SPECIAL REPORT: Miller-Driscoll Air Quality

Recent media reports have opened the door onto a growing controversy regarding Indoor Air Quality issues at Miller-Driscoll Elementary School.

This has been discussed at several meetings, both publicly (Board of Education, Board of Selectmen, Miller Driscoll Building Committee) and not-so-publicly (Miller-Driscoll PTA meetings). I’ve hesitated to write about it in GOOD Morning Wilton until now:  I wanted to explore the issue fairly and well enough to shed light without fanning the flames and adding more heat.

What’s been most prevalently reported is that Wilton Schools were almost two years out of compliance with state regulations on radon testing—they had last tested the schools for radon in Dec. 2006, and should have retested by Dec. 2011, but failed to do so.

When the district was notified that they were out of compliance, they scheduled radon tests which were performed at all four Wilton schools, in Nov. 2013. Unfortunately, at least at Miller-Driscoll, the tests were not conducted properly, according to test protocols, and the CT State Department of Public Health did not accept the reports. Radon tests are being re-administered in all four schools in Jan. 2014, at no additional cost to the district, by the company that conducted the original tests.

In addition, there has been added scrutiny to the levels of carbon dioxide in the air in some classrooms and public spaces at Miller-Driscoll. Some readings have registered higher than acceptable levels, although there is debate between parents and administrators about exactly what are acceptable levels; each side has cited different environmental hygiene consultants and OSHA limits as what should be allowed.

These issues have added more scrutiny and question to the air quality issues at a school that is aging—in this case, the HVAC systems, some of which are around 40 years old—and has had repeated issues with leaks and maintenance. They’re issues that are of particular importance given that the town will be considering renovating the school, that there is a building committee working with an architect and engineer to figure out proposed plans and related costs for like renovations, and that—most crucial of all—there are children and adults in the building every day.

Overall, it’s a story about school safety. The subject is understandably controversial and has the potential to create panic if it’s not written about thoroughly; it’s also a complicated issue, with numbers, reports, data, etc., and requires some time to learn about the science and different opinions about acceptable limits of radon, carbon dioxide and many other things. There’s a lot involved—school administrators and elected officials charged with making sure Wilton’s schoolchildren—our children—are safe in addition to well educated; teachers and employees who need to know that their workplace is safe; and a proposed plan to renovate an aging school, and the budgetary implications that any construction will have.

I’m also a Miller-Driscoll parent, and I wanted to make sure that I gathered information and kept my own interests separate so that I can try to objectively report on where things are and what’s gone on, to the best of my ability.

Here’s how I’m handling it:

1. Here is a link to the most recent “Limited Microbial Investigation” report on Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) for Miller-Driscoll, performed Nov. 13, 2013 and dated Nov. 29, 2013. It is posted on the school’s website.

2. Here is a link to the superintendent’s statement made at the Dec. 5, 2013 Board of Education meeting about radon testing and retesting.

3. Today, GMW.com features two interviews, one with Marissa Lowthert, a parent who has been visible and vocal in her criticism of indoor air quality issues at Miller-Driscoll. I interviewed her in early December, 2013 when she outlined some of the research she had done on the issues, and her efforts to bring her concerns to school officials. 

The other is an interview with Dr. Gary Richards, superintendent of the Wilton Schools. I interviewed him on Friday, Jan. 3, 2014. He contacted me to offer me the opportunity to discuss the issue; there were no ground rules and no question was off the table.

For both interviews, I tried to write them as straight Q&A, with as little editorial input as possible. They were edited for clarity and brevity.

I will also point out that I’ve either attended town board meetings or watched them on video where this has been discussed. I’ve also attended two Miller-Driscoll PTA meetings where the subject was discussed—I’m a PTA member with a child in the school. I also volunteer in the classroom and as a PTA program chair. In full disclosure, I also serve on the board of the Wilton Education Foundation, and work with school administrators from time to time on other issues. I’m trying to be as objective, upfront and as fair as I possibly can.

I’m not sure that the PTA is necessarily the right forum for many of the conversations to have gone on to the extent that they have. I understand that Lowthert originally brought her concerns to the PTA because the PTA, in its mission as stated in the M-D PTA Bylaws, exists to [paraphrased] “promote the welfare of children in home, school and community; to secure adequate laws for the care and protection of children and youth; to bring into closer relation the home and the school, that parents and teachers may cooperate intelligently; and to develop between educators and the public united efforts as will secure for all children the highest advantages in physical, mental and social education.”

