Castle Park High School loses girls sports case; when will Randy Ward hire lawyers who advise schools to follow the law?

A judge has ruled against Castle Park High School regarding the equality of girls' sports facilities (see story from SDUT below).

Shame on San Diego County Office of Education-Joint Powers Authority and its member school districts for helping schools to ignore the law and, even worse, to engage in retaliation against those who complain about violations of law.

Instead of wasting tax dollars in endless litigation, SDCOE-JPA should have settled this case and many other cases. Even worse is SDCOE's protection of bad administrators by helping the school district retaliate against those who complained.  Students are hurt by the systematic removal of good school employees.  This Castle Park High case in Sweetwater Union High School District (see story below) is all too familiar.

The firing of the Castle Park High coach is reminiscent of
1) the Coach James "Ted" Carter case;
2) the Mary Anne Weegar case (also in Sweetwater; also involving Supt. Ed Brand);
3) the Rodger Harnett case.

In another example of unlawful retaliation, SDCOE recently sued this blogger for serving a deposition subpoena on Risk Management Executive Director Diane Crosier.

It's time for SDCOE Superintendent Randy Ward to hire lawyers who will guide schools toward compliance with the law, instead of lawyers who try to help schools get away with wrongdoing. But most importantly, the retaliation has to stop. A judge recently told Mr. Ward that he should conduct investigations of wrongdoing instead of firing whistle-blowers.



Judge rules school shows bias in sports
By Brent Schrotenboer
San Diego Union-Tribune
April 2, 2009

SOUTH BAY — A federal judge has ruled that Castle Park High School has allowed “significant gender-based disparity” in sports at the expense of female athletes.

In a summary judgment this week, U.S. District Court Judge M. James Lorenz ruled that Castle Park is not in compliance with Title IX, the 37-year-old federal law that forbids sex discrimination in any education program or activity receiving federal funds...

The remaining claims will go forward in court, including one that the district retaliated against the plaintiffs by firing their coach after they complained of discrimination.
The plaintiffs showed that while female enrollment at Castle Park was 45 percent to 50 percent since 1998, female participation in athletics was 33 percent to 41 percent during those years...

Over the past 11 years in the county, the Ramona school district, Mesa College and the Grossmont Union High School District have faced similar legal complaints involving Title IX and subpar softball facilities.

SDCOE must pay Rodger Hartnett over $200,000

San Diego County Office of Education Superintendent Randy Ward and risk management director Diane Crosier lose in court.

Judge Orders Back Pay for Fired Schools Employee
March 3, 2011
by Emily Alpert
Voice of San Diego

A Superior Court judge has ruled that a former San Diego County Office of Education employee who filed a wrongful termination suit against the agency must be given more than $200,000 in back pay and medical premium reimbursements — more than 11 times as much as the agency initially sought to pay him.

Rodger Hartnett once helped oversee litigation as a claims coordinator for the Risk Management Joint Powers Authority, a public agency run through the county office that handles lawsuits for schools.

He was terminated more than three years ago and has been locked in a lengthy legal battle with the office since then. Hartnett claims he was fired for blowing the whistle on conflicts of interest at the agency; the office says he was fired for negligence, insubordination and dishonesty. An internal commission found that Hartnett's termination was "for good cause and not excessive."

The same judge ruled nearly two years ago that Hartnett should be reinstated and awarded back pay to the date of his firing, concluding that the office did not investigate Hartnett's claims about "insider dealings" before his firing. The judge didn't address whether Hartnett was justified in those claims.

We've reported on a several issues that Hartnett raised in his suit, including the fact that another employee has advised her boss on whether to retain attorneys for personnel cases, something that routinely led to business for her husband's law firm. The issue is now being investigated by the state Fair Political Practices Commission.

The County Office of Education gave Hartnett less than $18,000 in back pay after his earlier reinstatement. He took the office back to court, arguing it had underpaid him. The key issue was whether the office could dock Hartnett for time when he was medically or psychiatrically disabled from working.

