Judge revokes state oversight of 6 Aspire charter schools
July 9, 2012
Corey G. Johnson
California Watch
A superior court judge has invalidated the State Board of Education's oversight of one of the state's biggest charter school companies, giving six schools until June 2013 to gain approval from local school districts or be forced to close.
Alameda County Superior Court Judge Jo-Lynne Lee found that the board improperly awarded Aspire Public Schools rights to bypass local district oversight and open schools anywhere in California, without evaluating whether the company met the state's requirements.
Lee's ruling represents a victory for the California Teachers Association, California School Boards Association and Association of California School Administrators, which sued the education board in 2007.v
State law says charters can be allowed to open schools anywhere in California if they can prove their services are a "statewide benefit" that cannot be provided by a charter school overseen by a local district. But in their lawsuit, the school groups claimed the state education board awarded Aspire operating rights without assessing whether a benefit existed.
In 2010, an appeals court agreed and sent the case back to Alameda County for a final ruling. Lee published her 29-page order [PDF] last month. The state education board also must revamp its rules on state charters, according to the ruling.
Based in Oakland, Aspire is one of the most prominent charter school management organizations in the nation and serves nearly 12,000 students at 34 schools in California.
Six Aspire campuses with about 1,900 students were overseen by the state education board and now will have to reapply to local school officials. They are Aspire Alexander Twilight College Preparatory Academy and Aspire Alexander Twilight Secondary Academy in Sacramento, Aspire APEX Academy and Aspire Port City Academy in Stockton, and Aspire Junior Collegiate Academy and Aspire Titan Academy in Huntington Park.
Under the ruling, the schools have until June 24, 2013, to gain reapproval or close.
Aspire CEO James Willcox said he is confident Aspire's applications will be approved by local school boards. Meanwhile, Willcox said the organization might decide to appeal the judge's decision.
"We are committed to serving all of our students and families who count on Aspire and want to calm any uncertainty that this decision may cause," Willcox said. "As we discussed on our recent conference call, we have applied for charters or renewals nearly 60 times since our founding, with positive results in all cases. We are hopeful that the three school districts involved will recognize the success we have had for students from their communities."
In a statement, Karen Stapf-Walters, interim executive director of the school administrators association, said the organization was satisfied with the court's decision.
“We’re pleased by the judge’s decision to ensure the State Board adopts the required procedural rules so only those charters that truly meet the test of statewide benefit status are considered in the future,” Stapf-Walters said. "It is important that all public schools and students are treated equitably.”
The court ruling also has implications on Wall Street. Last month, Fitch Ratings downgraded and placed Aspire's bonds on "negative outlook" status, concluding that the organization hadn't fully shared the implications of the lawsuit with investors. Under statewide operating status, Aspire was able to successfully acquire $93.3 million in bond sales.
The assessment from the rating agency could scare off potential Aspire bond investors and result in higher interest rates for the company.
The organization is making strides nevertheless – outside of California. Six states have recruited Aspire to turn around underperforming schools, Willcox told Education Week recently. The Tennessee Achievement School District, a state entity, hired Aspire last month to take over schools in Memphis.
Court of Appeal, First District, California.
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION
CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION et al., Petitioners and Appellants, v. STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION, Respondent; Aspire Public Schools, Inc., Real Party in Interest and Respondent.
No. A122485.
-- July 26, 2010
Deborah B. Caplan, N. Eugene Hill, Richard C. Miadich, Olson, Hagel & Fishburn, LLP, for Appellants, California School Boards Association, Association of California School Administrators, Stockton Unified School District.
Joseph R. Colton, Priscilla Winslow, California Teachers' Association, for Appellants, California Teachers' Association.
Edmund G. Brown, Jr., California Attorney General, Susan M. Carson, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Benjamin J. Riley, Deputy Attorney General, for Respondents, California State Board of Education.
Paul C. Minney, Andrew G. Minney, Middleton, Young & Minney, LLP, for Respondents, Aspire Public Schools, Inc.
Showing posts with label CSBA. Show all posts
Showing posts with label CSBA. Show all posts
Monday, September 30, 2013
Saturday, August 31, 2013
How Fagen Friedman Fulfrost managed to lose its contract with Carlsbad Unified: both Democrats and Republicans are disgusted
UPDATE: FAGEN FRIEDMAN FULFROST LOSES CONTRACT WITH CARLSBAD UNIFIED DUE TO ETHICAL QUESTIONS
On September 11, 2013 the Carlsbad Unified School District canceled its contract for legal services from Fagen, Friendman and Fulfrost. I am amazed that there were negative repercussions for unethical behavior by school attorneys (see original post below). I thought school attorneys could act with impunity in every case.
Let's hope that the law firm that gets the work will understand that the Association of School Boards and Council of School Attorneys won't always be able to protect them, and that the public is starting to get wise to what is going on behind the scenes.
ORIGINAL POST: Whose side am I on? Fagen Friedman Fulfrost or Carlsbad Unified School District candidate Sage Naumann? Neither!
See all posts about Kelli Moors and Fagen Friedman Fulfrost.
Sage Naumann, 18, listens to CUSD Board member Kelli Moors condemn his negative campaign tactics at the Aug. 14 meeting. Naumann has been critical of current board members since he began his campaign in January 2013 for election to the CUSD Board...
