What Garland Thinks About the SF Chronicle Piece on Them

Here are the Garland Training Documents - that show clearly their "Business Model":

See top of page 1 - "The strongest sale will always be Garland materials and performance specficiations and no "or equals".

and then: 
"Public contracts can be very lucrative, but they require a very dedicated, sophisticated sale; one which anticipates the things that your competitors are going to do prior to the bid opening. If you are not willing to do all of these things, don't do business with schools."

And then they describe some of what we know they do....
Top of page 3 - 'I suggest you start your presentation by selling "fear." '

Towards the bottom of page 3 - "I suggest you emphasize that you are recommending a solution that is not proprietary."

Then he tells the Garland sales reps how to mix up the manufacturers listed, how to demand that the substitution won't hurt the "system" (although known for substituting J-M plies for their own under their top cap sheet - and not returning the difference...) , and then he describes how to "lock-spec" - by using extreme test listings, not verifiable to a school district guy that it might or might not be accurate...see the next posting to come up in the next couple of days....
Here's some of that massive "restrictive proprietary performance specs" guidlelines being taught to Garland sales reps, to "lock-spec" their product in public and school work:

They also state that "under no circumstances, are loosely-laid or single-ply systems acceptable."

And that if you have to go "or equal" "depending upon the intestinal fortitude of the guy you are selling"....then how you can lock in the Garland product...with specific lock-spec language, on this last page:

_________________________________________________________

So just what was the local and national Garland personnel's reaction to the San Francisco Chronicle article, whitewashing what is going in two School Districts in the San Francisco Bay Area?

They were ecstatic.

Statement from the Local Rep yesterday, Jay Mulligan, regarding the SF Chronicle "report":

"Bunch of BS these people are spreading by attacking our business model as well as Tremco's. I think these cheap bastards who do not watch their jobs, spec cheap roofs, and do not offer customer service like we do should shut their mouths. Fact of the matter is that we as well as Tremco offer a service based offering to our clients. From cradle to grave and at the end of the day look out for the client first. These cheap manufacturers only look out for the contractor who purchases the most materials from them each year."

[Editor's Note:

Read Garland's training documents above, and Tremco's training documents, here:

http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/02/tremco-in-house-training-documents.html

which show how they are more concerned about locking out competition -to get their admitted, higher-priced products in to schools.]

************ 

From Garland Rep Rich Jones:

"Already saw it. I like that they compare my project: 9,000 sq. ft. mechanical well with 3000 sq. ft of wall repair and coating, tapered insulation, aluminum coping coping and counterflashing to a single ply on a roof with almost no penetrations, 1/2" insulation, no sheet metal (existing copper being reused).Spec listed Garland, Tremco and Manville or approved equal. Stressply Plus which all three can make. Tremco rep was at the job walk. Keep in mind that the state review of the contract code is being pushed by GAF, Firestone and Carlisle."

________________________________________________________

So, Mr. Jones and Mssrs. Mulligan:

Would you like to explain to the public:

1. The conflicts of interest of a manufacturer having their reps certify without any independent, owner-supplied reps that the roofs were installed correctly.

2. Why you would call a true Maintenance Agreement a "Warranty".

3. How many of those Maintenance Agreements actually got paid for on time and actually got extended, with his public works projects.

4. How many times they redid roofs on all your jobs - you know, the true life of the roofs? Was it 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or every 12 years?

5. Who private labels their products for you, and which ones? We all know there are only four major US roofing manufacturers.

6. When is the responsible SanFrancisco Bay Area Garland Rep going to give the Federal Government back all those overcharges for the Johns Manville (UPDATE 2013:  or Simon Roofing or other manufacturer who doesn't know you are private labeling their) plies used under their top cap sheet....and charged for as if they were Garland plies, about 3 times or more the price of the J-M plies? 

Let's see, why don't we start with the US Postal Distribution Service Center just south of the cow Palace in San Francisco County....and how many schools shall we go pull cores on to find out what you did where????

UPDATE 2013:  We know you were using another company you set up to buy Carlisle Syntec Roofing Products, private label them, offer a "30-year 'warranty' " on them when even Carlisle does not - and then refused to allow them to compete against their own product!?!?!?!?

How outrageous are you?  

SCAMMERS usually are!!!!!

7. How much did you pay architects to insert your specs into the project bid specs? $10,000 or more? Which architects, for which jobs?  

