Injured Workers Advocates To Challenge CA Commission On Health And Safety & Worker Compens

Injured Workers Advocates To Challenge California Commission On Health And Safety and Workers Compensation On 8/27/2009

Press Release Press Release Press Release


Injured workers and Injured Worker Advocates to Challenge California Commission On Health & Safety And Workers Compensation
at their August 27, 2009 meeting.


Injured worker advocate Dina Padilla of VOICES-B.E.S.T. Ca. chapter, Sandi Trend, mother of injured Agraquest biotech worker David Bell and Steve Zeltzer Chair
of the California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day CCWMD will present testimony of the failure of the California OSHA and the Workers
Compensation System and the Fraud Assessment Commission and California District Attorneys to prosecute fraud by the insurance industry and large employers. This
testimony will be presented to the commission which does studies on the health and safety of workers in California and also on the effectiveness of the workers compensation
system must investigate the removal of all doctors at Ca-OSHA for California's 17 million workers, the failure to properly protect workers and members
of communities at toxic dump sites such as the Downey Studios and Kaiser Hospital in Downey California and the failure to properly protect workers in the
biotech and nanotech industries.
The recent revelations as well about the Downey Toxic Dump and the failure of developer Stuart Lichter to clean up the deadly toxic site before it was used for a movie
studio and Kaiser hospital complex is a direct result of the deregulation of Workers Compensation in California and also the destruction of Ca-OSHA.
These new industries are unregulated and workers who are contaminated and sickened at these industries have a virtual impossible time getting proper protection
and workers compensation due to the insurance control of the workers compensation industry.

Thursday August 25, 2009 10:00 AM
1515 Clay St.
San Francisco, CA

California Coalition For Workers Memorial Day
P.O. Box 20027
San Francisco, CA
http://www.workersmemorialday.org
(415)867-0628


Indictment Of Ca-Osha By Retiring Senior Safety Engineer-Bosses And Incompetents Now Running The Agency

Jack Oudiz’s “Exit Interview” from Cal/OSHA Upon Retiring After 25
Years With the Divison

Jack Oudiz – Senior Safety Engineer, California Division of
Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA)

As I approach my retirement from the California Division of
Occupational Safety and Health after nearly 23 years as a compliance
industrial hygienist, a District Manager, a Regional Senior Industrial
Hygienist and Senior Safety Engineer, I wanted to share some thoughts
on my experience and on the current state of affairs in the hope that
it might contribute to future change. Many leading employers in the
private sector have found value in conducting exit interviews with
long time employees. In the absence of such efforts by DOSH or the
Department of Industrial Relations, I offer these comments as the
equivalent of my exit interview.

My statement is compelled by a sense of sadness and disappointment at
leaving an organization that is in many ways much less effective than
I found it nearly 25 years ago. The Division I leave today has veered
so far away from its mission that it has begun to redefine that
mission to justify its actions. It has disregarded the health and well
being of its internal operation for so long that low workforce morale,
lack of adequate resources, inept and poorly trained managers,
directionless field staff, low expectations and complete lack of
accountability has come to be the accepted norm. In the political
realm, the imbalance of power between labor and employers has
contributed to this steady deterioration resulting in weaker
regulations, weaker enforcement and the abandonment of the advocacy
role intended for the Division by the OSHAct.

First, let me be clear that it has been an honor to work alongside
many of my dedicated and incredibly committed colleagues in the
Division these past many years. They have inspired me and kept me
going in the face of neglect, ineptitude and irresponsibility. The
disappointment in knowing “what could be” was in part offset by the
privilege of their friendship and a job that at times did make a
difference. I leave feeling not bitterness or disgruntlement but
rather a great deal of pride and gratitude.

I also leave behind a record of accomplishment and achievement I am
proud of. In October 2001, I was honored to be asked to lead the
Division’s contingent of volunteers that assisted OSHA at the World
Trade Center disaster recovery site. Upon my return, I was also
responsible for creating, developing and leading the Division’s
Emergency Response Program which I subsequently was able to integrate
into the California Statewide Emergency Management System.

In 1994, I was asked by Chief John Howard to develop and implement the
Division’s Professional Development and Training Unit, the first such
professionally coordinated training program in the Division’s history.
Since 1994, I have been primarily responsible for the development and
delivery of all professional training for all Division enforcement and
consultation staff. During fatter budget times, this effort resulted
in more than 30,000 person-hours of training given per annum while
functioning as essentially a one-person unit.