Photo by Rachel Stine CUSD to appoint new board member Coast News Aug 15, 2013
[Irony alert: Kelli Moors voted for a school district contract with Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost law firm, then 12 days later went to work for the firm. She apparently wants citizens to leave the negative tactics to the lawyers. Efforts to silence complaints by the public have also been going on at Sweetwater Union High School District, where lawyer Dan Shinoff lectured members of the public on civility and wrote a threatening letter to a member of the bond committee.]
Fagen Friedman Fulfrost (FFF) law firm founder Howard Fulfrost,
member of the School Attorney Advisory Board
Mr. Fulfrost, partner in Carlsbad Unified's law firm Fagen Friedman Fulfrost, is famously loyal to school officials. So loyal, in fact, that a federal judge has accused his former firm of lying and obstruction. This is a big deal to me (Maura Larkins), and I've provided some information about FFF below that has not been mentioned by the media during the current brouhaha--though it should have been.
Nevertheless, I believe that some things are more urgent than the sisyphean task of finding an ethical firm of school attorneys for Carlsbad Unified.
Although I am similar to Sage Naumann in that I demand accountability from school board members, right now I'd like to set aside the issue of corruption in schools and talk about something more important: teaching and learning!
Sage Naumann is right that school districts are corrupt.
But so is almost every other institution in the city, the state, and the world. Most human beings are greedy and shortsighted, and they abuse power when they get it. And it is true that corruption tends to lower the average quality of teachers and administrators since personnel decisions are so deeply influenced by politics. But good teachers and good ideas are struggling to be heard, and we need to listen. We can't stop everything to try to eliminate a problem that has existed as long as human beings have existed.
Mr. Naumann is wrong on the most important current issue: implementing Common Core standards in classrooms.
Once in a while people actually work for the common good, and Common Core is the product of one such effort. The designers worked hard because they want students to understand their world and know how to navigate it.
Our education system is a failure, and it's not just the fault of kids and families. Most teachers are mediocre, and many are downright bad. Few of them have received adequate training, not to mention a real education. Common Core is a system that helps teachers do a better job.
The main idea of Common Core is that instead of rapidly introducing a long series of facts, American teachers will imitate successful schools in successful countries, and deeply explore a smaller number of ideas. Quick learners can learn how to fully analyze information, and slower learners will have a chance to really learn something, instead of being lost most of the time.
And big money is being offered to help teachers do this.
I oppose Sage Naumann for one reason: he opposes Common Core. But he's right about all that other stuff.
CARLSBAD UNIFIED TRIES TO DEFEND ITSELF, BUT SHOOTS ITSELF IN THE FOOT
Carlsbad Unified claims that it hired Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost immediately after the law firm was formed (by Howard Fulfrost and other lawyers who were sanctioned by a federal judge for lying in the Moser case when working for Lozano Smith). Soon after that ruling, Lozano Smith shut down its special education section. Basically, FFF is Lozano Smith under a new name. And Carlsbad Unified is using this to defend themselves? Just how smart are these people?
CUSD Board President Elisa Williamson
ELAINE YAMA WORKED FOR HOWARD FULFROST AT LOZANO SMITH
Attorney Elaine Yama, sanctioned along with Howard Fulfrost for lying and obstruction when they were at Lozano Smith
Article about Moser v. Bret Harte High School District on the Parent Advocates website:
CSBA AND ELAINE YAMA AND ELISA WILLIAMSON AND KELLI MOORS
So, whom do you think the California School Boards Association (CSBA) chose for its legal team? You guessed it--Elaine Yama.
And who trained Board President Elisa Williamson AND trustee Kelli Moors? Right again--CSBA. It gave them each a "Masters in Governance".
So who actually runs the district--the lawyers or the officials? It's hard to unscramble the egg, isn't it? But here's a clue: school board members come and go, but the lawyers remain the same.
The thing I can't understand is why Carlsbad Unified and Elisa Williamson thought nobody was going to find out the backstory about FFF after the Kelli Moors story broke. But there's another backstory I'd like to learn about. What did the board member who abstained from voting on the FFF contract know about FFF? Very likely she knew more than I know.
[Maura Larkins comment: I'll give credit to Ms. Yama for one thing. At least she doesn't claim to be trying to benefit students.]
Richard Riehl
Kelli Moors, who started the current scandal
when she voted on a contract for FFF,
then 12 days later left CUSD to work for FFF
THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION (link: CSBA),
FFF AND CARLSBAD UNIFIED ARE PRETTY MUCH INSEPARABLE:
See all posts about Kelli Moors and Fagen Friedman Fulfrost.
Here are some links to FFF cases:
Palo Alto, FFF and the Office of Civil Rights regarding bullying
FFF loses against teacher Pamela Lukkarila in Jurupa School District:
http://mauralarkins.com/files/LukkarilaMyPERB2283E.pdf
FFF loses against teacher Ermine Nelson in Jurupa School District
FFF wins against student and parent in Carlsbad School District:
http://www.californiaspecialedlaw.com/wiki/hearing-decisions/oah-2011120317
School investigation in Claremont USD a waste of taxpayer money?
HOWARD FULFROST, THE PARTNER AT FAGEN FRIEDMAN AND FULFROST WAS PAID HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CCUSD MONEY TO STOP STUDENTS FROM GETTING THERAPY
On September 11, 2013 the Carlsbad Unified School District canceled its contract for legal services from Fagen, Friendman and Fulfrost. I am amazed that there were negative repercussions for unethical behavior by school attorneys (see original post below). I thought school attorneys could act with impunity in every case.