I believe the IAQ issue is a larger concern for the Board of Education, and there should be broader public discussion scheduled about it—perhaps a meeting or town forum to discuss just this. However, because it was brought up at PTA meetings, it became a PTA issue. As a result, the PTA is part of this story–and I have a concern I’d like to express about the PTA role in this.

I was prevented from directly reporting about any of the events at the PTA meetings when the issue was discussed. At the time it was the only forum where extensive discussions about the issue were taking place. I asked the executive officers of the MD-PTA that the PTA meeting of Friday, Dec. 13, where school administrators—i.e. town employees—were speaking with parents be on the record, as it was important to learn what school and district administrators were telling parents in a a public forum. I was told that the PTA is a membership organization and the meetings are not open to the public or the press, and I was therefore prohibited from reporting on anything that happened in the meeting.

As a parent, in this editorial forum, I feel it’s within my rights to say this, however:  I walked away from that meeting with the feeling that PTA officers have made more of an effort to protect administration efforts and reassert administration positions in the discussions I saw. I don’t think that they presented an objective, neutral position, and when parents in a forum were expressing a desire to have more open discussion about the issue, it seemed as if the MD-PTA and council PTA officers present consistently sided with administrative positions.

The meeting was so contentious that several parents present remarked on the acrimony and heatedness, and wondered aloud why certain parents in the audience were being prevented by the PTA officers from asking questions. It certainly made the PTA seem like they didn’t want the air quality issue to be discussed in the open. It felt to many present like the kids and their safety weren’t as paramount as deflecting the controversy. I don’t like criticizing the PTA, an organization that does a lot of good work in the schools; but on this issue I feel like the question of how safe are our children and teachers is getting sacrificed for the sake of putting on a united front or taking sides. I dislike that even more.

I’m sure that episodes in M-D PTA’s history makes officers shy away from anything perceived to be controversial. However, when it comes to issues of children’s safety and well-being, transparency and openness is something that should be encouraged, not squashed. I’m disappointed that as of press time, the minutes from the last two M-D PTA meetings where the issue was discussed are not available on the M-D PTA webpage.

Update, Jan. 7, 6:45 p.m.: I received an email from the M-D PTA secretary this afternoon, which said that November minutes were approved at the December meeting but she didn’t request for them to be posted to the site until today, after this article was published. As soon as they are on the site I will link to them. She noted that the December meeting minutes cannot be published until they are approved by the membership at the January meeting next week, on Jan. 13, and that she will request posting to the website immediately following the meeting. 

Update, Jan. 16:  Minutes from both the November and December PTA meetings are now posted on the Miller Driscoll PTA webpage.

It’s important to add that at the end of 2013, the MD PTA co-chairs sent an email noting that they have asked the Superintendent’s office to schedule an open forum for parents on the issue, and that because of the need to conduct other school business and limited time at PTA meetings, the monthly meetings have proven not to be the ideal forum for the topic.

Also in the interest of complete disclosure, I want to make sure that I note something:  During the PTA meeting on Dec. 13, there was a vote–proposed in a motion made by Lowthert–to call for additional carbon dioxide level testing at M-D. As a voting member of the PTA, I voted in favor of additional testing. While I don’t believe the PTA membership is empowered to compel the district to conduct such testing, I cast my vote to encourage the district to do so. I did so in the belief that more knowledge about what air quality issues the school is facing is a good thing. I don’t know whether or not there is an air quality problem at the school, but I think the issue deserves exploration. Again, to me it’s a case of the more transparency, the better.

Which brings me to the decision to bring the issue into GOOD Morning Wilton. I’ve heard how much the site’s “good” approach to news has resonated with people. I still think it’s important for issues like this one, which affect so many people in the town, need to be explored, written about and discussed. We, as a community, need to be aware, engaged and involved in something like this, and the more we learn and know about it, the better we can fix it, address it, improve it and make Wilton stronger.

Please read both interviews. I’m hoping to sit down with Bruce Likly, the chair of the Board of Education, in the next few days to ask him about school indoor air quality, and I will extend requests for interviews with other officials as well. I’d love to hear your thoughts in the comments below, on our GMW Facebook page, or at editor@goodmorningwilton.com.