And School Superintendents, and Business Officers, and Facilities Directors and Managers, what, $30,000 to $40,000 a roof????

8. How many architects and engineers specifying your products get your $50,000 indemnification for potential problems with the jobs? All of them? 

It certainly covers most of their deductibles on E&O Insurance Policies - giving them a financial incentive to specify you.

9. And are you aware how bogus it is to list "ASTM D5147" in the actual tests you list in your illegal, restrictive, proprietary specs?

It's a test method - not a test.

DUH!  

So you must not meet any tests - because if you are private labeling, you aren't paying for those tests and don't have copies of them, do you?!

ASTM Roofing Committee Members informed me of this particular bogus spec practice - seen in San Francisco Unified School District Specs.

And it's rampant everywhere.

_____________________________________________

Tremco - whose "business model" you also defended - is redoing the same hospital roofs at UCSF right now, 12 years later, with the same sole-sourced specs labeled "criminal activity" by the California Supreme Court Justices in my case, standing up and screaming such at the UC Attorney for 10 minutes that same phrase about the specs?

Or did you know, Mr. Mulligan, that the Federal Attorney General here and the State Auditor both ruled them illegal specs? 

You know, the kind you use to lock-spec out real competition with real warranties?

Perhaps Mr. Mulligan also has no knowledge of the Quality Tile Roofing Case in Boise, Idaho that proved Tremco had provided bad product to the contractors to install from their Vernon, California plant - and had asked the Federal Attorney General there that QTR be charged with mixing their product to make it bad - when QTR refused to bid their product on a project the Tremco rep brought them in on, and instead, bid a Malarkey product with a real warranty - as opposed to Tremco's?

We all know that QTR could not have mixed anything into the bitumen - only the Tremco plant had that highly-specialized, mixer made in Austria.

So gentlemen: Have any truthful answers - other than you are scamming for dollars?

__________________________________________

Garland Roofing Products Bought Directly by Purchasing Agents, Destroying Existing Roof Warranties on California School Roofs

In the San Francisco "article" about the West Contra Costa Unified School District Official defending his use of Garland Roofing products on an existing roof, that official said their application of another material would void the Garland "Warranty".

If you read the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association's article on that so-called "Warranty" under: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2010/07/author-of-mrca-articles-exposing.html you would see that the so-called Garland "Warranty" was not a "Warranty", but a very expensive, 5-Year "Maintenance Agreement".

Let us be clear: There was no "Warranty" to be destroyed.

Further:

1. Since Garland has been known to substitute Johns Manville of Simon Roofing or other manufacturers' (without their knowledge) plies in their systems, and with or without the client's knowledge, it would seem that such a "warranty" was far more flexible than presented. See their "Business Model", described herein: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2010/07/garland-roofing-business-model.html

2. California school district officials have been known for rejecting less-expensive alternates submitted, with a real warranty - when that very product is private-labeled for Garland and is truly an equal.

3. The California Department of Education apparently has no central place for Warranties to be tracked, in order to safeguard the public's money.

4. How often and how much is spent on the usually tens of thousands of dollars for a 5-year Maintenance Agreement -much less roof replacements way too soon - is not known because there is no central place where roof expenditures are tracked.

5. The State Auditor is not allowed to track or investigate the Department of Education or schools...40% or more of the State Budget. The Bureau of State Audits should be the ones to keep the warranties, determine if the bids are truly competitive, and allow or not alternates - as well as allowed to investigate all of the expenditures of schools, colleges and Universities - and the Department of Education - for the taxpayers. No legislator should ever be allowed to stop any investigations....as they are now. _______________________________________________

In other words - West Contra Costa Unified (Richmond Schools) - have been "had".

Garland "warranties" could not be destroyed - because they have 5-year, renewable with large payments, "Maintenance Agreements" instead of true "Warranties".

However, quite the opposite as described in the San Francisco Chronicle article has been happening.

Garland has had their products installed into real, warrantied roofs - destroying those warranties. ________________________________________________

Take the case of the largest High School District in California:
Kern High School District in Bakersfield, CA - with 18 high schools.

The Maintenance and Operations Department had had for years architects evaluate the roofs, and put out competitive bid specs, when necessary. Warranties of the systems that were installed did get the few hundred dollars' worth of repairs when needed.

Then in or around 2002, a curious thing happened. A few men from different school districts (like the Beverly Hills High School District) and who seemed to know each other descended upon this huge district out where no one might not be watching, and took over the Business Operations in a way never before seen there.