Let's hope that the law firm that gets the work will understand that the Association of School Boards and Council of School Attorneys won't always be able to protect them, and that the public is starting to get wise to what is going on behind the scenes.
ORIGINAL POST: Whose side am I on? Fagen Friedman Fulfrost or Carlsbad Unified School District candidate Sage Naumann? Neither!
See all posts about Kelli Moors and Fagen Friedman Fulfrost.
Sage Naumann, 18, listens to CUSD Board member Kelli Moors condemn his negative campaign tactics at the Aug. 14 meeting. Naumann has been critical of current board members since he began his campaign in January 2013 for election to the CUSD Board...
Photo by Rachel Stine CUSD to appoint new board member Coast News Aug 15, 2013
[Irony alert: Kelli Moors voted for a school district contract with Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost law firm, then 12 days later went to work for the firm. She apparently wants citizens to leave the negative tactics to the lawyers. Efforts to silence complaints by the public have also been going on at Sweetwater Union High School District, where lawyer Dan Shinoff lectured members of the public on civility and wrote a threatening letter to a member of the bond committee.]
Fagen Friedman Fulfrost (FFF) law firm founder Howard Fulfrost,
member of the School Attorney Advisory Board
Mr. Fulfrost, partner in Carlsbad Unified's law firm Fagen Friedman Fulfrost, is famously loyal to school officials. So loyal, in fact, that a federal judge has accused his former firm of lying and obstruction. This is a big deal to me (Maura Larkins), and I've provided some information about FFF below that has not been mentioned by the media during the current brouhaha--though it should have been.
Nevertheless, I believe that some things are more urgent than the sisyphean task of finding an ethical firm of school attorneys for Carlsbad Unified.
Although I am similar to Sage Naumann in that I demand accountability from school board members, right now I'd like to set aside the issue of corruption in schools and talk about something more important: teaching and learning!
Sage Naumann is right that school districts are corrupt.
But so is almost every other institution in the city, the state, and the world. Most human beings are greedy and shortsighted, and they abuse power when they get it. And it is true that corruption tends to lower the average quality of teachers and administrators since personnel decisions are so deeply influenced by politics. But good teachers and good ideas are struggling to be heard, and we need to listen. We can't stop everything to try to eliminate a problem that has existed as long as human beings have existed.
Mr. Naumann is wrong on the most important current issue: implementing Common Core standards in classrooms.
Once in a while people actually work for the common good, and Common Core is the product of one such effort. The designers worked hard because they want students to understand their world and know how to navigate it.
Our education system is a failure, and it's not just the fault of kids and families. Most teachers are mediocre, and many are downright bad. Few of them have received adequate training, not to mention a real education. Common Core is a system that helps teachers do a better job.
The main idea of Common Core is that instead of rapidly introducing a long series of facts, American teachers will imitate successful schools in successful countries, and deeply explore a smaller number of ideas. Quick learners can learn how to fully analyze information, and slower learners will have a chance to really learn something, instead of being lost most of the time.
And big money is being offered to help teachers do this.
I oppose Sage Naumann for one reason: he opposes Common Core. But he's right about all that other stuff.
CARLSBAD UNIFIED TRIES TO DEFEND ITSELF, BUT SHOOTS ITSELF IN THE FOOT
Carlsbad Unified claims that it hired Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost immediately after the law firm was formed (by Howard Fulfrost and other lawyers who were sanctioned by a federal judge for lying in the Moser case when working for Lozano Smith). Soon after that ruling, Lozano Smith shut down its special education section. Basically, FFF is Lozano Smith under a new name. And Carlsbad Unified is using this to defend themselves? Just how smart are these people?
CUSD Board President Elisa Williamson
CUSD Board President Releases Statement on Law Firm Contract
Posted by Deanne Goodman (Editor)
August 26, 2013
Patch
The following is written by Elisa Williamson [and was also posted on the district's website]:
We are aware that concerns have been raised regarding the relationship between the school district and the law firm of Fagen, Friedman, & Fulfrost in light of that firm's hiring of Trustee Kelli Moors. Although the Board is not privy to the details surrounding the timing of Ms. Moors' discussions with the firm, in an abundance of caution, the contract that was voted on at our July 24 meeting will be brought back for a re-vote at our meeting on September 11. Re-voting on the contract renewal after Trustee Moor's departure will obviate any questions about the validity of the Board's ultimate vote under the law.
The school district has utilized the services of Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost since the firm was founded in 2006. The bulk of expenditures over the past seven years have been for legal services related to Special Education and Personnel matters. Prior to 2006, the partners in Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost provided legal assistance to CUSD while working for another firm.
[Maura Larkins comment: The firm that Ms. Williamson is referring to without naming it--for good reason!--is Lozano Smith. Carlsbad Unified chose to hire a law firm whose previous incarnation used lying and obstruction to deprive a special education student of an appropriate education. See following article.
Melanie Petersen of FFF
Ms. Williamson also says that "partners in Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost provided legal assistance to CUSD while working for another firm." I think she may be talking about Melanie Petersen.]
Despite the district's long-standing relationship with the firm, on August 7th I informed the Superintendent that, at the September 11, 2013 Board meeting, I will be recommending that the District limit its use of the services of Fagen, Friedman, & Fulfrost to only those areas that staff deems critical to the District.
