MiraCosta College trustees and lawyers lose while taxpayers win in California Supreme Court

Gloria Carranza is the only MiraCosta trustee who smells good right now. She alone objected to giving taxpayer dollars to prolong the saga of the $1.6 million late-night settlement that MiraCosta trustees were pressured into signing. The California Supreme Court has made clear that the money was a waste: it refused to hear the case.

Why did the majority trustees want Victoria Richart to receive all that money? Will we ever know? Perhaps we will. If Richart sues, we might find out what happened behind closed doors as Richart plotted the Palmgate scandal.

I'm also wondering if perhaps Judge Moon isn't such a terrific mediator; he didn't do his clients a favor when he mediated an illegal deal for MiraCosta College.


See all MiraCosta College posts.


State Supreme Court won't hear MiraCosta appeal
Page says Richart must return most of payout
By PAUL SISSON
March 24, 2010

The California Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to take on MiraCosta College's challenge of an appeals court decision that invalidated its $1.6 million settlement with former college president Victoria Munoz Richart.

By declining to review the case, the court handed a victory to Carlsbad activist Leon Page, who sued MiraCosta in 2007, arguing the massive payout to Richart was an illegal gift of public funds.

MiraCosta attorney Jack Sleeth and Richart attorney Randy Winet declined to comment on the court's action Wednesday, saying they hadn't had time to review the decision and talk with their clients.

[Maura Larkins comment: Did the North County Times ask Daniel Shinoff for a comment? Apparently not. The NCT is helping Daniel Shinoff keep a low profile by erasing at least one story completely, and keeping his name out of many new stories.]

Page could not immediately be reached for comment, but said in an e-mail announcing the decision that the Supreme Court's denial is affirmation that the settlement must be undone by the Superior Court.

He said he will ask the court to order Richart to "pay back to the college everything she received in excess of 18 months of salary and health insurance --- everything in excess of the legal limit.

"We'll also ask the judge to order her to reimburse the district for the value of the legal representation provided to her at the district's expense," Page said in the email.

MiraCosta has been defending the controversial deal since it was announced in June 2007. Weeks later, Page filed his lawsuit.

A trial court sided with Richart, but Page appealed. In November, the state's Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with him and ordered the lower court to reverse its ruling.

MiraCosta then appealed the matter to the state Supreme Court.

Richart departed in 2007 after a tumultuous two-year saga that started with her investigation of illegal sales from the college's horticulture department. Along the way, she ran afoul of MiraCosta's faculty senate, which vocally objected to her investigative methods...




OCEANSIDE: Questions linger over MiraCosta's 1.6M Richart buyout
By PAUL SISSON March 28, 2010


MiraCosta College's attorney said last week that the college must now dissolve the $1.6 million settlement it granted its former president and superintendent in 2007, but a Carlsbad activist who fought the deal said parts of the agreement should stand ---- just not the roughly $1.3 million the college overpaid in the buyout.

Leon Page, the activist who sued MiraCosta over the deal, said Friday that the college fulfilled it's agreement with its former president Victoria Munoz Richart, even if an appeals court decided later that parts of the settlement were illegal. The college appealed that ruling to the state Supreme Court, which this week declined to review the matter.

"The college did everything it said it would," Page said, adding that the settlement only called for the college to pay Richart the agreed-upon sum ---- it didn't say she had the right to keep the money.

The point is important because in December, a Richart attorney named Robert Ottilie said he believed the college would have to take back Richart's resignation if she were forced to give up her settlement.

"That would return everyone to where they were," Ottilie said at the time. He said he believed that Richart's four-year contract would run at least through 2011, and perhaps even longer, meaning the college could owe Richart hundreds of thousands of dollars in back pay.

Richart attorney Randy Winet could not be reached for comment Friday...

[Maura Larkins comment; Winet was busy in court on Friday helping Diane Crosier with her bizarre lawsuit involving Dan Puplava and the Fringe Benefits Consortium.]

MiraCosta trustees make bizarre decision to appeal to California Supreme Court to keep $1.6 million Victoria Richart settlement

Congratulations to the courageous board members George McNeil and Gloria Carranza for trying to protect both taxpayer dollars and the integrity of MiraCosta College in the wake of the
Victoria Richart scandal.

But what are the majority trustees thinking? Are they as anxious to keep tax money flowing to lawyers as they are to let Victoria Richart keep $1.6 million settlement that the Court of Appeal has ruled illegal? I'm particularly disappointed in Jacqueline Simon, who seemed for a while to care about the public good as opposed to the back room dealers. I can't help but wonder if someone intimidated her into submission.