The court ruled that it could not, concluding that his stress was directly related to disputes with his employer. The judge did not settle larger issues that remain in the Hartnett litigation, including whether the alleged conflicts of interest were real and whether Hartnett was retaliated against as a whistleblower. The County Office of Education declined to comment on the ruling.

Agency to Investigate County Office of Education Employee

When I saw the title of this article, I thought that I was going to read about Dan Puplava or Diane Crosier. But it seems that investigators prefer to look into small-time shenanigans rather than broad institutional corruption. Those who care about honest government can only hope that this investigation will shed some light on other operations at the risk management office at SDCOE.

January 12, 2011
Agency to Investigate County Office of Education Employee
by Emily Alpert
Voice of San Diego

A state agency that regulates financial conflicts of interest is launching an investigation into whether San Diego County Office of Education employee is illegally enriching her husband and herself.

The investigation stems from concerns that Michele Fort-Merrill advises her boss on whether to retain attorneys for personnel cases, which routinely leads to her husband's law firm getting business from the County Office. Here's how we explained the issue when I first reported on it almost two years ago:

Michele Fort-Merrill, who oversees the agency's human resources department, is married to William Merrill, a partner in Best, Best & Krieger, a San Diego law firm that frequently represents the county office. She has a financial interest in the firm of more than $100,000 annually through his income, according to state forms that disclose her economic interests.

When an employee is disciplined or other problems erupt with employees in the office, Fort-Merrill weighs whether or not an outside attorney is needed to help navigate legal issues, or whether human resources staff can handle the problem, County Superintendent Randolph Ward said in a recent interview. If she believes that lawyers are needed, she makes a recommendation to Ward, who then makes the ultimate decision on whether to hire an attorney.

Public officials are generally barred under California law from making or helping to make government decisions in which they or their spouse have a financial interest. Being involved in the decision can include advising the decision maker, as Fort-Merrill does. Though Ward said Fort-Merrill does not directly assign legal work to any firm, her advice helps him decide whether the office turns to outsiders or its own staff, which impacts the amount of work going to her husband.

We later analyzed which attorneys were granted the work on personnel cases and found that in past years, it was almost guaranteed that those kind of cases would go to her husband's firm. It is unclear, however, whether her husband, dubbed a partner in the firm, profits from the overall success of the firm or solely from his own billings.

Rodger Hartnett, a former employee who is suing the agency for wrongful termination, complained to the state Fair Political Practices Commission that Fort-Merrill has a financial stake in sending work to his law firm. The FPPC sent Hartnett a letter last week saying it would investigate the allegations.

Not all complaints are investigated: The FPPC typically reviews complaints and decides within 14 days whether to investigate them or not, said spokeswoman Tara Stock. The agency bases its decisions whether the alleged actions could be a violation of the state Political Reform Act. Opening up an investigation does not mean that the allegations are valid or that the accused people are guilty.

Hartnett alleges he was fired for blowing the whistle on what he described as "a culture of corruption" at the agency. He is suing not only the office but two of its employees, including Fort-Merrill, as individuals because he claims they personally retaliated against him. The County Office and its employees counter that Hartnett was discharged for misconduct and poor performance that occurred months before he began raising concerns.

His "inflammatory and unsubstantiated claims against [Fort-Merrill] were an eleventh hour smokescreen to obscure the true reasons for his termination," wrote Pamela Lawton Wilson, one of Fort-Merrill's attorneys, in a legal brief.

There Is a Free Lunch, and They're Not Telling You About It

June 27, 2010
There Is a Free Lunch, and They're Not Telling You About It
By EMILY ALPERT
voiceofsandiego.org

Top employees at the San Diego County Office of Education have been allowed to avoid reporting gifts despite a California law that is supposed to ensure that the public can peek at who is paying for meals, handing out baseball tickets or giving other gifts to influential government employees.

