Mchr and Bchd Copy)

8/14/2019 Mchr and Bchd Copy)

1/62

THE MARYLAND HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION ANDTHE BALTIMORE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT: SCANDAL,

CONSPIRACY, COVER UPS, LIES, OBSTRUCTION OFJUSTICE,CONFLICTS OF INTEREST, DISCRIMINATION,AND VIOLATIONS OF THE ELDERLY, POOR, RACIAL

MINORITIES, AND ESPECIALLY THE DISABLEDSCONSTITUTIONAL, CIVIL,HUMAN, DUE PROCESS, FAIR

HOUSING AND EQUAL OPPORTUNITY RIGHTS


2/62

THIS HISTORIC FORMER SCHOOL BUILDING BUILT IN 1907, CONVERTED INTO APROJECT BASE SECTION 8 MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT FOR

SENIORS AND THE DISABLED, WAS NOT A HEALTHY HOME!


3/62


4/62


5/62


6/62


7/62


8/62

The Baltimore City Health Department Bureau of Ecology & Institutional--Services T. Okuwas INTENTIONALLY MISREPRESENTED, ARBITRARY, and

CAPRICIOUS Records of Field Investigation, INSPECTIONS, AND FALSETESTIMONIES GIVEN TO THE MARYLAND HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION

Complaint:Tenant got extremely ill from thefumes from painting the laundry room.

Investigated and wasnt justified at this time. Upon arrivalto the property I spoke with Ms. Goldie Marlena Mason, thebuilding manager. I introduced myself and inform her aboutthe complaint. She told me that a painting company washired to paint the laundry room and that all the tenants

were notified ahead of time and all necessary precautionswere taken for proper ventilation of the fumes. I called theComplainant Ms. Harris and told her about my finding and Ialso instructed her to contact the Maryland Department ofthe Environment for Indoor Air Pollution.

T. Okuwa 11/20/03


9/62

REBUTTALS TO BIAS and CORRUPT Baltimore City HealthDepartment(BCHD) Investigations and Inspections

Assertions made by Mr. T. Okuwa, SANITATION INSPECTOR OF THEBALTIMORE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, are alleged to be erroneous.

Mr. Okuwa was neither an expert in testing the air to determine if infact the toxic oil base enamel was paint and/or even to determine withproper and appropriate testing equipment if the paint was no longer offgassing fumes in the lobby area.

Mr. Okuwa was not an indoor air quality expert, FAILED TO CONSULTWITH The Maryland Department of Environment, and used nospecialized testing equipment to determine how long the oil baseenamel had been dry prior to his making an alleged inspection trip toAlcott Place Apartments.

It is accurate that Mr. Okuwa saw a fan in the laundry room, but laundryroom fan was only appropriate for laundry washing and dryingmachines at Alcott Place.

Mr. Okuwa intentionally misrepresented the facts; therefore, it iserroneous that both areas and the common areas of Alcott Place

Apartments for seniors and the disabled were adequately andappropriately ventilated.

M id th ODOR littl


10/62

Manager said the ODOR was a littlestrong AND THERE WAS NO PROPERAND ADEQUATE VENTILATION!

A WET PAINT SIGN AND LAUNDRYROOM CLOSED SIGN WAS POSTEDONLY!

AN INCIDENT REPORT WAS FILEDABOUT CHEMICAL INJURIES WITHMANAGEMENT, BUT THECOMPLAINANT WAS WRONGFULLYLABELED BY PROPERTY

MANAGEMENT AS HAVING APERSONAL CONFLICT!


11/62


12/62


13/62

Service request Single Work OrderHealth -Environmental Residential

Conditions interior Input by Brandy Harper: November 19, 2003

Location: 2702 Keyworth Avenue, Baltimore,Maryland 21215

Complainant: Clevel Harris

Description: Ventilation. A private painting company came tothe location on the 13th and 14th of November to pain thelaundry room. During the times the laundry room was getting

painted the vapors were escaping throughout the mainlobby(the entire area of the building). One of the tenants gotextremely ill from the fumes. The fumes affected her voice,windpipe, and her nose. She is now taking five differentmedications.


14/62

COMMENTS MADE ON Tuesday, March 31, 2009 at 1:57 pm by HUDFHEO PROGRAM DIRECTOR of BALTIMORE(MD) Field office

I did not review this case file 03-04-0196-8 when Ianswered your (The Aggrieved and blacklisted

complainant) previous emails because this case wasclosed in March of 2004. This file has been archived.According to the computer record for thisinvestigation, however, the Maryland Human RelationsCommission interviewed you, visited the property,

interviewed witnesses and examined your documentsprior to reaching a conclusion in this complaint aswell.