The article below fails to tell us how much more the taxpayers will have to pay to San Diego County Office of Education--Joint Powers Authority in increased premiums due to all this. And of course, the SDCOE-JPA is funded with tax dollars, so the taxpayers pay the lawyers even when MiraCosta College doesn't.


OCEANSIDE: MiraCosta wants state's high court to review Richart decision
By PAUL SISSON
January 20, 2010

MiraCosta College trustees will ask the California Supreme Court to overturn a recent appellate court ruling that invalidates a roughly $1.6 million settlement between the board and its former superintendent and president.

Trustees voted 4-2 in a closed-session meeting Tuesday to appeal the ruling to the state's highest court, with board member William Fischer absent and trustees George McNeil and Gloria Carranza opposing the move.

The decision to appeal marks the latest chapter in a long-running legal battle over the payout that began in August 2007, when Carlsbad attorney Leon Page sued MiraCosta, alleging the settlement was an illegal gift of public funds.

A Superior Court judge initially ruled against Page, but the attorney had better success with the 4th District Court of Appeal. In a Nov. 23 ruling, that court found the settlement between the college and former president Victoria Munoz Richart was void because it exceeded the value of 18 months' salary and benefits ---- the maximum the state allows in contract buy-outs for executives of local agencies.

MiraCosta trustees and lawyers have said since then they fear Richart's legal claims against the college would be worth far more than $1.6 million if they were ever taken to civil court.

In a statement released Wednesday about the high-court appeal, board chairman Gregory Post said other local agencies are also concerned about the precedent the appellate court ruling would set, should it stand.

"The board's interest in protecting the district from further litigation and the additional expense that could result from the Appellate Court ruling continues to remain a top priority," Post's statement read.

The statement says an insurance policy with the San Diego Schools Joint Powers Authority will cover the cost of the appeal. MiraCosta officials said attorney Daniel Shinoff and his law firm, Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz, will continue to handle the case.

The request for appeal is expected to be filed Jan. 27.

Reached Wednesday morning, Page said he was "offended" by the decision to fight the appellate decision and doesn't understand why the college would continue to fight the notion that it should regain the settlement cash.

"They could have just accepted the appellate court's decision and used it as an opportunity to negotiate a legally viable settlement agreement with Richart," Page said. "Instead, they're fighting for the right to give away the public's money, and they're using tax dollars to pay the lawyers to continue that fight."

McNeil, one of the MiraCosta trustees who opposed filing the appeal, said Wednesday that he "felt the appellate court decision was worth supporting," but understands the position of his colleagues...

Leon Page lawsuit dismissed, Page will appeal

Leon Page and MiraCosta taxpayers v. Victoria Richart and Daniel Shinoff

Leon Page filed a lawsuit regarding the $1.6 million sweetheart deal given by MiraCosta College to former President Victoria Munoz Richart.

North County Times
By PAUL SISSON
August 9, 2008

"...[Leon] Page, an Oceanside resident and deputy counsel for the county of Orange...said the lawsuit is about defending the right of elected officials to speak on matters of public concern and reminding attorneys for public agencies who they really represent ---- the taxpayers...

"Page has alleged that MiraCosta's settlement with Richart was an inappropriate gift of public funds because state law limits contract buyouts to no more than 18 months of salary and health benefits.

"Richart's settlement included 18 months of salary and benefits; a $650,000 payment for unspecified damages; health care for her husband until age 75; payment of her $3,100 expense account for 18 months; and more than $43,000 in attorney's fees.

"News of the deal created something of an uproar among faculty and observers at the community college, where Richart's leadership had been a source of controversy and debate..."

Victoria Richart's unusual "claim"

Attorney Bob Ottilie knows very well how to file a tort claim.

The question at MiraCosta College seems to be: why was Victoria Richart's $1.6 million agreement with the college conducted as a friendly operation between Richart's lawyer Bob Ottilie and the school's lawyer?

It was clearly an inside job.

Even now that Richart has a new lawyer, it turns out that he is Randy Winet, who is just as much a part of the San Diego County Office of Education-Joint Powers Authority as Daniel Shinoff, the college's lawyer.

Here's what the San Diego Union Tribune says about Richart's characterization of the deal during her deposition by attorney Leon Page:


Ex-MiraCosta president puts blame on 3 trustees
By Lola Sherman
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

March 1, 2008
"...Richart never filed a formal action against the college. But in the deposition, she repeatedly cited an Aug. 15, 2007, letter to college trustees from her attorney, Robert Ottilie of San Diego, as constituting a claim..."

http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20080301-9999-1mc1richart.html

Leon Page worked a miracle; Diane Crosier responded to my public records request

Dear Ms. Larkins:

You will be receiving a response to your PRA request via US Postal service as well as this e mail response.

