The publication’s Nature Index connects scholarly papers from research institutions with the patents that cite them..
@Chris Brewster
If you tell me that you didn't intend to blame Sellars for keeping Collins employed, I believe you.
But let me explain how a logical reader would read your statements (although your final clause might not have accurately reflected what you wanted to say).
To start with, you mentioned Sellars by name, saying, "...Charles Sellers says the board offered to work out an "amicable solution" for his departure from the district and the repayment of the funds that he misappropriated."
You thus pointed out Charles Sellars as the one board member who took public responsibility for the effort to settle with Collins. We can assume that a majority of the board supported this effort, but we don't know who the other individuals were.
You then made clear that this effort by Charles Sellars and these other unknown individuals demonstrated a lack of judgment: "What responsible public entity endeavors to work out an amicable solution with someone who has misappropriated over $300k? This suggests to me a serious lack of judgment..."
You then added another accusation against Sellars and the unknown individuals, "This suggests to me a serious lack of judgment, which is probably already evident in that they kept this individual employed for so long."
"They" obviously refers to Sellars and the unknown individuals.
I believe you if you didn't mean to implicate Sellars in keeping Collins employed so long. If you didn't mean to implicate him, I'd be interested to know that.
Maura Larkins @Chris Brewster
Regarding your point that settlement is bad because the DA might want to get a judgment for ALL damages, I agree with your sentiment that the money should be paid back in full if Collins has the ability to pay.
But the man seems to be broke. In other words, he is judgment-proof.
You can't get blood from a stone. If he had turned over what he still had at the time of the settlement offer in return for the district waiving the rest of his debt, the students would be ahead.
I doubt Collins will ever pay a cent to Poway Unified.
Charles Sellers
Charles Sellers
If you tell me that you didn't intend to blame Sellars for keeping Collins employed, I believe you.
But let me explain how a logical reader would read your statements (although your final clause might not have accurately reflected what you wanted to say).
To start with, you mentioned Sellars by name, saying, "...Charles Sellers says the board offered to work out an "amicable solution" for his departure from the district and the repayment of the funds that he misappropriated."
You thus pointed out Charles Sellars as the one board member who took public responsibility for the effort to settle with Collins. We can assume that a majority of the board supported this effort, but we don't know who the other individuals were.
You then made clear that this effort by Charles Sellars and these other unknown individuals demonstrated a lack of judgment: "What responsible public entity endeavors to work out an amicable solution with someone who has misappropriated over $300k? This suggests to me a serious lack of judgment..."
You then added another accusation against Sellars and the unknown individuals, "This suggests to me a serious lack of judgment, which is probably already evident in that they kept this individual employed for so long."
"They" obviously refers to Sellars and the unknown individuals.
I believe you if you didn't mean to implicate Sellars in keeping Collins employed so long. If you didn't mean to implicate him, I'd be interested to know that.
Regarding your point that settlement is bad because the DA might want to get a judgment for ALL damages, I agree with your sentiment that the money should be paid back in full if Collins has the ability to pay.
But the man seems to be broke. In other words, he is judgment-proof.
You can't get blood from a stone. If he had turned over what he still had at the time of the settlement offer in return for the district waiving the rest of his debt, the students would be ahead.
I doubt Collins will ever pay a cent to Poway Unified.
@Maura Larkins @Chris Brewster
Ms. Larkins, thank you for your support it is much appreciated. Mr.
Brewster, what I meant by "amicable" was "mutually agreed". While I
cannot divulge the content of these negotiations, rest assured that our
goal as a Board was always to minimize any damage caused to the
District. Sometimes that involves not throwing good money after bad.
While we strongly believe that Dr. Collins owes PUSD all these monies,
if not more, there is no guarantee that a court will agree with us.
Even if it does, there is no guarantee that we will ever collect in full
from Dr. Collins. We simply attempted a settlement that would have
yielded the most dollars in the least time. However, Dr. Collins was
simply not amenable to negotiation, much less compromise. Perhaps if he
had shown remorse for his actions, paid back what he could, resigned
instead of having to be fired, settled instead of forcing us to sue him,
he might not be facing jail and the loss of his pension, even though
you (and many others) feel that is what he deserves. I can't speak for
the authorities. We simply followed the law and turned over our
findings. The decisions to criminally prosecute and strip him of his
credentials were made by others. I'm just saying that had he agreed to
do what was best for Poway Unified, he may also have been doing what was
best for himself. While he had numerous opportunities to do just that,
he always chose not to and only he can say why. Perhaps he will, in
court. - - Charles Sellers, PUSD Trustee.
@Chris Brewster
When we fired Dr. Collins for cause in July of 2016, we immediately
turned over the results of our forensic audit to both the District
Attorney and the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, as required by
law. I can only assume that appeals with the CTC and negotiations with
the DA are what took up the past year. As they say, the wheels of
justice turn slowly.