What is The DOSH Mission?

The history of the enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
of 1970 shows that the governmental role in regulating safety and
health conditions in workplaces was the direct result of many years of
political struggle by workers and their unions. While the Act was far
from perfect in its scope and construct, it did establish the
fundamental principle, in law, that all workers have the right to a
workplace that does not endanger their safety and health, the “General
Duty Clause” as the Federal agency calls it. This principle was
codified in the California Labor Code as a statement of responsibility
of all employers. A national regulatory bureaucracy was created by
this Act to assure that this principle was in place and enforced in
all workplaces. The Division is the branch of that bureaucracy in
California. It derives its mission and reason for being from that
principle. That is, to assure, to the best of its ability, that
workers in California are afforded the protection required to keep
them safe and healthy at work.

That one clear message has never been articulated by anyone in a
leadership role while I have worked in the Division. Consequently,
each person who comes to work in DOSH is left to define for his or
herself what is their role and what is their purpose within this
bureaucracy. Since “production” measures have always been given the
most outspoken emphasis by Division leadership, some come to see the
mission as defined by the number of inspections and citations amassed.
Others come to the Division with prejudices and biases regarding
workers, unions, employers and, absent any clear guidance and emphasis
from above, continue to express those leanings in their daily work.
The result, as I have consistently observed it, is a workforce with a
wide divergence of commitment to the agency’s mission led by many
managers whose success is evaluated and measured by statistics rather
than by their level of dedication and ability to create common cause
in pursuit of the mission.

As lead of the Division’s Professional Development and Training Unit
the past 15 years, I developed an Orientation to Enforcement training
for all incoming newly hired inspector staff. The content of this
training, in addition to a great deal of introduction to the mechanics
of performing inspections, has always included segments on the history
leading to the passage of the OSHAct including the history of
occupational safety and health struggles in this nation and the point
of view of labor on the role of OSHA as expressed by a guest union
organizer. This is usually the only exposure to these subjects that
DOSH inspectors ever receive in their working lifetime. Only once in
these past 15 years has a DOSH Chief made an appearance at this
training to welcome new Division employees. This opportunity to
inspire, to motivate, to clearly and unequivocally emphasize the
mission of the Division has been repeatedly squandered.

In my tenure with the Division, I have served six different DOSH
Chiefs. Not one of them ever articulated the mission of the Division
to its employees. Not one of them ever made a serious effort to
inspire and motivate its employees to understand and excel in
furthering that mission. What is the primary mission of the Division?
Ask DOSH employees that question and you will very likely receive a
variety of diverging responses. Is it to protect and advocate for the
safety and health of workers? Is it to enhance commerce? Is it to
assure that there is a “level playing field” for all employers? Is it
to be a neutral arbiter between workers and employers?

Now that the financing of DOSH is increasingly coming from levied
employer fees, there is already open talk from Division leadership
about employers as “our customers” and steps are being taken to
implement this latest interpretation of the mission. For the first
time, the quality and not simply the quantity of the field work is
being scrutinized and addressed by DOSH leadership. However, the
justification being given to the workforce is not the goal of greater
protection for workers but rather it is that employers deserve a good
return on their investment! Is it realistic to expect that aggressive
enforcement of protective health and safety regulations is really the
return on investment that California employers want and expect?

All of this is not to imply that DOSH leadership has lacked vision all
these years. Rather it is to say that that vision has seldom been
congruent with the fundamental principle established by the OSHAct. As
political appointees, DOSH Chiefs have been selected with certain
expectations from the Administrations they serve. Twenty-two of the
past 25 years, DOSH Chiefs have been appointed by and served under
business-friendly Republican administrations. The impact of that
history on the Division’s interpretation of its mission has been
incalculable.

John Howard served as Chief of the Division for approximately 10
years. He was a man of enormous personal charm and intellectual power.
He received accolades from both labor and employers during his tenure.
I was inspired by and honored to work with him. Dr. Howard was also
appointed by and served primarily under Republican governors. Dr.
Howard fundamentally did not believe in the enforcement paradigm
created by the OSHAct. His major accomplishment during his tenure was
the revision of the DOSH Policies and Procedures Manual to its present
600+ pages incarnation. This was done as an effort to bring greater
consistency in the manner and methods used by each enforcement office
within the state. It was a huge undertaking that absorbed a tremendous
amount of the Division’s energy and resources, including monthly,
week-long training sessions over 14 months. It was carried out, in
large part, in response to complaints from California’s employers who
felt that inconsistencies in enforcement actions were a detriment to
their business practices.

