The Best "Merry Christmas" Gift Ever! - Tremco now forcing a jury trial over it!

For those of you who don't know, I have been tracking the scam since 1991, when bosses at a new job at the University of California, San Francisco in their huge facilities department insisted I use a Tremco Rep's "specs", calling him a "roof consultant."

It turned out the long road I experienced in uncovering and reporting the scam was just like what Doug Wicks experienced in New Jersey, the roof consultant who got the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation Report done, citing activities of Tremco, Garland and WP Hickman ("Waste and Abuse in School Roofing" started in 1999, released Sept. 2000). Doug started complaining about it in 1991.

For the New Jersey Report, look here:
http://www.state.nj.us/sci/school.shtm
 
And our experiences were just as long and torturous as Gerard Beloin, roofing manufacturer and contractor in New Hampshire, who has received numerous, serious MOB-like death threats from local officials for standing up to the Garland - openly, after many years of watching the scam go on unabated in their school districts since the 1980's.

For what has been happening with Gerard, look here: http://www.bluestonepremiumroofingsystemsinc.com/2008-02-04%20-%20REVOKED%20-%20No%20trial%20by%20a%20jury%20of%20my%20peers.htm

It's a long haul without a lot of help, and fearful reps in and out the door helping.....wanting to do something but afraid for themselves and their families, leaving a very heavy burden on a few.

So to my surprise, right before Christmas of 2004, I got an incredible "Merry Christmas" gift - from the best of you out there. You know who you are!

It was a copy of a housewife and a Grandmother!!! - for God's sake - A HOUSEWIFE'S!!!! Taxpayer Advocate Group's PRESS RELEASE in which she had done a lot of homework and caught on to the scam, partially due to a local school administration employee who had seen "something going on" with their local School Administrator and Tremco.....and Diana's research on the internet.

__________________________________________

What happened:

Tremco sued Diana for writing a newsletter wherein she largely quoted from other sources. Tremco never specified which statements in the newsletter were libelous, which is a legal requirement when suing someone for libel. There was one minor mistake in the newsletter and that was the reference that Janet Campbell worked for Tremco. The higher courts have ruled that mistakes do not constitute libel. It's obvious from reading TUFF's press release/news letter that Tremco was not libeled. This is nothing but harassment against a citizen/taxpayer for speaking out about a public interest issue. Diana and her lawyers still don't know how she "libeled" them, because Tremco never specified which words in the document were defamatory.

For Diana's Press Release (November 21, 2005), look here:
http://roofingscam.blogspot.com/2008_06_15_archive.html#7726854225769852450

For your information:
I would never under any circumstances want to work for Tremco - although someone tried mightily to dirty my hands through architects in the San Francisco area during my case - using architects who probably needed the school or public work at all costs. (It's called "Clean Hands").

As I stated in an affidavit filed in her court case, de facto I WAS a "forced" employee of Tremco's - doing their bidding at the behest of my involved boss, and over my (loud) verbal and written protests.

For the affidavit I produced for Diana's case, look here:
http://roofingscam.blogspot.com/2008_06_15_archive.html#7537504535741172800
_______________________________________

Because of the incredible help extended to me by so many, really great stand-up kind of men in the roofing industry, I contacted Diana asap over the holidays after first receiving her Press Release, and her contacts grew immensely as a result...and so did those helping her.

We all know what she is up against - bought-off or "involved" officials in probably all three branches of government. Diana has just uncovered documents that prove that Tremco is involved in at least two branches of government cover-ups in Indiana.

For what Diana has just uncovered, some of it, look here:
http://diana-vice.blogspot.com/2008/06/barnes-thornburg-lobbied-state-board-of.html

Diana Vice needs all of our help. If you can help her for upcoming Jury Trial, with information, with dollars - please help her.

Don't you think a Jury trial might finally get the exposure of the scam needed?

It'll be a donnybrook, that is for sure, with what she has uncovered.

And the fannies "hanging out"- exposed - couldn't hurt anyone but the specific perpetrators and those involved!

Thank you! ____________________________________
 
None of us can afford to have Diana silenced. She has valiantly stood alone throughout this two year ordeal, and we need to come to her aid by providing financial resources to help in her pursuit for justice. I realize that many of you may wish to remain anonymous due to business interests; therefore, a money order would be an appropriate way to give.  