Debra McGee


15/62


16/62

A HEALTHY HOME IS...

SAFE

DECENT

SANITARY PREVENTS DISEASE AND INJURY

DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED,

MAINTAINED, OR REHABILITATED IN AMANNER THAT SUPPORTS THEHEALTH OF RESIDENTS


17/62

PRINCIPLES OF A HEALTHYHOME

DRY

CLEAN

PEST-FREE VENTILATED

SAFE

CONTAMINANT-FREE MAINTAINED


18/62

NO MATERIAL SAFETY DATA INFORMATION SHEET INFORMATIONFOR RESIDENTS,NO CAUTION SIGNS POSTED, ONLY WHAT YOUSNOEE HERE.


19/62


20/62

NO MATERIAL SAFETY DATA INFORMATION SHEET INFORMATION FORRESIDENTS.

NO CAUTION SIGNS POSTED, ONLY WHAT YOU SEE HERE.


21/62

The identity of THIS PAINTING CONTRACTOR, relevantINFORMATION SUCH AS A CONTRACT BETWEEN

LANDLORDS AGENT and THIS CONTRACTOR, and MSDSINFORMATION SHEETS for the TOXIC, VAPOROUS, and

CARCINOGENIC PAINTS USED FOR RENOVATIONS arealleged to have been SUPPRESSED and CONCEALED by

INVESTIGATORS ofTHE Maryland Commission on Human

RelationsandTHE Baltimore City Health Department


22/62

THIS EXHAUST FAN WAS FOR THE LAUNDRY ROOMS WASHER ANDDRYER EQUIPMENT .IT WAS NOT A MECHANICAL EXHAUST ANDVENTILATION SYSTEM FOR THIS BUILDINGS COMMON AREAS.


23/62

THIS Professional PaintingCompany was hired ANDITS UNPROFESSIONALPAINTERS to PAINT the

laundry and trash ROOMcorridor, both common useareas. BUT, INSTEAD,THERE WAS HUMANSUFFERING, INJURY, AND

DISEASE!


24/62


25/62


26/62


27/62


28/62


29/62

FYI

Manager said, The odor was a little strong. But, THE ODOR WAS MORETHAN A LITTLE STRONG.

THE OIL BASE ENAMEL WAS TOXIC, CARCINOGENIC, HAZARDOUS, HIGHLYVAPOROUS, IMPROPERLY USED BY THE PAINT CONTRACTOR, AND THEBUILDING HAD NO MAINTENANCE STAFF ON THE PREMISES TO OVERSEETHE BUILDING.

THERE WAS NO PROPER AND ADEQUATE VENTILATION, NO MECHANICALEXHAUST AND VENTILATION SYSTEM, ONLY OVEREXPOSURES TO TOXICAND VAPOROUS OIL BASE PAINT ENAMEL

APPROPRIATE NOTICES INCLUDING CAUTION SIGNAGE AND MSDS SHEETSINFO. WAS NOT DISTRIBUTED TO RESIDENTS AND NOTHING WAS POSTEDFOR THE RESIDENTS AND GUESTS(EXCEPT WHAT YOU SEE IN THISPRESENTATION).

A LETTER WAS GIVEN TO MANAGEMENT THAT DOCUMENTED THE ADVERSEHEALTH REACTIONS FROM OVEREXPOSURES TO VAPOROUS AND TOXICOIL BASE PAINT THAT CAUSED CHEMICAL INJURY DUE TO NEGLIGIENCE,POOR BUILDING CONDITIONS, IMPROPER MAINTENANCE, INDOOR AIRPOLLUTION, AND NEGATIVE HOUSING QUALITY STANDARD ISSUES.


30/62


31/62

VISIBLE SIGNS OF MOLD


32/62

GROWTH AND CONTAMINATIONIN COMMON AREAS

IGNORED BY T.OKUWA OF THE BALTIMORE

CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT

JUSTIFIED AS NO PROBABLE CAUSE ANDUNFOUNDED BY THE COMMISSION ON

HUMAN RELATIONS


33/62


34/62

ALL COMMON AREAS

W/O ADEQUATE AND PROPER VENTILATIONAND W/O A MECHANICAL EXHAUST AND

VENTILATION SYSTEM


35/62


36/62


37/62


38/62


39/62


40/62


41/62


42/62


43/62


44/62


45/62


46/62


47/62

ERRONEOUS WRITTEN FINDINGS

HUD CASE NO. 03-04-0196-8 MCHR CASE NO.:0312-0827 WAS NOT INVESTIGATED PURSUANT TOARTICLE 49B, SECTION 10(A) AND 27, AND THE

MARYLAND COMMISSION ON HUMAN RELATIONSFAIR HOUSING REGULATIONS, COMAR 14.03.04, ELSEQ.