What has this effort done to improve the ability of the Division to
more effectively achieve its mission? From my vantage, the answer is
very little, particularly when judged against other opportunities that
were squandered. In that timeframe very little was done to address the
longstanding structural problems affecting the real daily work of DOSH
staff. Poorly qualified managers continued to be appointed throughout
the Division. Managers continued to struggle to be effective leaders
without adequate training, mentoring or guidance. Staff demoralization
reached all-time low levels partly in response to the hugely increased
bureaucratization of the work and the continued deterioration of
resources, support, training and leadership. Most significantly, the
Division continued to ignore the glaring truth that far more staff was
needed to successfully carry out its mission.

Woefully Inadequate Resources to Get Job Done

California continues to trail both Federal OSHA as well all other
state staffing levels with respect to the proportion of enforcement
inspectors to the state workforce. This staffing shortage was the
focus of recent legislative oversight scrutiny. When given the chance
to affirm the need for more staff, the current DOSH Chief buckled to
political pressure and declared that “efficiencies” in operation would
counter the need for additional personnel. This statement was so
ludicrous and the needs are so glaring that even he has now finally
had to publically pronounce that the Division is in sore need of more
resources and staffing. In the meantime, the presnet Chief just
created and filled a high level staff service manager position with an
“efficiency” expert while a Deputy Chief for Occupational Health
position remains unfilled for the 10th consecutive year.

The consequences of chronic staffing deficiencies in enforcement
district offices are numerous and have a huge impact on the work and
morale of Division staff. When workloads are too great for offices and
inspectors, inspections and accident investigations are rushed,
witnesses are not interviewed, evidence is not collected, citations
are not issued or are given away to avoid time consuming appeals,
inspections are conducted by letter rather than in person, some
accidents even fall through the cracks and never get investigated.
Mentoring of inexperienced inspectors seldom occurs and they are often
left to fend for themselves in complicated inspections or
investigations. Who benefits from all of this? Who suffers the
consequences? Is it any surprise that inadequate staffing levels has
been the one consistent hallmark of the past 25 years?

Lack of Leadership/Lack of Accountability

The Division I leave today is marked by low levels of morale among its
workforce. One of the most consistent contributors to this low morale
has been the lack of excellence in leadership stemming from the poor
process of selection and lack of training of DOSH managers at all
levels for the critical role that they play. Excellence in management
is not tested for, it is not selected for, it is not rewarded and it
definitely is not taught in the Division. The manager selection
process that I have observed has usually been either a complete
crap-shoot or the rank exercise of favoritism. At least one Regional
Manager was selected simply because she was all that was left on the
civil service list. She covers her incompetence through belligerence
and terror and is currently the subject of grievances by an entire
District office. This is common knowledge ignored for years by
Division leadership. Once an unfit manager is in place, he or she
remains there for years barring the most egregious circumstances.

The combination of my statewide role as the Division’s training
coordinator, my longevity on the job and my personal initiatives put
me in the somewhat unique position of having recurring contact with
nearly all professional staff in the Division. I hear all the rumors,
I know all the dirty secrets, and I know where the bodies are buried.
I also know which managers are incompetent, which ones are bullies,
which ones are liked and which ones are despised. I know which
managers try to inspire and which ones lead by coercion and
intimidation, which ones are still dedicated to the mission and which
ones were long ago beaten into submission. I know which ones give away
citations to avoid the hassle of appeals and which ones are usually
prone to take the employer’s view on contentious issues.

The impact of an unfit manager on an agency such as DOSH and on the
morale of its staff can be devastating and can last for many, many
years. This problem has been consistently ignored by every Chief I
have served. None more than the present one. Poor choices in manager
selection have been compounded by the lack of accountability at any
level of the organization. Accountability is not an easy issue in
civil service. It requires clearly defined expectations and a
consistent application of well understood consequences. Neither of
those exists in DOSH. The lack of accountability eventually also
reaches the field level inspector where the slothful or the
incompetent persist in their jobs year after year alongside those who
choose to work hard and exercise superior skills. One suffers no
consequences nor is the other recognized or rewarded. Personal
motivation and initiative are the only impetus to good work in the
Division. For many years, I tried to convince Division leadership to
implement the state’s already well established employee recognition
program. It fell repeatedly on leadership’s deaf ears.

