you'll just be seen as another diehard partisan who people will ignore.

I have a complete ballot of recommendations if you want it. Email me at jonswriter AT att DOT net and I'd be happy to email you the two sets (statewide and local).

Locally: Gilmore, Tam, and Bonta; YES on Measure F; Sherratt and McMahon for Board of Ed;
Chen, Deutsch, and Williams for hospital board; Robert Raburn for BART Board District 4; Ortiz and Young for AC Transit Board.

That's the abbreviated list, but there's more if you want to see it...

Sfniners,

No, I don't hire "auto consultants "to fix my car, I hire mechanics who can actually fix my car. And if I needed surgery I would not go to a surgical "consultant," I would go to a surgeon who would actually perform the surgery. The word consultant implies someone who doesn't actually fix a problem, but merely tells you how it needs to be fixed ("consults"). If this particular consultant actually fixed the problem, that's great and much more than many consultants do.

I have heard many people cite the hiring of expensive consultants as a reason to oppose municipal entities. Maybe it's a terminology thing, but it does affect people's perception and thus it matters. And how many hours did it take the consultant to fix the problem for that $10,000?

Jill,
If you take time to read the documents, you will find that the consultants are paid hourly, they don't just get a lumpsum. The $10,000 is a maximum limit. Sorry to disappoint you. I suggest taking some time to research the issue, instead of listening to soundbites about $10k giveaways

Refer to this doc posted on AUSD website. Page 11, section 5.0 on Compensation
http://www.alameda.k12.ca.us/images/stories/pdfs/boemtg/boe_102610_e6e9.pdf

My bad - it's only $195/hour. But my original point was that when it is reported that the district has hired a consultant to address things that the public assumes are the responsibility of the district (e.g., comply with laws and regulations), it seems wasteful and it does not sit well with the public.

To help keep this kind of thing from slipping through the cracks in the future, I'd be happy to consult with the district at $195/hour to develop job descriptions that include responsibility for compliance with laws that relate to each job function. (No, I have not actually reviewed the district's job descriptions. It's a joke.)