All of a sudden, the Purchasing Agent started ordering up $200,000 worth of Garland materials every year, until this year (due to a stockpile left to be used up).

No local contractor could get the work, it was all for one guy: Commercial Roofing Systems.

Funny how that is the name of the Garland Construction Arm.........

Total roofing supplies known to be bought since approximately 2002?

$1,400,000  (and still going on in 2013 we believe)

Total construction cost known?

$ 514,072

How much of that was competitively bid?

$0

Also widely observed:

The new "administrators" went to Las Vegas, using District funds, causing a local scandal.

Then they were seen party-hardying, going off together with the Garland, Commercial Roofing and Tandus reps (Carpets)....boating, at CMAST (California Purchasing Agents for Schools) conventions, dinners etc......

SEE AN UPDATE AT A NEW BLOG   (Sept. 2013):
www.thebakersfieldboys.blogspot.com

In essence, the Kern High School District:

1. Allowed Purchasing Agents to engage in practicing architecture and engineering without a license by allowing them to specify, approve and purchase roofing products for installation; and that was one roofing manufacturer's products - Garland;

2. Had Garland products applied to other, truly warrantied systems - and destroyed those warranties;

3. "Broke up" contracts in order not to competitively bid them;

4. Had no independent, roofing consultant with an independent lab, uninvolved with Tremco, Garland or Hickman, look at the roofs to ascertain what did and did not need work done;

5. Threatened in-house personnel who objected - with their jobs.

Worse, they were known for similar infractions with other areas such as Carpets and Metals Recycling - literally taking thousands of dollars from metals recycling and redistributing it - to employees in the form of cash in envelopes, telling them it was from Metals Recycling, etc.

Not to mention middle-level managers somehow driving around a Hummer and an Eldorado SUV, a boat, etc. all at the same time, and then mysteriously, possibly at the end of a paid-for by somebody lease?, those item(s) disappearing?
________________________________________

Overspending for unnecessary roofing and unnecessarily expensive roofing systems in schools has to cease.

The only way to stop that?

NOT Allow Local School Districts to set standards - but direct the State Auditor's Offices to do so, instead.

The State Auditor's Offices, despite the interference of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee into what they can look into, is the only department or agency that has and can protect whistleblowers, that "gets it" when it comes to scams, and can prevent it by going to national sources for information and reviews - as they did in the audit in my case. _______________________________________

A List of Commercial Roofing Systems' known roofing contracts in the Kern High School District: ___________________________________

The Author of the MRCA Articles - Exposing the Garland so-called "Warranty" - Speaks

To those in the roofing industry, the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association (MRCA) has for years set the standards for roofing products - by testing them. 

They have also led the way in exposing roofing scams, and giving architects good information about products that help them specify and detail roofs correctly - all for the public's good. 

 L. B. "Huck" Morris was the head of the Technical Research Committee at the MRCA and helped to have many tests performed on roofing products. 

He then began exposing some of the more aggredious, major scams targeting schools in a series of articles printed in the Midwest Roofer, the magazine of the MRCA, in the last half of the 1990's. 

One of the articles Huck wrote and published is a classic. He exposed Garland's so-called "Warranty" as nothing more than a 5-year renewable "Maintenance Agreement", predicated on huge fees being paid every 5 years to continue that "Warranty". 

 You decide.....read the article below his statement - and then the copy of the Garland "Warranty". 

It's a major, major point the San Francisco Chronicle "missed" - by denigrating others to use as an excuse not to investigate. 

Are they going to now denigrate Mr. Morris - who did the largest roofs in the world recently, the 25-acre Sprint Campus with the company he owned in Kansas City, Sellers & Marquis?

___________________________________________ 

From L. B. "Huck" Morris, July 26, 2010: 

'Janet, I received a copy of that article [The San Francisco Chronicle article July 23, 2010 excusing the use of overpriced products in two school districts] and had many of the same thoughts as you have provided herein. Especially about that simple minded, ridiculous Garland "Warranty" for one of the Bozo Administrators to use as a defense for his lazy incompetence (or worse). First they totally screw the client w/the outrageous overpricing of their materials, then comes the "warranty" which gives Garland a license to grossly overcharge on repair work and cover up bad specs! All at the expense of the School Districts!' ______________________________________________ 

The Article printed in the Midwest Roofer, 1997, authored by L.B. "Huck" Morris:

____________________________________________

  A Copy of the "Garland Warranty": ___________________________________________

A Well-Deserved Letter to the Editor of the San Francisco "Chronicle"

This is, boiled down, the issues about the "Hit Piece" Garland had done for them at the San Francisco Chronicle Friday. 