Decline of Labor Influence/Rise of Employer Influence

The historical decline in the strength and influence of the labor
movement in California (as well as nationally) in the past 25 years
has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of the Division and
its commitment to its mission. It is hard to conceive that at one time
the Chairman of the Cal/OSHA Appeals Board was a former union rank and
file member and shop steward. The imbalance of power between labor and
employers has been reflected in the regulatory process, in the
appointments to critical positions on the CalOSHA Appeals and
Standards Boards, in the hiring of and decisions rendered by the
Appeals Board and its judges and in every other facet of DOSH policies
and procedures.

The universal use by the Division of advisory committees and the
development of regulation by consent, on its face, may have the appeal
of fairness and balance, but in reality it has slanted rulemaking
power overwhelmingly to employers. It is not unusual for a regulatory
advisory body to have a 10 to 1 ratio of representation in favor of
employers. Even when labor representation is present, it is
customarily severely outgunned in expertise, experience and
assertiveness. The outcome, in the case of landmark regulations such
as the ergonomics standard and the heat illness prevention standard,
clearly reflects this imbalance of power. These two regulations have
given DOSH an undeserved reputation as a leader in progressive health
and safety rulemaking. The truth is that these regulations were
grudgingly enacted only after vociferous labor action (and heat
related worker deaths that drew public outcry) and were weaker
versions of what was needed.

DOSH’s role is intended as an advocate for worker health and safety.
The OSHAct did not intend nor require consensus or agreement between
the regulated community and those the agency is designed to protect.
The OSHAct did not intend nor require the balancing of worker safety
and health with industry profits. Rather, the law requires the agency
to protect a worker, to the extent feasible, from “material impairment
of health or functional capacity even if such employee has regular
exposure to a hazard regulated by such standard for the period of his
working life.” When the Division assumes the role of an impartial
party in the development of regulation, it abdicates its
responsibilities as an advocate for worker health and safety.

Because of emphatic employer opposition to the ergonomics standard,
the compromise regulation that was passed ignored much of the
scientific evidence and has remained essentially unenforceable. The
“Noah’s Ark” approach that requires a minimum of two of each type of
injury to trigger the requirements of the regulation has meant that
many exposed or injured workers lack any protection simply because
there may not be any injured co-workers. Consequently, the negligible
incidence of cited DOSH ergonomics cases does not begin to reflect the
scope of the actual hazard in workplaces.

The heat illness standard recently enacted also faced stiff employer
opposition. Compromises were made by the Division that omitted key
elements demanded by labor such as the inclusion of indoor work places
within the scope of the regulation. It also put the onus of requesting
rest periods on workers. Anyone familiar with the realities of the
workplace understands that workers, particularly low wage workers, are
not likely to ask their employers for relief because they fear they
will lose their job and California's regulations on piecework, which
permit the employer to pay only minimum wage for a 40 hour work week,
create a significant financial penalty for any worker who takes a
break.

Enforcement Sabotaged By Appeals Board

In recent years, perhaps nothing has had a more deleterious impact on
the daily activities and morale of the Division’s enforcement staff
than the practices of the Cal/OSHA Appeals Board. The attitudes and
decisions of many of the Board’s administrative law judges have been
widely perceived by enforcement inspectors and many of their managers
as anti-Division and strongly biased in favor of employers.

The Board itself has reinforced this perception by capriciously
dismissing important citations based on frivolous technicalities such
as partially inaccurate company names or downgrading citation
classifications without reasonable cause. These decisions and actions
have a widespread chilling effect on Division’s staff. Both managers
and inspectors are more reluctant to classify serious citations in the
expectation of a negative outcome on appeal. “Why bother?” is how many
feel. In other cases, staff has begun to reinterpret DOSH regulations
based on what they have seen in ALJ decisions. This negative impact
has been compounded by practices of the Appeals Board such as
overbooking of hearings, arbitrary denial of continuances and
expecting worker witnesses to travel great distances for hearings. In
an unprecedented recent move, 47 Division staff, including eight
District Managers and nine Senior Safety and Industrial Hygiene staff,
signed a letter to the Appeals Board demanding that it cease and
desist its practices which have prevented the Division from
effectively carrying out its mission.

