Part 2: Destruction of $432,500 sod field

January 11, 2010 pictures of Walter Johnson High School $432,500 sod stadium field being "removed and recycled" for installation of artificial turf.

Please note that MCPS has told the media that the sod that was put on the WJHS field for the fall season only, will be removed and used at another school in the spring. 

To date, the lucky recipient of this used sod has not been named by MCPS.  

Question: How many trucks and cars can you drive over frozen sod before it is no longer reusable?

MCPS Yard Sale - coming soon

Anyone interested in recycling or reusing Walter Johnson's athletic field?

One slightly used high school sized natural grass football field with underground sprinklers is available.

See yesterday's news clip from WJLA for the announcement.

Call for additional information:
301 279 3853
MCPS Department of Public Information
or email
ASKMCPS@mcpsmd.org

WJ field to be destroyed in 20 days! See it now!

It is a beautiful day! If you are out, take a drive by the Walter Johnson High School stadium on Democracy Boulevard in Bethesda, Maryland.

You only have 20 days left to see the beautiful, brand new sod football field that was installed for 5 home varsity football games this season. It's a beauty! Don't miss it. What you can't see is the underground sprinkler system that was installed to keep the grass pristine for these 5 home football games.

The exclusive Parents' Coalition images on this page show pictures of this beautiful sod back when it was being delivered to Walter Johnson's stadium, just a few months ago!

What MCPS high school wouldn't want this beautiful piece of landscape that cost taxpayers $432,500?

Well, actually, Walter Johnson High School doesn't want it.

The Board of Education doesn't want it.

The County Executive doesn't want it.

The Montgomery County Council doesn't want it.

So in 20 days it will be torn up (underground sprinkler system too) and removed so that Walter Johnson High School can get a brand new artificial turf football field. Yes, this will be WJ's second brand new football field in 6 months. Nothing but the best for the Wildcats! So drive on by today and kiss it good-bye!

UPDATE: ABC 7 News High School Field to be Replaced...Again


UPDATE:  The WJ grass football field has been given a reprieve until the Spring of 2010 when it will be ripped up and replaced with artificial turf.  Anybody want some used sod and underground sprinkler parts?

Artificial Turf: A Tale of Lead Levels

Ok, this is a long one, folks, but stick with me here…this is a tale of how an artificial turf company, one FieldTurfTarkett, successfully lobbied the Consumer Product Safety Commission (CPSC) to make sure that their product, artificial turf, became excluded from the testing that is required of all products having to do with children: the requirement to get tested for lead levels. As you recall, FieldTurfTarkett is MCPS’ preferred contractor for all the artificial turf in the county. So, here goes…

FieldTurfTarkett hired Van Fleet Associates, a lobbying firm in Alexandria, VA, to lobby the Consumer Products Safety Commission. What issue FieldTurfTarkett was so worried about? Why, lead levels in artificial turf, of course. In 2007 and 2008, according to records online, FieldTurfTarkett paid Van Fleet Associates $20,000 to meet with the CPSC. Records show that on May 12, 2008 CPSC Commissioner Thomas Moore and Michael Gougisha, Counselor to Commissioner Moore, met with a group of people representing the artificial turf industry. The group include Rick Doyle, the president of the Synthetic Turf Council; Joseph Motz, the chairman of the Synthetic Turf Council; Stanley Greene, the President and CEO of Sprinturf, and Walter Sanders, from said Van Fleet Associates. Jim Petrucelli, of FieldTurfTarkett, is on the Board of Directors for the Synthetic Turf Council; he was not in attendance at this meeting

Why did this group need to meet with CPSC? Coming up was H.R. 4040, An Act to establish consumer product safety standards and other safety requirements for children’s products and to reauthorize and modernize the Consumer Product Safety Commission. President Obama, then Senator Obama, was a sponsor of the bill. Part of the bill, later, law, discussed lead levels in ‘children’s products’ and requires the above-mentioned testing.

Mr. Sanders started off the discussion by stating that the purpose of the meeting was to correct any misperceptions about synthetic turf that might be the result of recent lead testing of artificial turf fields in New Jersey. Mr. Motz then added that the Synthetic Turf Council wanted to work with the CPSC to develop “a strategy for addressing any health concerns raised by lead levels in synthetic turf.”

Mr. Gougisha, the Counselor to Commissioner asked if synthetic turf as used in artificial turf sports fields would be considered a children’s product as defined by any legislation. Mr. Sanders said that it wouldn’t. Commissioner Moore then explained that was important because children’s products which contain lead above certain levels would be banned.

The meeting sounds like it was a good one for FieldTurfTarkett. A few days later, on May 15, 2008, we read a letter from Mr. Doyle to Commissioner Moore, which reads in part,

“We are particularly appreciative of your admonition to ensure that our product does not become categorized as a "children's product" within the meaning of eventual conference agreement on H.R. 4040. We have taken your comments to heart and are in the process of communicating our concerns to members of the conference committee.”

Why did the artificial turf industry work so hard to avoid being labeled a ‘children’s product?’

If artificial turf were to be classified as a ‘children’s product,’ lead levels would have to meet stringent standards. Turf samples would be required to be tested to verify that they met the standards. The testing would have to be conducted at independent CPSC-certified labs. Now that will not happen.