Elisa Williamson, President
Board of Trustees
ELAINE YAMA WORKED FOR HOWARD FULFROST AT LOZANO SMITH
Attorney Elaine Yama, sanctioned along with Howard Fulfrost for lying and obstruction when they were at Lozano Smith
Article about Moser v. Bret Harte High School District on the Parent Advocates website:
California Federal Judge Sanctions Law Firm For Lying in a Special Education Case
Fresno law firm Lozano Smith billed the school district $500,000 for a case that could have been settled years ago for $8,000. How this makes sense is beyond us. Betsy Combier
Lying, obstruction cited in sanctions for law firm
Fresno's Lozano Smith, attorney ordered to train in ethics
By Erin Kennedy
The Fresno Bee
January 18, 2005
Fresno law firm Lozano Smith and its attorney Elaine Yama have been sanctioned by a federal judge for lying, misrepresenting law and facts, and intentionally dragging out a case involving a school district and a special education student.
U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger fined the law firm, Yama and Bret Harte Union High School District in Calaveras County $5,000 each. He also ordered Yama to take 20 hours of ethics courses and Lozano Smith to conduct ethics training for all of its attorneys and shareholders...[Click HERE to see the whole article.]
CSBA AND ELAINE YAMA AND ELISA WILLIAMSON AND KELLI MOORS
So, whom do you think the California School Boards Association (CSBA) chose for its legal team? You guessed it--Elaine Yama.
And who trained Board President Elisa Williamson AND trustee Kelli Moors? Right again--CSBA. It gave them each a "Masters in Governance".
So who actually runs the district--the lawyers or the officials? It's hard to unscramble the egg, isn't it? But here's a clue: school board members come and go, but the lawyers remain the same.
The thing I can't understand is why Carlsbad Unified and Elisa Williamson thought nobody was going to find out the backstory about FFF after the Kelli Moors story broke. But there's another backstory I'd like to learn about. What did the board member who abstained from voting on the FFF contract know about FFF? Very likely she knew more than I know.
Elaine Yama-Garcia joins CSBA legal team
April 30, 2012
CSBA’s new associate general counsel is Elaine Yama-Garcia, a mid-career professional with more than 15 years experience practicing law in the areas of education, special education, and labor and employment. Along with General Counsel Keith Bray, she will manage the Education Legal Alliance and respond to corporate legal issues for CSBA and its affiliates.
Yama-Garcia has practiced with the Law Offices of Bennett & Sharpe in the Central Valley, where she represented clients in the areas of labor and employment and special education law. Before that, she worked for the law firm of Lozano Smith in Fresno, specializing in education law, and until recently she managed her own law firm representing school districts and county offices of education.
She earned her law degree from the San Joaquin College of Law in Fresno.
Born and raised in Fresno, Yama-Garcia is married and has an adult married son, a step-son attending college in Costa Rica, and a teenage step-daughter.
“I am thrilled to be part of CSBA’s legal team,” said Yama-Garcia. “I look forward to the many exciting and positive changes we can make to benefit school districts and county offices of education in the state.”
[Maura Larkins comment: I'll give credit to Ms. Yama for one thing. At least she doesn't claim to be trying to benefit students.]
Richard Riehl
Politics Enters Carlsbad School Board Race
Richard J. Riehl
San Diego Reader
August 10, 2013
In the 2008 election I voted for 19-year-old Evan Delaney Rodgers for the Carlsbad City Council. I was sad to see her lose because of the youthful energy and positive attitude she would have brought to that gang of mostly good old boys.
After Kelli Moors announced her retirement from the Carlsbad School Board a few days ago, 18-year-old Sage Naumann declared he's more than eager to take her place. But unless you favor contentiousness and political grandstanding, Naumann has already revealed he wouldn't be the right choice.
Unlike Rodgers' city council campaign, filled with dozens of practical suggestions for improving the city's quality of life, Naumann has begun by smearing two highly respected school district retirees, former Superintendent John Roach and board member Moors. Here's what he posted on his Facebook page:
"Is it just me, or does it seem suspicious that both our Superintendent and a board member have jumped ship to take jobs with a law firm that taxpayers are actively paying for? That’s why I am emailing you. Should I assembly (sic) my team to begin looking deeper, or does this just seem like a harmless coincidence? I’m eager to hear your response."
He urged his followers to reply to "Our mailing address: Sage Naumann for Carlsbad School Board 2014, 2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-114, San Diego, CA 92108.
To paraphrase the young candidate, is it just me, or does it seem suspicious that a candidate for the Carlsbad School Board has a campaign headquarters address next door to Qualcomm Stadium? Email your response to fogcutter1@yahoo.com.
The law firm to which Naumann refers is Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost, which contracts with the school district for legal advice and hired Roach and Moors as consultants after they left their positions with the district. In the style of Congressman Darrell Issa's discredited witch hunt of the IRS, Naumann makes no accusations, since he has nary a shred of evidence of legal or ethical misbehavior. He simply rallies his supporters with the implication of corruption. Those of us of a certain age remember how effectively Joe McCarthy used that technique.
Naumann's outrage that "taxpayers are actively paying for" the services of a law firm reveals both his naiveté and misuse of an adverb for exaggeration. Would he be less offended if taxpayers paid the law firm inactively?
[Maura Larkins' comment: Defenders of CUSD might want to be careful when criticizing the critical-thinking and writing skills of a recent graduate of Carlsbad High School. It's sort of a two-edged sword. And the phrase "actively paying" sounds perfectly fine to me. It conjures an image of money flowing. I call that good writing.]
