WORK ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE
MEETING MINUTES
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Campus Center 4
Present: Yolanda Ramil, David Pardess, Walter Bortman, Jim Liko, Victor Renolds, Marian Murray for
Margarita Padilla, Maria Fenyes, Eloise Cantrell, Afri Walker, Gloria Daims, Louise Barbato, Gerald
Schieb
Absent: Stephanie Atkinson Alston, Richard Rains, Louie Zandalasini, Louis Eguaras, Linda Carruthers
Guests: Linda LeDoux, Rolf Schleifer, Marcella Lozano, Rosalie Torres, Lilamani DeSilva, Nadine Caino

The meeting was called to order at 2:05 by Maria Fenyes who chaired the meeting for Richard
Rains.

Yolanda Ramil moved to approve December minutes. David Pardess seconded. Approved.

Yolanda Ramil moved to approve February minutes. Afri Walker seconded. Approved.

Members and guests introduced themselves. Maria Fenyes introduced Mr. Rolf Schleifer.
5. Report on Facilities Planning Committee. Gerald Scheib.
Main topic: allocation of space in new construction was broken down to programs, offices and
storage space. VP Johnson put together a task force to come up with suggestions to present to
college president.
Next Wednesday, at 12:30 there will be a meeting of the task force.
6
Unfinished Business: Faculty Restroom in CSB.
Maria Fenyes gave a brief background. The issue was discussed 6 or 7 months. President Valles
approved the addition of a faculty restroom to CSB. The approval was forwarded to College
Council , which approved it. It was then sent to Facilities Planning. Time passed and no action
was taken. When it came up again at the February College Council, Interim President BurkeKelley asked for Facility Planning to submit an action item to College Council. The issue came
up again at the February WEC meeting (refer to minutes). At the last College Council Meeting
there was a discussion about whether or not it was a bond issue.
Maria Fenyes distributed a packet to provide background information on the issue (see
attached). She pointed out that:

Packet shows the occupancy of CSB and full occupancy of the building during peak hours and
indicated that 610 people occupy the building during peak hours. At passing time in between
classes this crowd needs the restrooms.

UPC looks at occupancy of building in terms of maximum occupancy.

Reference was made to page 145, which gives number of WCs and urinals. Reference made to
Table on p .144 which specifies the number of sanitary units required by the Uniform Plumbing
Code. The conclusion was that we are well below the number of required units (see last page of
packet).

Maria Fenyes also pointed out that there is an additional violation in that we do not have
separate facilities for employees and clients.

Maria Fenyes read the proposed motion as put forth in the packet.

Eloise Cantrell moved to accept the motion. Yolanda Ramil seconded.

David Pardess noted that the motion will not bring the situation up to standards. Maria Fenyes
agreed, but also stated that this motion would help to be less in violation.

Eloise Cantrell noted that the Instructional Building is a problem as well. Maria Fenyes
requested that the discussion be limited to CSB.

Victor Reynolds stated that it was a concern, and it needed to be brought completely up to
code. Maria Fenyes responded that if we ask to bring the entire situation up to code Plant
Facilities will respond that it cannot be done. Maria Fenyes offered a compromise to improve
the situation rather than put something on the table that is not feasible.

Victor Reynolds was not sure what had happened to the original proposal.

Maria Fenyes stated that there had been a discussion at College Council regarding funding this
with bond funds. Maria Fenyes stated that this is not a bond project. This is a necessity
regardless of the bond. Money needs to be found somewhere.

Yolanda Ramil reiterated how grave the situation is. The moment something is approved, it
should go forth.

Maria Fenyes brought up the UPC because at the College Council she had the impression that
the request was being regarded as being frivolous. The data put forth and the UPC code proves
that this is a reasonable request.

Call for the question.

Walter Bortman pointed out that when the building was built it was under another code. He
also pointed out that pressing the issue could lead to the solution of decreasing occupancy. In
CSB by closing up classrooms.

Eloise Cantrell noted that the UPC code in question was a 2004 code.