At this time some documents will need to be pulled from our storage facility. As such we are requesting a 10 extension to respond to your request.

Thank you for your understanding in this matter.

Diane M. Crosier, Esq.
Executive Director
San Diego and Imperial County Schools
Risk Management JPA and
Fringe Benefits Consortium

2 Public Records Requests for SDCOE-JPA's Diane Crosier

For years I've been trying to get Diane Crosier at SDCOE-JPA to release information about how much Stutz law firm was paid for my case.

I was inspired by attorney and MiraCosta College hero Leon Page to try again. Page had to go to court before Crosier agreed to turn over documents. I'll probably have to go to court, too, but it will be easy because all I have to do is to go down to the courthouse and look at the Page case file and see how he did it, and then do the same thing.

I apologize to Leon Page for using his words, but Crosier and her attorneys keep telling me that I've used the wrong words.

February 24, 2008

Ms. Diane Crosier
Executive Director
Risk Management Joint Powers Authority
San Diego County Office of Education
6401 Linda Vista Road
San Diego, CA 92111

Re: Public Records Request

Dear Ms. Crosier:

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act, Government Code § 6250, et seq., please provide me with a copy of the following public records:

1. The claims procedures manual followed by the San Diego County Office of Education Risk Management Joint Powers Authority when processing claims.

2. Any and all documents, including, but not limited to, invoices, account statements, receipts, and billings records, relating to all legal work performed by the law firm Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz on behalf of Chula Vista Elementary School District and its Board of Trustees, between January 1, 2002 and January 1, 2005, relating to tort claims and/or lawsuits filed by Maura Larkins.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,
Maura Larkins

Richart must testify!

Philip K. Ireland of The North County Times wrote yesterday:

"Former MiraCosta College President Victoria Munoz Richart must testify under oath about her $1.6 million settlement agreement reached last summer in a closed-door meeting with college trustees, a Superior Court judge has ruled....

"In seeking the settlement, an attorney for Richart argued that her reputation was damaged when three trustees publically criticized her handling of an investigation into the illegal sale of palm trees from the campus's horticulture department.

"Page's attorney said the college should have challenged that notion.

"'When Richart made her claim, (college attorneys) should have investigated and defended (the college against) that claim in a zealous way,' Cozad said.

"'As we are doing now, they should have taken her deposition asking, "What did we do wrong? How were you damaged?" and "How did you calculate those damages?"'"



http://nctimes.com/articles/2008/02/08/news/top_stories/20_39_052_7_08.txt

MiraCosta trustee Gloria Carranza skewers cover-up at MiraCosta College

"These (legal) contracts can be avoided if we just tell the truth...The public perception is that we have all these attorneys to get in the way of the truth."
--Gloria Carranza, MiraCosta College Trustee, at yesterday's board meeting

North County Times staff writer Philip K. Ireland writes:

Click HERE for original article.

"...The college is paying three law firms to fight the [Leon Page] suit and deal with the district attorney investigation.

"One firm, McKenna, Long and Aldridge, has been providing documents and information requested by Page and by the district attorney's office. The college has spent more than $75,000 to provide documents to the district attorney and to Page, said Jim Austin, the college's vice president of business and administrative services. The board on Tuesday approved a new limit of $125,000.

"Law firm Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz has been representing the college for years. Until now, a consortium of county school districts called the Joint Powers Authority had been paying the firm's fees in connection with the Page lawsuit. The authority has now reached its $10,000 limit, and the college must begin paying the bills. Trustees approved up to $25,000 to fight Page's lawsuit.

"Trustees also approved a third allocation of no more than $25,000 to pay the law firm Winet, Patrick and Weaver. When Richart threatened to sue the college late last spring, the Joint Powers Authority hired attorney Randy Winet to represent her interests against the district..."

MiraCosta board pays more money to hide the truth about the $3 million palmgate investigation

Judge Moon and Daniel Shinoff thought they had closed the Victoria Richart case when they handed over the last $1.6 million of a total of over $3 million taxpayer dollars spent on the Richart/Shinoff investigation of $305 of stolen palm trees.

But attorney Leon Page sued to find out if public money was given away improperly. So why doesn't the board majority simply reveal the truth about the deal? You don't need to pay a lawyer to do that. Oh, right. Because the deal WAS made improperly. The majority that was in cahoots with Richart doesn't want the public to know that they paid her $1.6 million to keep quiet about the board's role in the $1.5 million Richart/Shinoff palm tree investigation.

I think it's a good idea to find out what went wrong. I'm glad Leon Page sued. It's worth a few more public dollars to discover HOW $3 million was misspent by a public entity. Meanwhile, the board majority should either agree to testify in the Leon Page case, or they should resign--or both. It's likely that they will have to resign if and when the truth comes out.