The word "irresponsible" comes to mind when characterizing Naumann's character attacks on Roach and Moors. The words "empty promises" best describes his "Back to Basics" campaign theme. In a breathtaking leap of logic, he promises in one paragraph to "do everything I can to question purchases, staff and faculty additions, and other funding that seems unnecessary," to stop the "reckless spending," and to "be a taxpayer's "watchdog." In the next he promises to "keep class sizes small, " "materials available" and "teachers stress-free and able to concentrate on their students, " while "no longer will we look to slashing department budgets to fill shortfalls."
Naumann ignores the district's most pressing challenge: putting in place a plan to implement the Common Core of expected learning outcomes. But we have a glimpse of what he feels about it.
In a Guest Commentary in the conservative blog San Diego Rostra, "Putting the Carlsbad School District Back on Track," Naumann assures a reader: "I have already pledged my support against CCSS, and I will continue my advocacy against it throughout my campaign and if I am elected."
At its July 24 meeting the school board learned CUSD will received approximately $2.1 million in state funds to implement the Common Core during 2013-2015. Judging from his vow to be the taxpayer's watchdog, it sounds as if Naumann will do what he can to turn down the funding. So much for his promise to "Keep cuts away from the classroom."
Naumann's platform calls for making connections with the community. A look at a list of his supporters tells us much about the connections he's already made and what Carlsbadians can look forward to from the influence of his network of colleagues.
Topping the list is Carl DeMaio, former member of the San Diego City Council. He's followed by city council members from Vista, Encinitas and Imperial Beach (none from Carlsbad thus far), School Board members from La Mesa/Spring Valley, Encinitas and Dehesa (none from Carlsbad).
The Vice Chair of the California Republican Party heads a list of 10 San Diego GOP Central Committee members, including Sherry Hodges, whose campaign Naumann staffed.
The list of those with titles ended with the president of the Oceanside Rotary Club and the former president of the Oceanside Chamber of Commerce. Curiously missing from the entire list were Carlsbad officials.
See a pattern here? If you liked the vicious tactics of the failed Sherry Hodges campaign and don't mind having a political operative with an agenda joining a non-partisan school board with a history of civility, than Naumann's your guy.
And that would be a sad day for Carlsbad schools.
Richard J. Riehl writes from La Costa.
Kelli Moors, who started the current scandal
when she voted on a contract for FFF,
then 12 days later left CUSD to work for FFF
THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION (link: CSBA),
FFF AND CARLSBAD UNIFIED ARE PRETTY MUCH INSEPARABLE:
Friday, November 30 [2012]- CSBA [California School Boards Association] Annual Education Conference
Exhibitor Table Talks
Boards, the Brown Act and Cyberspace
As education leaders turn to social media for timely communication, well-intentioned board members can find themselves in violation of the Brown Act when cyber communication conveys information coming up for vote. If used improperly, social media starts the slippery slope into online serial meetings, resulting in costly, embarrassing legal consequences, and can be subject to public records requests. Attend this workshop to learn how to avoid social media pitfalls in your governance capacity.
--Kelli Moors, Board Member, Carlsbad USD; Christopher Keeler and Namita Brown, Partners, Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, LLP
See all posts about Kelli Moors and Fagen Friedman Fulfrost.
Here are some links to FFF cases:
Palo Alto, FFF and the Office of Civil Rights regarding bullying
FFF loses against teacher Pamela Lukkarila in Jurupa School District:
http://mauralarkins.com/files/LukkarilaMyPERB2283E.pdf
FFF loses against teacher Ermine Nelson in Jurupa School District
FFF wins against student and parent in Carlsbad School District:
http://www.californiaspecialedlaw.com/wiki/hearing-decisions/oah-2011120317
School investigation in Claremont USD a waste of taxpayer money?
HOWARD FULFROST, THE PARTNER AT FAGEN FRIEDMAN AND FULFROST WAS PAID HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CCUSD MONEY TO STOP STUDENTS FROM GETTING THERAPY
Friday, July 19, 2013
Tim Crews wins in California Court of Appeal; trial court may not punish him for filing suit to get public records from school district
The California School Boards Association (CSBA) supported Willows School District's use of taxpayer dollars to sue a citizen for demanding transparency.
See previous post on this story HERE.
Victory for publisher Tim Crews and CPRA in Appeals Court decision
First Amendment Coalition
July 19, 2013
Tim Crews, Editor & Publisher Willows Valley Mirror
A state Court of Appeal has ruled that small-town California newspaper publisher Tim Crews does not have to pay legal fees to a school board he sued over his public records request. The unanimous decision (read the Court of Appeal's decision) represents a crucial victory for government transparency and a welcome success for the First Amendment Coalition, which was instrumental in organizing and underwriting Crews’ successful defense.
“The appeals court’s decision makes clear that, in deciding whether to go to court to contest an agency’s denial of your request for public records, you will not have to fear a crushing penalty,” said Peter Scheer, FAC’s executive director. “If the court had decided differently, no journalist or ordinary citizen would ever again file suit to enforce the PRA, for fear of being bankrupted by a court order to pay a penalty of tens of thousands of dollars.”
Scheer added: “That would have been a disaster, not just for Tim Crews of course, but for government transparency in general.”