And the moral of the story is?? Sorry, don’t have a clever one tonight. Just remember the rules for playing on artificial turf: when your child gets off the field, have them take off their clothes and turn them inside out; and wash immediately. Oh, and don’t get any of that nasty tire crumb on your skin.

How to spend $1 million in a blink of an eye

No, this has nothing to do with Malcolm Gladwell's book, Blink.

On Tuesday, March 10, the Board of Education is expected to vote on installation of artificial turf at Walter Johnson HS.

The item is on the consent agenda. If you blink - you will miss all the discussion on the topic of
1. Whether artificial turf is appropriate
2. Does MCPS have the money to spend on this project
3. Should we enter into a long term lease with an outside entity.

Don't worry, apparently the Board of Education feels so confident that this project is needed, its not necessary to have any discussion or other public views concerning safety, health, or financing. How do we know that? The BOE has scheduled ten other items at the same time. That's 27 seconds per project approved on the consent agenda.

But, have no fear, the County Council will come to the rescue. At its February 23 education committee hearing, the Ed Committee received an update of the newly installed turf project at Richard Montgomery(see packet page 18), and with the only caveat that the project will come back to the county council for appropriating the contribution from the Bethesda Soccer Club, the Walter Johnson preferred partner (see page 19).

The bottomless checkbook continues. Something is wrong in our county when those entrusted with the public purse spend so freely and without any oversight.

What's "Surplus" and "Cutting in Line"

Testimony to Montgomery County Council February 12, 2008

1. How can Superintendent Weast and the Board of Education declare MCPS CIP funds surplus before a project is completed?

Let's take the Wayside Elementary School project as an example. How can there be surplus funds from a project that is only 55% complete? (Attachment A) How can any rational manager possible assume that no additional funds will be needed and that $600,000 of money planned for this project can be diverted? We know that MCPS does not make good decisions in this regard. Here are three quick examples: First, Richard Montgomery High School recently opened the doors on its new modernized facility. The science labs in that new building are equipped with elementary sized lab tables and chairs. There are no plans to remedy this situation and no surplus funds to draw from. Meanwhile, at Churchill High School the ELEVEN science labs that were rendered unusable during that school's modernization in 2000 have still NEVER been fixed. (Attachment B) Superintendent Weast claims to have put funds in the CIP to fix ONE of those science labs. Parents have been solicited multiple times for funds to resolve the problems created in the science lab construction. And when Rockville High School was modernized one of the many deficiencies was the undersized tennis courts that rendered them unusable for competition. These are just a few examples of MCPS CIP projects that still have outstanding CIP fund needs.

2. IF there is a surplus, what project is next in the queue?

Let us assume that surplus CIP money does exist. How could ANY surplus funds go to a new project that has never been vetted through the MCPS CIP process when the MCPS CIP book clearly lists hundreds of pre-existing projects in the CIP pipeline. As just an example, let's take a look at the Bathroom Renovation list. (Attachment C) Do you realize that this list ONLY shows those schools that are not in line for a modernization? IF a school is getting a modernization in the next 20 years they were not included on this list. How does that work when your toilet won't flush, the stall door doesn't close and the sink doesn't have running water? Is that how people maintain their homes? Gee, we might move in 20 years so let's not fix the toilet? IF there is surplus CIP money it needs to go right to this list TODAY. Our children need to flush.

After all bathrooms are made usable in Montgomery County Public Schools take a look at the playgrounds. Do you realize that the MCPS plan is to replace one per year? The backlog of playgrounds that need repair/replacement is about 50 years? Great plan. The result is that taxpayers must raise the funds to pay for playground repairs because the Superintendent does not see playgrounds as a priority.

Yet, a plan to give one of our county football fields away to a private organization jumps to the top of the Capital Budget list without any feasibility study, without any notice to the public prior to the BoE vote, without any community input at the BoE level, without any bids from potential contractors, without any discussion of the benefits, concerns or issues surrounding such a decision. (Attachment D) Any why does the Northwood principal also think his school is in line for artificial turf? (See attachment E) Are there more of these "deals" in the wings? Why aren't they part of the MCPS CIP submission?

We are here today witnessing the Board of Education asking for a pot of money that doesn't have any parameters on it. There is no contract, no idea what the project might actually cost, no contingency for where the money goes if the project does not proceed on schedule.

3. What guarantees any funds allotted to an artificial turf project will actually be spent on that project?

Case in point: Last year the County Council funded the MCPS Operating Budget request to include funding for the largest county high schools to use the Comcast Center for graduations. (Attachment F) What happened to that money? Good question. Only 3 of the 6 high schools that qualify to use the larger graduation venue are going to be allowed to use it. What happened to the money that was appropriated for the other 3 schools?

I can tell you that no one in Montgomery County government cares where the graduation venue money went: not the Community Superintendents, not the Superintendent, not the Board of Education, and not the Inspector General. So once you give money to MCPS, taxpayers have no guarantee that the money will be used for its designated purpose. And make no mistake, our kids are watching. They are real clear on the fact that there are no consequences for ignoring laws, policies or procedures. Is this the kind of citizen that Montgomery County wants to be raising through its public schools? (Attachment G)

Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.

Janis Sartucci