The Division leadership has done little to protest or challenge these
actions by the Board. In recent Senate oversight hearings, the
Division Chief was effusive in his praise of the Chairwoman of the
Board. Only because of pressure from labor advocates has the Board
begun an advisory process which itself is, not surprisingly,
overwhelmingly stacked in favor of employers and their
representatives.

Lack of Political Will for Change

Until there is the political will in California to take seriously the
principle established in law by the OSHAct, I don’t expect that the
Division will become any more effective in carrying out its mission.
We will continue to have leadership beholden to the Chamber of
Commerce rather than the working men and women of California and
unwilling to address the structural deficiencies of the Division.
Those deficiencies have the net result of less effective enforcement
of ever weaker regulations and a dispirited workforce in search of
inspiration and leadership.

Without pressure from below, there is little incentive for change. The
OSHAct was in many ways a revolutionary act. For the first time, the
dictatorial power of the employer over the workplace was challenged.
Government inspectors were given the unprecedented power to not only
inspect all workplaces but to shut workplaces or work activities down.
It is not surprising that employers and their elected representatives
fought the Act tooth and nail. It is also not surprising that these
same forces have continued to fight at every opportunity to diminish
the Act and the effective enforcement of its intent. What has not been
achieved through legislation has been essentially accomplished through
sabotage, undermining, and resource starvation. If there has to be an
OSHA bureaucracy, then every measure has been taken to see that it
cannot effectively function. The more demoralized the workforce, the
more complacent the leadership, the less accountability in the
organization, the less competent the managers and inspectors, the
better for those opposed to the achievement of the Act’s goals.

Only a grassroots effort by workers, unions and those who support
social justice and human rights can exert the political pressure
necessary to correct the institutional problems that have overwhelmed
the agency given the duty and responsibility to protect worker safety
and health rights.

CA Osha Staff Speak Out-The Criminal Destruction Of Ca-Osha By Schwartzenegger's Appointees & Silence By CA-AFL-CIO Leadership
June 13, 2009

Candice Traeger, Chairwoman, Management member

Robert Pacheco, Public member

Art Carter, Labor Member

Occupational Safety & Health Appeals Board
2520 Venture Oaks Way, Suite 300
Sacramento, CA 95833

Dear Members of the Board,

We write as 47 individuals who work as field inspectors, seniors and
district managers who interact frequently with the Occupational Safety
and Health Appeals Board to strongly protest Board policies and
practices that have significantly undermined our ability to do our job
of protecting the lives, health and safety of California’s workers.

Over the last four years – and these policies continue to this very
day – the Board has deliberately over-booked hearing days so that a
single judge in the same location and the same time has as many as
three or four hearings scheduled. The Board has continued to refuse
to even indicate which case will be heard first. The Board has
continued to hold hearings at distant locations where worker witnesses
have great difficulty in appearing. The Board has continued to deny,
or simply ignore, legitimate requests for continuances.

In June 2009, there are 32 days (at six locations) with three or more
cases scheduled for the same judge, same location, same time. There
are 14 days with four cases scheduled and one day with five cases
scheduled (Oakland, June 17th).

How can we, who handle the majority of appeals for the Division,
prepare exhibits, witnesses and arguments for three separate cases all
scheduled for the same time? How can we convince worker witnesses to
travel long distances, and then to come back after they have been sent
home because their case wasn’t heard?

The simple answer is that we can’t.

That’s why there have been hundreds more “settlements” over the last
four years, many with drastic reductions of final penalties. These
policies are in addition to the recent practice of the Board to
dismiss cases, even those with serious injuries, on minor
technicalities; and to unilaterally “interpret” legislation and ignore
court rulings, so as to restrict the Division’s ability to enforce the
law.

The net effect of the Board’s policies has been to sabotage the
Division’s ability to defend citations and penalties on appeal.
Cal/OSHA’s deterrent effect has been significantly undermined as
employers learn they can “game the system” when the Division is
coerced into settlements, often with penalties that are pennies on the
dollar.

The people who pay the cost for these policies are California workers
whose employers look at Cal/OSHA as an agency that is forced to fight
with one hand tied behind its back.