The case grows out of a public records request filed by Crews, publisher of the Sacramento Valley Mirror in Glenn County, an agricultural community in Northern California. The request sought emails of the superintendent for the Willows Unified School District. Crews was investigating whether the district was using school resources to influence a political campaign (a line of inquiry that ultimately did not pan out).
The school district began delivering copies of the emails the day after Crews filed suit. It also withheld several thousand emails on various grounds. A Superior Court judge ruled in the district’s favor after reviewing the withheld emails. The court not only dismissed Crews’ PRA suit, but then took the highly unusual step of ruling that Crews’ case was frivolous and on that basis ordering him to pay the district’s legal fees--an amount that was ultimately set at $56,000.
The Appeals Court, while agreeing with the dismissal of Crews’ PRA suit, squarely rejected both the finding that the case was frivolous and the resulting order to pay the district’s legal fees.
The Court emphasized that a fee award is a form of “punishment [that] should be used most sparingly to deter only the most egregious conduct.” Failing to prevail in a PRA lawsuit, by itself, is never enough to justify a fee award. The Court said a suit could be found “frivolous” only if filed in bad faith--for example, “to harass” an agency rather than to obtain information--or if the suit’s legal basis is so implausible that “any reasonable attorney would agree” it is “totally without merit.”
Under the appeals court’s interpretation of the PRA, a plaintiff and her lawyer, when deciding to sue to gain access to records, don’t have to be confident that they will prevail. Even if they expect to lose, they can file a suit without fearing a crushing penalty in the form of an award of legal fees.
The court said: “Counsel and their clients have a right to present issues that are arguably correct, even if it is extremely unlikely that they will win.”
FAC became involved in Crews’ defense after he was ordered to pay the district’s legal fees. FAC helped Crews in lining up legal representation--his attorney for the appeal was Karl Olson (of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski in San Francisco). Also for the appeal, FAC took the lead in organizing amicus brief support for Crews. Two amicus briefs were filed, one brief on behalf of media companies (prepared by Duffy Carolan and her colleagues at Davis Wright Tremaine) and another on behalf of pro-access government officials (prepared by Terry Francke of Californians Aware).
“For us, Tim’s case was absolutely make or break,” said Scheer. “The only means of enforcing the PRA is through civil suits that challenge agencies’ withholding of requested records,” he said. “If Tim’s penalty had been affirmed, that would have been the end of PRA enforcement.”
The cost of Crews’ representation was substantially underwritten by FAC’s Rebele Legal Fund, a special fund for open-government litigation named for FAC Board member Roland (“Reb”) Rebele, the founding (and biggest) contributor to the fund. (Other major contributions were made by Raymond Pryke, Susan McClatchy and Allen McCombs, among others.)
The Rebele Legal Fund provides funding support for important open-government and first amendment cases in which, for a variety of reasons, pro bono (i.e., free) legal representation may not be available. Normally the fund is for cases in which FAC, by action of its Board of Directors, has decided to participate as a party.
Judge Byrd dismisses GCBE actions v. Mirror
By Tim Crews
Sacramento Valley Mirror
March 3, 2007
Willows—A decidedly grumpy Superior Court Judge Don Byrd yesterday dismissed the counter actions against this newspaper. In the complex aftermath of the Sacramento lawsuit against the Glenn County Office of Education, the Glenn County Board of Education refused to join in a settlement, a victory for the newspaper — and for access to public information.
The board, a somnambulating beast awakened when Arturo Barrera took office as the new Glenn County Schools Superintendent, tried to drag to unresolved matters. They mumbled about “enforcing a temporary restraining order” when none was issued. (One of the several judges involved, Judge Golden said that GCOE attorneys needed to describe the behavior they wanted prevented. And that would all boil down to prior restraint.) The board seemed to want the MIRROR punished for revealing embarrassing things about GCOE, misspending, destruction of records and the like.
In the end Judge Byrd told the new GCOE attorneys that if GCOE wanted an injunction, they’d have to file it. And that way lies a great peril: Prior restraint.
The board seemed crestfallen.
MIRROR attorney Paul Boylan observes, "I have been working with the California Public Records Act for years advising public agencies on how to respond to requests for public records. When I agreed to represent the MIRROR, I really believed that I could negotiate an agreement where the MIRROR received the information it asked for and the GCOE privacy and confidentiality interests could be met. That is the way 99.9 percent of public records disputes are resolved. But not this one. After six months of the nastiest litigation I have ever been part of, I still don't understand why the GCOE fought so hard to keep these records secret. Why pay four different law firms so much money to keep so little secret? It just doesn't make any sense.
"This should have been an uncomplicated, straight forward court proceeding. The court was going to decide a very simple question:
Did the GCOE reasons for keeping documents secret outweigh the public's interest in that same information and the public's right to know? If yes, then the GCOE would have won. If no, then the MIRROR would have won. Simple. But the case got complicated when the GCOE attorneys — the ones hired to handle all of the MIRROR's requests — gave the MIRROR huge amounts of student and personnel information that the MIRROR didn't ask for.
“How on earth did such an incredible mistake happen? These were the experts hired to stop exactly the sort of thing that they ended up doing. It makes no sense. But then the case got even more complicated when the GCOE tried to get that information back — as if that was even possible — and wanted the court to order the MIRROR not to report on the information the GCOE attorneys gave the MIRROR.