Here's the piece: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/23/MN7I1EGO2E.DTL 

Pray tell, Garland? 

How much did you pay them off for this - or one of the politicians who threatened me known to be "living" in their "news" room? 

The reporter slandered me to my face, saying I was "not credible" and I had not won my case. 

And that that was what Linda Morshed at the Legislative Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review told her.  

UPDATE IN 2013:  Linda Morshed took documents given to the FBI by whistleblowers at the Kern High School District and gave those documents to the District....getting the men fired.  They were literally frogmarched out of their offices by police at the end of October, 2010.  Linda was directly responsible for creating more havoc and allowing this evil to continue - and to destroy two good mens' lives and their families.  Not to mention to all the teachers being laid off because of the scams and the remaining teachers paying for school supplies out of their own pockets.  She was evil to the core - and so is this reporter, who must be getting something for continuing the scams.....Because she destroyed their lives, these men fought back and for the first time ever, won against involved administrators August 12, 2013.

The reporter didn't bother to ask what the facts were - move the goalposts, hide them, during my case so I "lose".

She also must not have known that the California Supreme Court Justices had to move my oral hearings out of public view, took them to San Diego and a private University at Christmastime, had locked the doors, and turned the TV's off. Since she doesn't know - here's a courtroom witness account: 

The youngest male justice stand up, leaned over the bench, pointed his long wagging finger at and screamed at the UC attorney for 10 minutes, and I quote, "You tell your clients these were criminal acts!!! You tell your clients these were criminal acts!!!!! over and over again.... 

And she also must not have known that the Federal Attorney General's Offices ruled the same specs were illegal - being used to redo the same roofs only 12 years later - as we speak, right now - with the same products on the same UCSF Hospitals. 

Nor must she have seen the still on-line, blistering about the illegalities, report on the same specs from the State Auditor (BSA), who was finally "allowed" to do so - in their Investigative Report of Sept. 17, 2003, Chapter 5 -still online. 

Nor did she apparently know that the investigator they hired to do that BSA report was the same roof consultant from Chicago that worked on the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation Report, "Waste and Abuse in School Roofing Projects" of Sept. 2000. 

And she also must not have known that her paper refused repeatedly from Oct. 22, 2000 for over 17 months to reprint the first national link of the roofing scam in schools - linking my case at UCSF with that of the New Jersey Report. 

The reporter involved, Steve Bennish, called Chuck Finney and Lance Williams - reporters at the SF Chronicle, repeatedly, over the story...and was totally confounded at their blowing-off of the story. 

There's a fact for you! 

Oh, what a great coverup of the facts, and the truth, San Francisco Chronicle. 

Thank you so much for proving that you do coverup, in writing, Friday! ________________________________________________________ 

 Dear Chronicle: 

I find it disturbing when you put out an unresearched, wildly stated so-called "report" Friday - with no state or federal investigatory backup - that no kickbacks were involved in the illegal, sole-sourced non-compete "bid" specs in the poorest school district and San Franciscos' - with no reference to who said it, what investigation they held - and then gave excuses for two districts' illegal roofing specs. 

 No allegations about those two districts' widely-known involvement were made - so why the preemptive defense? 

You undermined the public trust in your "newspaper", your own reputation, and tried to undermine potential investigations of what apparently someone you are apparently working for fears the most - investigations of those two specific districts. 

Not one media outlet anywhere across the US who has done stories on the massive school roofing scam would ever believe you now, because they do their research. 

Garland has no warranty, for instance, while you declare without investigation in your "hit piece" Friday that the reason it's OK Richmond has this kind of roof going down (again and long-term - which you also did not bring out) is because they had to "repair" an "existing roof" because of Garland's "warranty." 

Had you done your homework, you would have found the trade articles laying out the fact that Garland has a very tricky 5-year "renewable Maintenance Agreement" - not a real "Warranty". 

And you would have also found out that Garland regularly destroys real warrantied roofs allllll over California schools - starting with the largest High School District in the state to the poorest - by having purchasing agents by hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of their materials every year for no good reason and then have their materials inserted into real, warrantied roofs. 