Donations can be sent to: Diana Vice Legal Defense Fund P. O. Box 4 Lafayette, Indiana 47902

Garland Roofing Business Model

Here are the Garland Training Documents - that show clearly their "Business Model": See top of page 2: "The strongest sale will always be Garland materials and performance specficiations and no "or equals". 

 And then they state: "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:

1. How to mix up the manufacturers listed - to look "competitive"; 

2. 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...);

3. 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....

But he doesn't tell his sales reps they private label from their competitors - who produce products that the sales reps have been known to decry as not competitive with their own products, and get "disallowed" by school district personnel in so-called "bids."

Here's some of the "restrictive proprietary performance specs" guidelines being taught to Garland sales reps, to "lock-spec" their product in public and school work.

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

And they state that 'if you have to go "or equal" "depending upon the intestinal fortitude of the guy you are selling"' to, either "aim for a chance at getting the job - or eliminating as much of the competition as possible."'

Then he describes how you can lock in the Garland product...with specific lock-spec language, on this last page: ______________________________________________

So, Garland - 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. We believe that you have Carlisle private label some of your products, as does Johns Manville for Tremco.

6. When in a so-called "bid" situation when an equal is produced, how many times have you had disqualified products that are the same as yours, only yours are private-labeled?

7. When is the responsible San Francisco Bay Area Garland Rep going to give the Federal Government back all those overcharges for the Johns Manville 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?

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

9. 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.

10. 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.

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

[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 both "Business Models" - "Sales Models" - are more concerned about locking out competition -to get their admitted, higher-priced products in to schools.]

Tremco's "business model"predates Garlands', for those who don't know. Tremco executives left to take over a flooring company (Garland) in the early 1970's, to compete with that same business model with Tremco.....

_____________________________________________

Tremco In-House Training Documents

Here they are - the Tremco In-House Training Documents used in the article, "Tremco: Strategies & Methods" by L.B. "Huck" Morris of the esteemed Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association (MRCA) and printed in 1997 in their magazine, Midwest Roofer.

Roles & Responsibilities of Facility Owners, Architects/Engineers & Manufacturers

In the design and construction world, there is one tried and true method for fair dealings for all.

The following graphic charts are developed from past American Institute of Architect documents, in their explanation in Owner-Contractor Agreements as to how the roles and responsibilities of each party are divided and how the licensed design professional, while working for the Owner, is to keep the parties at arms' length.

In addition, Architect and Engineer Licensing laws traditionally require the duly licensed design professionals to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public. 

At Georgia Tech and in large architecture firms in Atlanta, we were taught that such included fiduciary duties to the public. 

 We were not allowed to sole-source anything without one particular man in State Government reviewing those specifications to make sure that there were no other such products available - and not much was so. In the roofing world, there are many equals and in fact better similar products and real warranties available, sometimes from the very companies relabeling their products for those hard-marketing products to schools.

State Laws enact both Building Codes and the extent of unlicensed design activity - including the purchasing of fire-rated materials, to be designed and specified only by licensed architects and engineers. 

 The idea that roofs could be reroofed without independent tests taken of the existing roofs (independent of any interested parties - particularly manufacturers) or designed with complete and site-specific details, so located on complete drawings, and along with a full set of specs, and then with local Building Dept. and any Fire Dept. Approvals required - is absurd. 

 And it could be dangerous - particularly if the substrate had been weakened through previous water penetration issues, for instance - necessitating structural replacement which would not be addressed through using purchasing agents to buy roofing products to be applied by roofing contractors in most likely broken-apart contracts - under the limit required to be bid out.

It is extremely important to the public for both safety and finanacial issues that the Roles & 
 Responsibilities of each party be kept as shown in the first chart, "How Public Bidding Should be done". It is a win-win situation for all concerned.

The other two charts show how manufacturers turn the processes upside down - to everyone except their disadvantage - in a one-party win situation - a monopoly.

Write roofreports@gmail.com for better copies of the charts below, in .pdf form, if you desire them.

How The Public Bidding Process Should Work

How Roofing Manufacturers Control Public Bidding Processes

How a Roofing Manufacturer Controlled and Subverted an Educational Purchasing Agents' Association Bid Process