“They knew or should have known that the MIRROR would not cooperate with any attempt to compromise its First Amendment rights to get the news and report the news," Mr. Boylan points out. Last year, then-Superintendent Joni Samples appointed a Sacramento attorney as a public records chief, and an expensive one at that. Mark Ellis released a disc to the MIRROR that continued seven years with of special education e-mails.
The e-mails were supposed to have been swept clean of confidential information. They weren’t. We later learned that the attorneys couldn’t f figure out how to open them. So they were tossed in a box with spending records.
And even later GCOE lawyers were supposed to have gone back and produced “clean” versions for us.
They never did.
The MIRROR reported that instead of protecting confidential information, the lawyer had negligently released it.
And then we did a story on the failure of special education management to report suspected child abuse, a story with fictionalized names and the special education children protected, Mr. Ellis sought to have us punished. For his error.
We had earlier turned over the discs, in a stipulated agreement we entered into most reluctantly. We did not agree to turn over our hard drives.
Friday, Judge Byrd scolded both sides and complained about the complex litigation but congratulated both sides for an agreement. With Mr. Ellis appearing by telephone, Judge Byrd reviewed matters, noted that Mr. Ellis had filed for a TRO and “I denied that request.” He asked what GCBE wanted and Donald Anthony Velez Jr ., of Miller Brown & Dannis suggested that the information be eliminated from the MIRROR’s computers, perhaps by the appointment of a “tech savvy” referee.
Judge Byrd waved that off, grumbled a bit more and said he was returning the cart load of records and discs to GCOE.
The Mirror obtained the information legally. We retain it.
Mr. Boylan notes, "We tried to end this nonsense - this huge waste of time and money. The MIRROR offered to settle many times. It didn't do any good. But then Superintendent Barrera fired his attorneys and negotiated an agreement that gave the MIRROR the records the MIRROR asked for in exchange for dismissing the Brown Act and the public records claims against the GCOE and the Board. We thought it was over. The issue of those confidential records - the ones the GCOE's attorney's gave to the MIRROR - was still out there. And no one seemed to know what to do about it.
"Judge Byrd solved that problem. He is an excellent judge. He did for the parties what the parties could not do for themselves — he ended the case by dismissing the actions against the MIRROR. I am grateful."
See previous post on this story HERE.
Victory for publisher Tim Crews and CPRA in Appeals Court decision
First Amendment Coalition
July 19, 2013
Tim Crews, Editor & Publisher Willows Valley Mirror
A state Court of Appeal has ruled that small-town California newspaper publisher Tim Crews does not have to pay legal fees to a school board he sued over his public records request. The unanimous decision (read the Court of Appeal's decision) represents a crucial victory for government transparency and a welcome success for the First Amendment Coalition, which was instrumental in organizing and underwriting Crews’ successful defense.
“The appeals court’s decision makes clear that, in deciding whether to go to court to contest an agency’s denial of your request for public records, you will not have to fear a crushing penalty,” said Peter Scheer, FAC’s executive director. “If the court had decided differently, no journalist or ordinary citizen would ever again file suit to enforce the PRA, for fear of being bankrupted by a court order to pay a penalty of tens of thousands of dollars.”
Scheer added: “That would have been a disaster, not just for Tim Crews of course, but for government transparency in general.”
The case grows out of a public records request filed by Crews, publisher of the Sacramento Valley Mirror in Glenn County, an agricultural community in Northern California. The request sought emails of the superintendent for the Willows Unified School District. Crews was investigating whether the district was using school resources to influence a political campaign (a line of inquiry that ultimately did not pan out).
The school district began delivering copies of the emails the day after Crews filed suit. It also withheld several thousand emails on various grounds. A Superior Court judge ruled in the district’s favor after reviewing the withheld emails. The court not only dismissed Crews’ PRA suit, but then took the highly unusual step of ruling that Crews’ case was frivolous and on that basis ordering him to pay the district’s legal fees--an amount that was ultimately set at $56,000.
The Appeals Court, while agreeing with the dismissal of Crews’ PRA suit, squarely rejected both the finding that the case was frivolous and the resulting order to pay the district’s legal fees.
The Court emphasized that a fee award is a form of “punishment [that] should be used most sparingly to deter only the most egregious conduct.” Failing to prevail in a PRA lawsuit, by itself, is never enough to justify a fee award. The Court said a suit could be found “frivolous” only if filed in bad faith--for example, “to harass” an agency rather than to obtain information--or if the suit’s legal basis is so implausible that “any reasonable attorney would agree” it is “totally without merit.”
Under the appeals court’s interpretation of the PRA, a plaintiff and her lawyer, when deciding to sue to gain access to records, don’t have to be confident that they will prevail. Even if they expect to lose, they can file a suit without fearing a crushing penalty in the form of an award of legal fees.
The court said: “Counsel and their clients have a right to present issues that are arguably correct, even if it is extremely unlikely that they will win.”
FAC became involved in Crews’ defense after he was ordered to pay the district’s legal fees. FAC helped Crews in lining up legal representation--his attorney for the appeal was Karl Olson (of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski in San Francisco). Also for the appeal, FAC took the lead in organizing amicus brief support for Crews. Two amicus briefs were filed, one brief on behalf of media companies (prepared by Duffy Carolan and her colleagues at Davis Wright Tremaine) and another on behalf of pro-access government officials (prepared by Terry Francke of Californians Aware).