A vote was taken on the motion. Results:
Ayes = 10
Opposed = 2
Abstained = 0
Motion passed.
6. New Business.
Air quality problem in Admissions, Counseling and EOPS offices
Linda Le Doux presents issue. Illness noted in Admissions, Counseling and EOPS. Concern that it may be
mold. They see drips of water. Concerned about air quality. Carpet is old. Could be a ventilation
problem. Maybe air should be checked. They would like it to be looked out.
James Laiko: recommends that David Martin, District Office, Health and Safety Officer inspect for safety
of the entire building. Facilities will look into it and keep WEC posted.
Request for automatic doors in South Atrium.
Presented by Nadine Caino. Noted the difficulty of entering building by faculty and staff when holding
or carrying items. Used to be electric but there was a security issue.
Victor Reynolds said that it was a security issue in that faculty is supposed to enter through one door.
Nadine Caino stated that the flow never really went that way. Maria Fenyes stated that the receptionist
is at the south atrium side now (before she was on the north side).
Walter Bortman stated that the issue was that doors are supposed to be locked, or used for exit only to
maintain security.
Reynolds, that plan was decided upon when building was designed.
The discussion continued around the history of why there was not automatic door.
Yolanda Ramil stated that the opening was only on one side because there was a lot of computers and
unwelcomed “visitors, “ and It is safer with only one door open.
Maria Fenyes said to sum up while it is feasible the security aspect is a problem.
Rolf Schleifer suggested that the Sheriff department should be asked to give some advice.
Reynolds asked to table the discussion for now. Maria Fenyes stated that she would ask Richard Rains to
invite Officer Santos to the next meeting.
Request concerning the posting of material in office windows.
The discussion led to the conclusion that posting materials in office windows goes against campus
policy. Maria Fenyes said that this conclusion would be conveyed to Michael Climo.
Request for discussion of recent flooding at Mission
This is regarding the flooding that occurred in the Cafeteria basement in the new building.
Victor Reynolds pointed out that this is a design issue that is being worked on.
The plugged drains in the Campus Center are also being addressed.
Two unfulfilled Facilities requests:
Gloria Daims pointed out that the requests to fulfill two work orders in the Child Development building,
(the installation of locks on bookcases and removal of old commuters in room 200) had been approved
but not acted upon..
Lilamani De Silva noted that ceiling panels are coming down in Child Development Building.
Victor Reynolds: it is being looked at and he will get an update.
Lilamani De Silva requested a suggestion as to how to get things fixed in their building.
Maria Fenyes asked her to list everything that is needed on the facilities request form.
7. Announcements:
Maria Fenyes: we usually meet the 4th Thursday of month. Is that Spring break? Committee said that
we will be back already.
Maria Fenyes: We will meet as usual on the 4th Thursday of the month.
Cantrell moved to adjourn and Fenyes seconded.
Meeting adjourned at approximately 3:00 pm.
Meeting adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
Recommendations for College Council Approval (if any:
Whereas:
Due to enrollment growth, the occupancy of the Collaborative Studies Building
has dramatically increased during the last two academic years,
Whereas:
Occupancy in the CSB, at peak times (10:40 – 12:05) and (18:50 – 22:00) on a
standard Monday reached 590 students/12 faculty and 553 students/19 faculty
respectively,
Whereas:
The CSB currently has only one set of restrooms to accommodate the needs of the
occupants of this building,
Whereas:
The men’s restroom has three urinals and three water closets, and the women’s
restroom has six water closets,
Whereas:
Peak usage of the restrooms occurs during the 10 minute passing time that exists
between classes, and at its busiest times the restrooms in CSB may be required to
accommodate up to 590 students and 20 faculty/staff in a ten minuteperiod,
which amounts to 305 individual per sanitary unit in a ten minute period,
Whereas:
The current conditions of the sanitary accommodations in the CSB are in
violation of the Uniform Plumbing Code (UPC) in terms of the required sanitary
fixtures for the occupancy of the building,
Whereas:
the 2003 UNIFORM PLUMBING CODE (UPS) states in section 413.2.2 that:
“…establishements with an occupant load of one hundred (100) or
more shall be provided with separate facilities for employees and
customers.”
Whereas: The current conditions of the sanitary accommodations in the CSB fail to provide a
healthful and sanitary work environment, as specifically required by the Collective Bargaining
Agreement between the Los Angeles Community College District and the Los Angeles College
Faculty Guild (Article 9.A, page 8):
“The District shall provide conditions for a safe, healthful and sanitary work
environment conducive to effective teaching and learning. This shall include sanitary
and adequately maintained restrooms and other comfort facilities.”
Be It Resolved:
 That the College Administration acknowledge the seriousness of this request as a
dire and urgent necessity,
 That an additional set of restrooms for faculty be immediately built in the area
currently designated as theSCB Conference Room (Room CSB 108)
 That the College Administration identify and provide the funds needed for this
project to be completed.