The office has allowed employees to report their income without revealing gifts, an exception that could obscure important information about who is wining and dining public officials. California law says that gifts are income, no different than the other earnings that top employees already must report on annual statements of economic interests.

The Fair Political Practices Commission urged the County Office of Education to change its guidelines after being alerted to the issue by voiceofsandiego.org earlier this month. Depending on how long the office has failed to report gifts, its employees may need to report gifts they received years ago. Office spokesman Jim Esterbrooks said the agency is updating its guidelines to comply.

Gifts have played a role in a contentious lawsuit filed by a former employee that alleges free meals contributed to a "culture of corruption" at the agency that steered County Office of Education business to specific law firms.

For instance, employees who help oversee legal work for school districts regularly accepted free lunches from an attorney who is frequently hired by their department, according to testimony by employee John Vincent taken as part of the lawsuit. Attorney [XXX] usually paid for the meals, which happened more than once a month, Vincent said.

Diane Crosier, who directs the office's risk management department, was one of the employees that accepted the meals, according to the testimony. Her department controls millions of dollars in legal work for school districts across the county. While Crosier does not decide which attorneys to assign to each legal case, she oversees Rick Rinear, the worker who does. Rinear also went to lunch with [XXX] from time to time, along with other employees, Vincent said in the deposition this year.

Crosier is required to reveal her economic interests to the public because she helps make decisions with a financial impact for a public agency. The County Office of Education does not require Rinear or the other employees to do so.

California law typically requires employees like Crosier to reveal gifts worth $50 or more from a single source annually, so frequent free lunches would likely need to be reported.

Yet Crosier did not report any lunches with [XXX]. VOSD sought to learn why Crosier hadn't revealed the lunches and learned that the office does not require most of its employees to report gifts.

That makes it impossible for the public to gauge whether Crosier or other office employees are getting gifts that could compromise their objectivity.

Accepting the gifts also appears to violate a County Office of Education regulation that states that no employee should accept personal gifts from people or companies selling services or supplies to the public agency, except for promotional items like calendars that everyone gets for free.

Neither Crosier nor the agency responded to questions about the lunches' cost or whether they are still happening. Nor did they answer whether the gifts violated their own office rules, saying they don't want to communicate with the press during a lawsuit.

The former employee who is suing the County Office of Education, Rodger Hartnett, specifically names [XXX]'s firm, [WXYZ], as one that got work "based on personal relationships" and not merit. The firm was paid nearly $7 million between 2002 and 2008, dwarfing other firms.

Gifts are only one of the questions that Hartnett has raised. Other issues have emerged from his suit: XXX and another attorney from his firm have helped screen potential employees who later oversaw outside attorneys' work. Another office employee advises her boss on whether to retain attorneys for personnel cases, which routinely leads to work for her husband's law firm...

Hartnett himself testified that [XXX] also gave him lunches, golf games and baseball tickets. He also said he got dinner and free concert tickets from Randy Winet, an attorney from another firm hired by the agency...

SDCOE's Diane Crosier and Lora Duzyk get themselves dismissed simply by declaring that Rodger Hartnett had a management position

Here's the latest in Rodger Hartnett's suit against SDCOE and its top brass. The court has found that Hartnett was a management employee because his bosses, the people he is suing, said so.

"As PERB has not yet taken action, this court must defer to SDCOE's designation and any evidence offered by plaintiff must be disregarded.

Therefore, plaintiff is a management level employee such that section 4114 does not apply and summary judgment is granted on this basis."

Diane Crosier and Lora Duzyk, executives at San Diego County Office of Education, have been dismissed from Rodger Hartnett's lawsuit because they say that Rodger Hartnett was a management employee, and the court must take their word for it.

See tentative decision.

Rodger Hartnett, once SDCOE attorney Dan Shinoff's right hand man, explores life as an opposing litigant against SDCOE

He Got Quite An Education
By Dorian Hargrove
San Diego Reader
Feb. 3, 2010

Every morning at seven o’clock, Rodger Hartnett starts his day. The 62-year-old law school graduate... opens up his book of word puzzles, and for two or three hours he works on them. The puzzles are a strategy to correct his visual processing impairment, an adult learning disability that he was diagnosed with back in January 2006.