“For us, Tim’s case was absolutely make or break,” said Scheer. “The only means of enforcing the PRA is through civil suits that challenge agencies’ withholding of requested records,” he said. “If Tim’s penalty had been affirmed, that would have been the end of PRA enforcement.”
The cost of Crews’ representation was substantially underwritten by FAC’s Rebele Legal Fund, a special fund for open-government litigation named for FAC Board member Roland (“Reb”) Rebele, the founding (and biggest) contributor to the fund. (Other major contributions were made by Raymond Pryke, Susan McClatchy and Allen McCombs, among others.)
The Rebele Legal Fund provides funding support for important open-government and first amendment cases in which, for a variety of reasons, pro bono (i.e., free) legal representation may not be available. Normally the fund is for cases in which FAC, by action of its Board of Directors, has decided to participate as a party.
Judge Byrd dismisses GCBE actions v. Mirror
By Tim Crews
Sacramento Valley Mirror
March 3, 2007
Willows—A decidedly grumpy Superior Court Judge Don Byrd yesterday dismissed the counter actions against this newspaper. In the complex aftermath of the Sacramento lawsuit against the Glenn County Office of Education, the Glenn County Board of Education refused to join in a settlement, a victory for the newspaper — and for access to public information.
The board, a somnambulating beast awakened when Arturo Barrera took office as the new Glenn County Schools Superintendent, tried to drag to unresolved matters. They mumbled about “enforcing a temporary restraining order” when none was issued. (One of the several judges involved, Judge Golden said that GCOE attorneys needed to describe the behavior they wanted prevented. And that would all boil down to prior restraint.) The board seemed to want the MIRROR punished for revealing embarrassing things about GCOE, misspending, destruction of records and the like.
In the end Judge Byrd told the new GCOE attorneys that if GCOE wanted an injunction, they’d have to file it. And that way lies a great peril: Prior restraint.
The board seemed crestfallen.
MIRROR attorney Paul Boylan observes, "I have been working with the California Public Records Act for years advising public agencies on how to respond to requests for public records. When I agreed to represent the MIRROR, I really believed that I could negotiate an agreement where the MIRROR received the information it asked for and the GCOE privacy and confidentiality interests could be met. That is the way 99.9 percent of public records disputes are resolved. But not this one. After six months of the nastiest litigation I have ever been part of, I still don't understand why the GCOE fought so hard to keep these records secret. Why pay four different law firms so much money to keep so little secret? It just doesn't make any sense.
"This should have been an uncomplicated, straight forward court proceeding. The court was going to decide a very simple question:
Did the GCOE reasons for keeping documents secret outweigh the public's interest in that same information and the public's right to know? If yes, then the GCOE would have won. If no, then the MIRROR would have won. Simple. But the case got complicated when the GCOE attorneys — the ones hired to handle all of the MIRROR's requests — gave the MIRROR huge amounts of student and personnel information that the MIRROR didn't ask for.
“How on earth did such an incredible mistake happen? These were the experts hired to stop exactly the sort of thing that they ended up doing. It makes no sense. But then the case got even more complicated when the GCOE tried to get that information back — as if that was even possible — and wanted the court to order the MIRROR not to report on the information the GCOE attorneys gave the MIRROR.
“They knew or should have known that the MIRROR would not cooperate with any attempt to compromise its First Amendment rights to get the news and report the news," Mr. Boylan points out. Last year, then-Superintendent Joni Samples appointed a Sacramento attorney as a public records chief, and an expensive one at that. Mark Ellis released a disc to the MIRROR that continued seven years with of special education e-mails.
The e-mails were supposed to have been swept clean of confidential information. They weren’t. We later learned that the attorneys couldn’t f figure out how to open them. So they were tossed in a box with spending records.
And even later GCOE lawyers were supposed to have gone back and produced “clean” versions for us.
They never did.
The MIRROR reported that instead of protecting confidential information, the lawyer had negligently released it.
And then we did a story on the failure of special education management to report suspected child abuse, a story with fictionalized names and the special education children protected, Mr. Ellis sought to have us punished. For his error.
We had earlier turned over the discs, in a stipulated agreement we entered into most reluctantly. We did not agree to turn over our hard drives.
Friday, Judge Byrd scolded both sides and complained about the complex litigation but congratulated both sides for an agreement. With Mr. Ellis appearing by telephone, Judge Byrd reviewed matters, noted that Mr. Ellis had filed for a TRO and “I denied that request.” He asked what GCBE wanted and Donald Anthony Velez Jr ., of Miller Brown & Dannis suggested that the information be eliminated from the MIRROR’s computers, perhaps by the appointment of a “tech savvy” referee.
Judge Byrd waved that off, grumbled a bit more and said he was returning the cart load of records and discs to GCOE.
The Mirror obtained the information legally. We retain it.
Mr. Boylan notes, "We tried to end this nonsense - this huge waste of time and money. The MIRROR offered to settle many times. It didn't do any good. But then Superintendent Barrera fired his attorneys and negotiated an agreement that gave the MIRROR the records the MIRROR asked for in exchange for dismissing the Brown Act and the public records claims against the GCOE and the Board. We thought it was over. The issue of those confidential records - the ones the GCOE's attorney's gave to the MIRROR - was still out there. And no one seemed to know what to do about it.
"Judge Byrd solved that problem. He is an excellent judge. He did for the parties what the parties could not do for themselves — he ended the case by dismissing the actions against the MIRROR. I am grateful."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)