IT HAS BEEN WRONGFULLY DEPICTED BY THEMARYLAND HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION ANDHUD FHEO HEADQUARTERS THAT ALLPROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS WERE MET.

SUMMARY OF THE


48/62

SUMMARY OF THECOMPLAINANTS POSITION ORTHE POSITION OF THE MCHR?


49/62


50/62

1. The complainant is an African -American female whosuffers from Multiple Chemical Sensitivity. She resides inan apartment building called Alcott Place, which is

managed by the Respondent. On or about November 13,2003, the Respondent painted the lobby area of the

building. The Complainant said she became sick as theresult of inhaling the paint fumes. The Complainant toldthe Commission staff that the Respondent knew abouther chemical sensitivity and did not take precautions toaccommodate her disability. The Complainant said she

still suffers the after-effects of the paint fumes.

Gregory Logan of The Maryland Human RelationsCommission

Summary of the Respondents


51/62

position

2. The Respondent, Bruce Campbell, is in thebusiness of managing residential properties. Heasserted that he was unaware of theComplainants physical disability. He stated that

the subject property was painted about five yearsago while Ms. Harris was living there and shedidnt complain then that the fumes affected her.Mr. Campbell further asserted that a representativeof the Baltimore City Health department, Mr. Taiwo

Okuwa, inspected the subject property after it hadbeen painted and determined that all properprecautions had been taken.

Summary of the Investigation


52/62


3. The Complainant gave the Commission staff adoctors letter that stated she was chemicallysensitive. The Complainant said that she didnot give this letter to the Respondent, Bruce

Campbell.

4. The Complainant also identified tenant Pete

Lewis as a witness to the effect the fumes hadon her.



53/62


5.The Complainant identified Ms. Marlena Mason(Goldie),the on site manager for the subject property, as someonewho was adversely affected by the paint fumes. In aninterview, Ms. Mason told the Commission staff thatalthough she was asthmatic, she had no reaction to thefumes. She further stated that when the Respondent toldher the building would be painted, she posted signs toinform the tenants. Ms. Mason said that the Complainantnever told her about being chemically sensitive. Ms.

Mason also confirmed Mr. Campbells statement that Mr.Okuwa from the Health Department certified that thepainting was done properly.

The Maryland Commission on Human Relations and Sanitation Inspector, T. Okuwaf Th B lti Cit H lth D t t


54/62

of The Baltimore City Health Department

6. The Complainant staff was able to interviewMr. Okuwa, who works as a Sanitary Inspectorfor the Health Department. He recalled that thepaint had been dry for at least two days when

he inspected the lobby and laundry room areasof the subject premises. He said he did notsmell any paint fumes in the lobby area and hesaw there was a fan in the laundry room. He

determined that both areas were adequatelyventilated.

REBUTTALS TO THE MCHRSCANDALOUS interview with Mr


55/62

SCANDALOUSinterview with Mr.Okuwa, Sanitary Inspector for the

Baltimore City Health Department Assertions made by Mr. T. Okuwa, SANITATION INSPECTOR OF THE BALTIMORE

CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, are alleged to be erroneous.

Mr. Okuwa was neither an expert in testing the air to determine if in fact the toxic oil

base enamel was paint and/or even to determine with proper and appropriate testingequipment if the paint was no longer off gassing fumes in the lobby area.

Mr. Okuwa was not an indoor air quality expert, FAILED TO CONSULT WITH TheMaryland Department of Environment, and used no specialized testing equipment todetermine how long the oil base enamel had been dry prior to his making an allegedinspection trip to Alcott Place Apartments.

It is accurate that Mr. Okuwa saw a fan in the laundry room, but laundry room fan wasonly appropriate for laundry washing and drying machines at Alcott Place.

Mr. Okuwa intentionally misrepresented the facts; therefore, it is erroneous that bothareas and the common areas of Alcott Place Apartments for seniors and the disabledwere adequately and appropriately ventilated.


56/62

REBUTTALS TO THE MARYLAND COMMISSIONON HUMAN RELATIONS CONCLUSION:


57/62

It is alleged that MCHR REPRESENTATION OF THEFACTS IS ERRONEOUS AND WRONGFULLY DEPICTED

REGARDING THE COMPLAINANTS ADMISSION.

The Complainant gave the Respondents staff member aletter documenting adverse health reactions, chemicalinjury, identified environmental factors and housing

stressors that caused an acute asthmatic reactions andcentral nervous system effects, and indicated that shewas under the care of several doctors.