...One day a month, Hartnett’s list of daily activities increases. On that day, Hartnett opens an envelope from his employer, pulls out a payroll check for $5237.28 and slides the check into a new envelope addressed to his lawyer, who mails the check back to the San Diego County Office of Education. The checks started rolling in to Hartnett’s mailbox in early December, eight months after Judge Steven Denton granted a writ in Hartnett’s wrongful termination suit and two months after the Office of Education’s appeal was denied.

It’s not that Hartnett doesn’t need the money. He cashed in his 401(k) in 2007. He draws partial Social Security benefits, and he adheres to a tight budget, leaving him just enough money in the bank to last him another year...

... the 1980s, when he worked for the County Counsel, a county department that handles the county’s civil lawsuits... During his first two years on the job, he received positive annual performance reviews from his superiors.

“I walked on water,” quips Hartnett. “Not to pat myself on the back — never mind, no one else is going to — in one of my performance reviews I was described as being a real asset to the operation.”

The positive reviews ended and the problems began in 2006, a year after his boss, executive director of the San Diego County Office of Education–Joint Powers Authority, Diane Crosier, asked him to reduce legal expenditures to outside law firms by 10 percent. Hartnett looked at the law firms the office used.

[Image: Dan Shinoff of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz]

He discovered that in one recent year, the Office of Education had paid nearly $2.9 million to outside legal firms. One firm — Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff, and Holtz — received more than $1.49 million, ten times more than the next-highest-paid firm. Only three firms — Daniel Shinoff’s firm; plus Winet, Patrick, and Weaver, a law firm located in Vista; and Best, Best, and Krieger — received all of the school districts’ lawsuits.

Much of that money, says Hartnett, was for work that could have been done internally: “Shinoff’s law firm was assigned all the labor-intensive work, which was my work.”

...Hartnett recalled a lunch he and colleagues had had with Daniel Shinoff, a lunch that Shinoff had paid for. During lunch, Shinoff and Crosier had talked about a legal case involving Crosier’s son in San Francisco. Shinoff was representing him. Later, Hartnett discovered that Crosier had worked for Shinoff’s firm in the ’80s, after she passed the bar exam.

A few weeks later, Hartnett again pitched his idea to Crosier and again she rejected it...Crosier wrote that he should forget his idea.

He went to William “Woody” Merrill, general counsel for the Office of Education and a partner of the law firm Best, Best, and Krieger, to discuss his findings. Merrill advised Hartnett to discuss his concerns with Crosier’s superior, Lora Duzyk, assistant superintendent of business services.

... According to Hartnett’s attorney, Barry Vrevich, only after Merrill’s wife took control of the human resources department did Best, Best, and Krieger, the second-highest-paid firm on the county education office’s panel, start receiving cases.

...[Hartnett] had never passed the bar exam, failing the multiple-choice part four times. His girlfriend asked him if he had ever been tested for a learning disability. Hartnett had not. She recommended the Lindamood-Bell Learning Center in Del Mar, and a few weeks later, after a series of tests, specialists confirmed that Hartnett suffered from visual processing impairment.

He was, however, allowed to use his vacation and sick leave for his five-week training program to help him cope with the disability...During his training, no one at the Office of Education commented on his disability, though shortly after beginning the training, Crosier stripped away Hartnett’s supervisory duties.

..."They are not supposed to discriminate against you because of a disability.”

On October 5, 2007, Hartnett was terminated. Seventeen months after that, on March 27, 2009, San Diego superior court judge Steven Denton granted the writ that ordered the San Diego County Office of Education to reinstate Hartnett and award him back pay for the time he was out of work...

Hartnett says the county must have hired someone else to do his job, meaning taxpayers are paying not only Hartnett’s salary but also the salary of whoever is replacing him. In addition, Hartnett claims the county is not following the court order to send him back pay for the past two years...