We find it troubling that the Board has not processed the years-long
backlog of petitions for reconsideration over which the Board has sole
authority and responsibility. This again undermines worker protections
in California as employers are not legally required to abate these
citations which remain “under appeal” for years and years.

The voices of Cal/OSHA’s front-line employees have not been heard on
these issues until now because many of us feared reprisals by the
Board in the handling of our individual appeals cases, or the handling
of cases from the offices where we work. The deck is already so
stacked against the Division that any more obstacles from the Board
would be too much. But the various hearings held this spring, and the
fact that the Board finally has all three members, have given us hope
that the Board’s unfair policies and practices can now be challenged.

As you must know, those of us representing the Division at appeal
hearings are frequently “out-gunned” by the employers’ corporate
attorneys who have more resources, personnel and time – even before we
have been tripled-booked with hearings, often in places where worker
witnesses find it difficult to appear. The current case load and
over-booking mean that DOSH attorneys are saddled with an impossible
task of preparing multiple major cases for the same day or on
sequential days.

We know that not all citations are “open and shut” cases and we
believe everyone, including employers, should have the right to a
speedy appeal and an impartial review of the facts. All we want is a
level playing field.

We ask you to cease and desist with the Board’s unfair policies and
practices against Division personnel, and restore the balance to the
appeals process so that employers and the Division are treated fairly
and equally. California’s workers have a right to, and deserve, a
workplace health and safety agency that can do its job.

Sincerely,

Patrick Bell, Senior Safety Engineer, Research & Standards Unit, Oakland

Eric Berg, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Process Safety Management/North

Jeffrey Berliner, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, San Diego
District Office

Bill Biretta, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Fremont District Office

Maureen Braun, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, High Hazard Unit/North

Garrett Brown, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Oakland District Office

Mario Chacon, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Foster City District Office

Fernando CostaMartins, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Oakland
District Office

Sabino DeGuzman, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Oakland District Office

Kathleen Derham, District Manager, EEEC Unit/South

Mike Doering, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Process Safety
Management/South

Susan Eckhardt, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Fremont District Office

Abgail Fabricante, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Oakland District Office

Michael Frye, District Manager, Foster City District Office

Wing Sang Fung, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Oakland District Office

Cora Gherga, District Manager, San Francisco District Office

Nick Gleiter, District Manager, Oakland District Office

Deborah Gold, Senior Safety Engineer, Research & Standards Unit, Oakland

Chris Grossgart, Attorney, DOSH Legal Unit, Oakland

Jan Hami, District Manager, EEEC Unit/North

Mark Harrington, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Santa Rosa
District Office

Mike Horowitz, Senior Safety Engineer, Research & Standards Unit, Oakland

Jeff Ferrell, Senior Industrial Hygienist, Asbestos Unit, Sacramento

Thomas Johnston, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Process Safety Mgmt/North

Shohreh Kheradpir, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, High Hazard Unit/North

Eleanor Kilner, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Fremont District Office

Barbara Kim, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Foster City District Office

Keith Koterbay, District Manager, High Hazard Unit/North

Mariano Kramer, Senior Safety Engineer, Research & Standards Unit, Santa Ana

Michael Loupe, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, San Diego District Office

Army Lum, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, San Francisco District Office

Scott McAllister, Senior Industrial Hygienist, Region I, Santa Rosa

Vajie Motiafard, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, San Francisco
District Office

Darcy Murphine, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, San Diego District Office

Gene Murphy, Senior Safety Engineer, High Hazard Unit/North

Sylvia Murray, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Oakland District Office

Bob Nakamura, Senior Safety Engineer, Research & Standards Unit, Oakland

Doug Neville, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, High Hazard Unit/North

Jack Oudiz, Senior Safety Engineer, Professional Development &
Training, Sacramento

Carol Parisek, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Santa Rosa District Office

Peter Riley, District Manager, Process Safety Management/South

Dawn Schaniel, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Fremont District Office

Geraldine Tolentino, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Oakland
District Office

Clyde Trombettas, District Manager, Process Safety Management/North

Chris Wing, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Oakland District Office

Doug Woods, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, Santa Rosa District Office

Michael Zimmerman, Compliance Safety and Health Officer, San Diego
District Office

(Positions listed for identification only)