No one in the roofing industry locally finds it even believable that the man whose door they have been trying to get through at the SFUSD for years "doesn't know why they are doing only Garland". 

But you didn't ask, did you? 

Which means only one thing: You are certainly working for someone - but not the public's best interest. 

You are working for Willie Brown and the Cabal that controls California, and has brought it to its knees.

Thank you for proving in writing what I have had to explain to confounded men and women in the media and the roofing industry nationwide for 10 years now - that you coverup...as did the "Justice" system here. 

There's a lot more that will come out.

Is 30% more to pay for roofs too much?

Yes it is....and here is the link to the story: http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x1385497648/Is-roof-price-30-too-high 

It is one of the four manufacturer's speaking, who showed up to the California Legislative Hearing June 30th, 2010 (linked to in the post below this one). 

The four manufacturers described in that hearing that common overruns on roofing costs were 50 to 100% - to the anger of legislators.....

Too much is too much!

Incredible News!!!!!!!!!!

The California State Assembly held an over two-hour Hearing on the Roofing Scam in State and School Buildings, June 30th, 2010 at 9 am in the California State Capitol Building.

It took 13 years to get it done - and only got done because of the wonderful Assemblyman Hector de la Torres from South Gate, CA (LA area). Google his name....you won't believe what he did there to overturn corruption!

So here is one of the news stories on the hearings: http://cbs13.com/onthemoney/On.The.Money.2.1781953.html

And you can see the hearing here: https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewVideo/1571

The Legal Counsel for the State Auditor at the very beginning describes what they found in my case - and protesting Assemblymen defending the School Districts earlier in the hearing were then demanding to know why these people doing such were not in jail.....

Then Firestone, GAF, Carlisle-Syntec and Malarkey Roofing spoke - specifically about the technical aspects of how the "Lock-Specs" are done, to the tune of 50-100% overruns above the lowest responsible bidders.

At that point, California roofing contractors from a number of areas came forward and spoke about recent projects - and that about "70-80% of the jobs are closed specs." Independent Roofing Reps and Roof Consultants in California attested to the same.... Many came forward in the two-month exercise to do so after my initial contact with the Committee.

We can't thank you enough! More to come!!!!

FYI: I was able to download off a database and give the Committee at the end of May over 800 or more ongoing at that moment state and school district buildings with these "Lock-Specs". Many more federal jobs were seen and compiled.

That did not include all the "Annualized Purchase Orders" such as the $200,000 per year Kern High School District's over 6-year annualized purchasing order scheme to Garland Roofing, with Commercial Roofing System Contractors doing all the work...the subsidiary arm to Garland.

Kern High School District is the largest high school district in California, with 18 high schools, out of the Bakersfield, California area.

Further, we hear another manufacturer has locked in a $500,000 roofing purchase order in a much smaller school district in Burlingame, California - right at the San Francisco International Airport area.  

The issues involved in California include:

1. Persons who are not licensed design professionals can be doing these bid specs in California by law - any local jurisdiction may overturn the licensing laws to do so. Licensing Laws mean nothing.

2. No teeth to or enforcement of Public Contract Codes.

3. Lack of information in the public view.

etc.

And yes, it was this blogger/architect that found the State Assemblyman and his Committee...late at night, while working....I noticed that a former Chairman of the San Francisco GOP, which I am on, was testifying as to his late night removal before the next day State Authority Board meeting in which the new persons on the board were going to sell off state buildings....

At the end of that hearing, Hector de la Torres - who had stood up to huge corruption in his hometown of South Gate, CA. - demanded that a state agency employee come back and explain "why some of these operations and maintenance budgets are so high on some of these state buildings!" and I said to myself, "Bingo!" Boy was it ever a "Bingo!" - this is a new Committee for the state - and a first for the exposure of such in the state! Many thanks to so many that came forward to help....and to the Committee Staff......there is a lot more to come.....

Updates:

1.  The Committee has not been able to get more done than one law - and that one affected the least involved in kickbacks - architects.  School Board Members, School Business and Facilities Administrators and personnel known to be involved in taking kickbacks for contracts forced in specs on designers were exempted from the law.

2.   The gentleman I saw in that hearing at the end of April, 2010 and former San Francisco GOP Chairman?  He was run over by a white pickup truck that has never been found, in northern Sonoma County, after attending a Bohemian Club meeting summer of 2011.  He had successfully fought off the sale of State Buildings to private persons, to save the state many millions in costs later.