According to Jim Esterbrooks, public information officer for the Office of Education, the office will not comment on Hartnett’s case. The office also refused to provide its legal costs associated with Hartnett’s termination suit.

The San Diego County Office of Education “continues to request Shinoff and Winet,” wrote Esterbrooks in an email. “Both are extremely experienced and successful in their work on behalf of school districts. That’s why school districts request them. SDCOE continues to use Best, Best & Krieger, where Merrill works.”...

A rare victory for the rule of law at SDCOE: Superintendent Randy Ward FINALLY obeys court order to reinstate Rodger Hartnett

See all Rodger Hartnett posts.
See Randy Ward posts.
See San Diego County Office of Education posts.

Back to Work
Voice of San Diego
by Emily Alpert

A former employee who is suing the San Diego County Office of Education alleging wrongful termination has been sent back to work, only to immediately go on paid leave.

Rodger Hartnett was fired two years ago from the office for negligence, insubordination and dishonesty. He alleges that he was actually fired for blowing the whistle on conflicts of interest in the agency.

In March, a Superior Court judge ordered that Hartnett be put back to work and given back pay as the larger case proceeded. The office appealed. Last week, another court turned down the appeal.

Hartnett said he tried to return to work today, but was given a letter putting him on paid administrative leave. He estimated his last salary at $110,000 annually, but said it was possible that it had increased in his absence. It is unclear how much back pay Hartnett will receive, another part of the court order. The letter stated:

"The County Superintendent is aware of the court order regarding back wages. He is in discussion with his legal counsel regarding the amount of back wages, if any, due you."

I'm waiting to hear back from the County Office spokesman for his comments. Look for updates here.

Michelle Fort-Merrill sends SDCOE work to her husband, while Bonnie Dumanis charges 5 county officials with conflict of interest

What's going on, Bonnie Dumanis? It sure seems that politics controls your decisions about charging people with crimes. You appear to be blind to conflicts of interest when your cronies are guilty.

And it seems that the California Supreme Court disagrees with your charges against 5 county officials.

It seems that BBK partner Woody Merrill is getting some advantages due to his wife's position at San Diego County Office of Education.

Related link: The Schoolhouse Lawyer Who Helped Hire His Overseer (March 2, 2009)


When Wife Advises, Husband’s Firm Almost Always Picked
Michele Fort-Merrill attends a meeting at the County Office of Education. Photo: Sam Hodgson
By EMILY ALPERT
Monday, Oct. 12, 2009

When Michele Fort-Merrill advises her boss that the San Diego County Office of Education should look to outsiders for legal help, it is almost guaranteed that the work will go to her husband's firm, a voiceofsandiego.org analysis has found.

As executive director of human resources, Fort-Merrill advises the county superintendent whether to retain attorneys for personnel issues. She does not choose which firm to employ, but over the past four years, those cases have gone almost exclusively to Best, Best & Krieger, which employs her husband, William Merrill. Fort-Merrill has a financial interest in the firm of more than $100,000 annually through his income, according to her economic disclosure forms...

But a major question was left unanswered: How likely it is that legal business will go to BB&K and to William Merrill specifically if Fort-Merrill advises hiring an outside attorney for a personnel case. The new numbers, culled from public records by voiceofsandiego.org, help shed light on that key question about the relationship. They show it is almost inevitable that personnel cases will go to BB&K, which accounted for 99 percent of the hours attorneys billed for such work since 2005.

That deepens concerns among ethicists about Fort-Merrill giving advice on whether to get legal help...

Public officials are generally barred under California law from making or helping to make government decisions in which they or their spouse have a financial interest. Being involved in the decision can include advising the decision maker.

"The issue is quite simple -- as a public official you shouldn't make decisions based on your financial gain," said Jessica Levinson, director of political reform at the Center for Governmental Studies, a Los Angeles-based nonprofit that helps people participate in their government. "Whether that's her motivation, I can't speak to. But she is financially gaining based on decisions she's making in her professional capacity."

