Wednesday, August 25, 2010

Silvia Peters Uniform Complaint against Vista Unified School District

Why is Vista Unified School District (VUSD) paying lawyers to appeal a $6,000 judgment?

See full document of complaint.

Uniform Complaint against Vista Unified School District
by Silvia Peters
August 24, 2010 Policy No. 3530

...In the policy VUSD states, "the Board of Trustees strongly supports a risk management program that protects District resources and promotes safety of students, staff and public."

VUSD further pledges that they are going to, "keep its liability at a minimum and its insurance premiums as low as possible while maintaining adequate protection.

...VUSD has the highest premiums in San Diego County and Riverside along with Poway Unified School District. While other school districts pay .19 cents per student DA in premiums. Both VUSD and PUSD pay over .29 cents DA per student in premiums per Joint Power of Authority "JPA."

The more lawsuits and violations the higher the insurance premiums.

What this means is that VUSD spends almost the entire budget in employee salaries and insurance companies [JPA's]! A perfect example of legal advice which VUSD has had for decades is Thursday August 19, 2010 closed session item 37-2009-00057592. VUSD voted to appeal this case.

The case is a simple $ 6, 412.07 dollars which Superior Court Judge Nugent entered judgment against VUSD in favor of California School Employees Association and its Vista Chapter 389. Instead of paying the $6,412.07 Court Judgment.

[Maura Larkins note: The case concerns a bus driver who was injured in a minor accident. Why not just pay the victim? The judge did not even order the district to pay attorney fees.]

VUSD on advice from attorney of record ...advised VUSD to appeal the judgment to the California Fourth Appellate.[10] Churning and churning the billable hours and higher insurance premiums in the Southern Golden State.[11]...

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The VUSD appears to be the most un-knowledgeable of any district in matters of law. They just blindly follow the barons of billable hours right down the litigation path rather than hire attorneys only on retainer to advise them if a particular path is wise or not.

This case is a perfect example of it not being their money but the tax payers. has anyone looked into any possible connection between the legal firm and board members?