A concerned citizen forwarded this email to me:

From: Leon Page
Date: Jan 31, 2008

Friends,

Perhaps some of you have watched the movie "Fight Club" starring Brad Pitt and Edward Norton. I love this movie.

There's a scene in the movie where the narrator, played by Norton, fakes a fist-fight with his boss. Norton rolls around on the floor of his supervisor's office, breaking glass tables, knocking down bookcases, kicking over chairs -- all on his own -- fighting with himself, while his boss stands there, in stunned bewilderment.

When co-workers come into the office to find out the source of the commotion, Norton's character is curled up on the floor, in front of the bewildered supervisor, pleading that the supervisor not hit him "anymore."

Of course, the whole scene was faked; the supervisor hadn't done anything at all. He was as completely mystified and was as completely innocent as the co-workers who burst in on them.

Norton's character subsequently threatens some sort of claim against the employer, and, in the next scene of the movie, we see Norton leaving his job with a smile on his face, a spring in his step, and with a shopping cart filled with various office supplies -- a computer, telephone, monitor, keyboard, etc.

Referencing the payout he gets from the company (undoubtedly in exchange for his promise not to sue on the phony claim), Norton's character says: "Telephone, computer, fax machine, 52 weekly paychecks, and 48 airline flight coupons....WE
NOW HAD CORPORATE SPONSORSHIP..."

The idea was that Norton, through an entirely phony claim, had frightened his employer into providing him with "corporate sponsorship" that would underwrite his subsequent activities.

That line -- "We now had corporate sponsorship" came to mind when I reviewed next week's agenda for the MiraCosta Board of Trustees.

Apparently, next Tuesday, the Board of Trustees will be taking action on a number of items relating to my lawsuit against the College.

In addition to spending more money on WHITE COLLAR CRIMINAL DEFENSE COUNSEL -- see action item no. 1 -- the College administration will also be voting on a proposal to require you, me, and the rest of the taxpayers to PAY FOR RICHART'S LEGAL DEFENSE IN MY TAXPAYER LAWSUIT.

Of course, Richart and the College were (and still are) adverse parties. Richart -- they tell us -- allegedly threatened to sue the College for "millions of dollars," apparently because of those unspecified "hostile comments" in local press reports.

Let's take another step back: I am now suing Richart on a single claim of unjust enrichment. That's it. If I win -- if I prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Richart was, in fact, "unjustly enriched" by the illegal settlement agreement because she, in fact, had no valid claims against the college to begin with --she'll have to return as much as $1.3 million to the College in restitution for her "ill-gotten gains."

So now, at next Tuesday's meeting, the College
> administration will be recommending that the
> Board of Trustees (meaning: the public) cover
> Richart's future legal bills in my lawsuit
> against her. In other words, the College
> administration wants us -- the public -- to
> underwrite Richart's legal defense so that she
> can then fight to keep the $1.6 million goodie
> bag that she took from the public as her parting
> gift.
>
> (Of course, the clause in the settlement
> agreement that calls for this particular
> indemnification benefit was not permitted under
> the terms of Richart's 2006 Employment Agreement.
> Nor is it allowed under Gov. Code Sections
> 53260, 53261. As such, it would be in my view
> yet another illegal gift of the public's money.)
>
> Anyway, the College administration apparently
> thinks that the College should now help Richart
> prove that she was, in fact, harmed by the
> College.
>
> "We've now got corporate sponsorship!!!"
>
> Only it's not some corporation paying the legal
> bills. It's sponsorship by you, me, and the rest
> of the taxpaying public so that Dr. Richart can
> battle in court to retain her $1.6 million bag of
> taxpayer booty...


ONE FINAL POINT: A reminder. Our hearing on our Motion to Compel Richart's deposition will be held tomorrow afternoon at 1:30 p.m. in Judge Nugent's courtroom at the Vista Courthouse. You have a First Amendment right to attend, should you so choose.

Congratulations to Leon Page!

Judge Nugent says Judge Moon's private opinion will not prevent Leon Page's lawsuit from going forward.

Click here for the judge's decision.

MiraCosta/Richart attorneys Jack Sleeth and Randy Winet do not yet have the approval of the court for the $1.6 million deal to pay Victoria Munoz Richart to leave MiraCosta College and be silent about Daniel Shinoff's $1.5 million investigation which seems to have included extortion against Julie Hatoff. But perhaps the court will grant it in a summary judgment, with Stutz law firm keeping important documents and witnesses under wraps.

If this case goes to trial, I'll be really impressed with the justice system.