BB&K began receiving almost all of the County Office legal work related to personnel cases four years ago. Its attorneys have billed $234,000 over that time for personnel cases, which averages to $58,500 annually, the voiceofsandiego.org analysis found. The previous firm had billed an average of $17,100 annually in the prior seven years. BB&K both logged more hours and charged slightly more.

BB&K began to be used almost exclusively for personnel cases in July 2005, the same time that Fort-Merrill became executive director of human resources...

Before 2005, the County Office usually turned to Parham & Rajcic, a Laguna Hills firm, to handle cases related to employees. The attorney it often used, Mark Bresee, left Parham in February 2005 for the Orange County Department of Education.

A few months later, the San Diego County Office of Education started sending its personnel cases to BB&K...

BB&K's share of the overall legal business at the County Office of Education has grown over time, from 35 percent in 2000 to 87 percent in 2008...Cases referred by Fort-Merrill's department made up at least 25 percent of its business from 2005 to 2008...

While personnel cases almost always go to BB&K, Merrill himself made up only 7 percent of the attorneys' billing, according to the analysis. But it is unclear whether Merrill and his wife benefit solely from business that goes directly to him as an individual attorney or from BB&K business in general.

Merrill is listed on the firm's website as a partner, a term historically meaning that an employee earns a share of the firm's profits. He filed an economic disclosure form two years ago that listed a partnership in the firm valued between $100,001 and $1 million...

Fort-Merrill's role has been questioned by a former County Office employee, Rodger Hartnett...

But ethicists and attorneys not associated with the case said it was problematic for Fort-Merrill to advise the superintendent on personnel cases that could end up going to her husband or his firm. Some said the new revelations that BB&K is almost always used for those matters only increased their concern.

"She's got a problem. It's an untenable position to be in, and a good law firm would tell her that," said Bob Fellmeth, a professor of public interest law at the University of San Diego.

Derek Cressman, western states regional director for the nonpartisan watchdog group California Common Cause, said he didn't know whether the connection was illegal, but said it raised the appearance that Fort-Merrill was "bettering herself." He said, "If I were a public official that wanted to give voters confidence that I was making decisions based on the public interest, I wouldn't be doing what she is doing."...

"The fact that there is someone in between saying 'yes' and 'no' doesn't mean that this is all fine and dandy," Levinson said. Using the firm on other cases before Fort-Merrill started working "decreases any appearance of impropriety to a certain extent," she said, but does not eliminate the problem...

Government employees and elected officials are generally supposed to recuse themselves from government decisions that could impact their finances, said Roman Porter, executive director of the state Fair Political Practices Commission...

Another code prohibits public officials from having a financial stake in the contracts they make, barring them from preliminary discussions, planning or other involvement...

"However devious and winding the chain may be which connects the officer with the forbidden contract, if it can be followed and the connection can be made, the contract is void," states a 1934 court ruling cited in the guidelines.

I do a Google search for Lora Duzyk

See all posts about Lora Duzyk.

I googled Lora Duzyk today. Obviously, she wouldn't be embarrassed about these results:


ACSA, CASBO LEADERS TAKE ADEQUACY MESSAGE TO D.C.
Association of California School Administrators
(This link is safe; it's an ACSA web page.)
Posted: October 26, 2006
Source: EdCal
Representatives of ACSA joined the delegates of the California Federal Education Advocacy Collaborative in Washington, D.C. from Sept. 27-29. The trip was sponsored by the California Association of School Business Officials. Frank Gomez, ACSA vice president...

Members of the advocacy delegation also included: Lora Duzyk, CASBO president, San Diego COE; Bill McGuire, CASBO president elect...

The group was in Washington to discuss a number of issues with political leaders...





Surely this article about SDCOE buying a Unisys system isn't an embarrassment for Duzyk. Why would it be?