It is alleged that the advance notice of the painting that

Ms. Mason(site manager of Alcott Place Apartments)gave to the Complainant, along with the other tenants,was merely posted on the door to the trash corridor.

RE: MCHR STAFF INVESTIGATORGREGORY LOGAN


58/62

GREGORY LOGAN

The notice posted of the hazardous and toxic painting by sitemanagement of Alcott Place Apartments was inadequate, incomplete,incompetent, and neglectful.

The official of the Baltimore City Health Department inspected thepainted areas, at the Complainants request, and this representativeintentionally misrepresented and gave false testimony about Alcott

Place Apartments environmental factors and housing stressors.

The Commission (MCHR) staff erred in judgment by accepting thefalse testimony and intentional misrepresentations of T Okuwa of theBaltimore City Health Department.

The Maryland Human Relations Commission and The Baltimore City

Health Department collaborated with one another and each foundnothing wrong regarding Alcott Place Apartments. Unconstitutional!Arbitrary!Capricious!

The Commission(MCHR) staff wrongfully concluded that theRespondent did not discriminate against the Complainant in thismatter.

RE: MCHR STAFF INVESTIGATORGREGORY LOGAN


59/62

GREGORY LOGAN

Gregory Logan of the MCHR IS CHARGED WITH THE FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT of hazardousenvironmental factors, housing stressors, premises injuries, chemical injuries, adverse healtheffects by asking the Complainant to show and give him a letter stating that the Complainant waschemically sensitive.

Gregory Logan and the BALTIMORE CITY HEALTH DEPARTMENT had actual knowledge thatchemical injuries occurred and that the Complainant was under-the-care of physicians.

It was improper, incompetent, and unethical for Gregory Logan, MCHR staff investigator to ask anytenant(including Pete Lewis) to verify how the paint fumes affected the Complainant and for theCommission to have used a tenants testimony as a prerequisite to determine the legitimacy of theComplainants health condition and adverse health reactions.

It is charged that the Commission staff knowingly biased the housing discrimination complaintinvestigation after interviewing Pete Lewis, an Alcott Place tenant and by wrongfully drawing theconclusions and assumptions that if another tenant was not negatively impacted by the fumes,then the Complainants adverse health reactions and chemical injuries from hazardous buildingconditions, cries of inadequate ventilation, and complaints that no precautions were exercised bymanagement, had to have been illegitimate and/or unfounded.

Finding of No Probable CauseIt i th f b d t i d th t th i


60/62

It is therefore been determined that there is noprobable cause to believe that discrimination has

occurred in this matter.Under the Commissions Rules of Procedures,COMAR 14.03.01.06C, the Complainant may applyfor reconsideration of the no probable cause

finding within 15 days upon which these findingswere mailed. The applications shall be inwriting...and directed to, Mr. J. Neil Bell, DeputyDirector, Maryland Human Relations Commission,6 Saint Paul Street-9th Floor, Baltimore, Maryland21202-1631.

Signed: Gregory Logan-MCHR Investigator Charles Blue MCHR Unit Supervisor

*The written finding was issued on the 11th day of March, 2004.


61/62

Rodney D. Camphor, Program Compliance BranchManager of Baltimore, Marylands HUD Office ofFair Housing and Equal Opportunity had this tosay:

We have not not received anyprior concerns about this housingdevelopment!

We have limited staff therefore we cannot visitall of the housing complexes in Maryland.

The Baltimore HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal OpportunityProgram Center, The Housing Authority of Baltimore City Office ofFair Housing Equal Opportunity, and The Housing Choice VoucherP i d ibiliti t t d t th i ffi t


62/62

Program ignored responsibilities entrusted to their office toensure that housing provided for sale or rental, designed,

constructed, maintained, or rehabilitated in the State of Marylandwas accessible to, and usable by all persons with disabilities.

The Baltimore HUD Office of Fair Housing and Equal OpportunityProgram Center, The Housing Authority of Baltimore City Office ofFair Housing Equal Opportunity, and The Housing Choice VoucherProgram ignored responsibilities to enforce compliance withHousing Quality Standards and to provide safe, decent, andhealthy housing as a means to prevent injury, disease, and/orpremature death, or any other negative impact such poor indoorair quality and indoor air pollution on any individuals(elderly,

disabled, and/or poor) physical health and emotional well-being.

The individuals from the Housing Authority of BaltimoreCity(HABC), Section 8 Programs failed to ensure that the propertywas maintained in accordance with state and federal standards.

Mchr and Bchd Copy)

Documents

Transcript of Mchr and Bchd Copy)