Unisys News and Events

The San Diego County Office of Education, which provides a wide range of services for the county’s 42 public school districts, put in a first-day order for a ClearPath Libra 690, which takes advantage of the system’s support for both the Unisys MCP operating environment and Microsoft Windows, running on an integrated Intel processor module.

“The ClearPath 690 will enable the County Office of Education to provide teachers, administrators and parents with valuable student and school information,” said Lora Duzyk, assistant superintendent of Business Services for the County Office of Education. “We will be able to continue with our current applications, while also providing local school districts with new ones on the open Wintel module. And with ClearPath’s pay-for-use buying model, we expect to get the most value for our dollar, which is extremely important to the County Office of Education and our local school districts.”


So why do Internet Explorer and Firefox to warn searchers to stay away from ZoomInfo? When Internet Explorer warned me away from ZoomInfo, I went to Firefox and clicked on Lora Duzyk's Zoom Info profile

Page Load Error
Secure Connection Failed
* This could be a problem with the server's configuration, or it could be someone trying to impersonate the server.
Or you can add an exception…

I clicked on "Or you can add an exception."

Again I was warned away; I was given a choice between "Get me out of here!" or "Add exception."

So I clicked "Add exception."

Then I was given the opportunity to see the security certificate for the site, at which point I was shown a security certificate for Zoom.

So what's the problem?

I tried again to see Lora Duzyk's page on Zoom Info, and I succeeded. The first page of links about Duzyk consisted almost entirely of blurbs by organizations in which Duzyk herself has much power. She is a recent past president of CASBO.

Obviously, the articles cited above aren't a problem for Duzyk.

The problems for Duzyk start on the second page of links, with links to Voice of San Diego and my own websites.


I searched for news about Zoom Info, and discovered that there is no problem. In fact, Zoom has recently entered into collaboration with Microsoft:

ZoomInfo, Microsoft collaborate for integrating search into CRM
Submitted by Manjinder Singh
Top News
03/09/2009

In collaboration with Microsoft, the business information search engine ZoomInfo will be amalgamating its wide-ranging search technology with Microsoft's Dynamic CRM platform...

ZoomInfo's technology is so effective in digging out business information, largely from sources like press releases and corporate bios on websites, that its intelligence algorithm can even set apart information about people with same names!...


My conclusion: I'm wondering if Microsoft/Zoom is trying to get rid of the more controversial information about individuals. Maybe the new entity is trying to abandon the old Zoom pages, and institute new web addresses for its pages, with more censorship. Obviously, the old pages have been safe for many years. They didn't get to the top of Google results by being disreputable.

Whistle-blower Rodger Hartnett wins against SDCOE, Lora Duzyk, Diane Crosier/Luther Burbank school/Bob Watkins

Looking for other posts? Here are some links:
Bob Watkins posts
Luther Burbank School
Josh Stepner

See all posts about:
Rodger Hartnett
Lora Duzyk
Diane Crosier
SDCOE


Judge Denton's ruling in favor of Rodger Hartnett against San Diego County Officials Lora Duzyk and Diane Crosier has been upheld by the California Court of Appeal. Hartnett complained that Crosier bypassed other attorneys on the SDCOE-JPA's defense panel to give about a million dollars of work each year to Daniel Shinoff's lawfirm.

Education officials still in lawsuit
Ruling backs up whistle-blower
By Jeff McDonald
San Diego Union-Tribune Staff Writer
October 3, 2009

...Former claims coordinator Rodger Hartnett alleges that administrators Lora Duzyk and Michele Fort-Merrill fired him for sounding an alarm about office corruption...

The ruling orders [Lora] Duzyk and [Michelle] Fort-Merrill to pay Hartnett's legal bills for the appeal.

Duzyk is the assistant superintendent for business services and Fort-Merill supervises the human resources department at the Office of Education, which operates as a kind of umbrella agency providing a variety of services for dozens of school districts in San Diego, Riverside and Imperial counties.

Hartnett sued the office, the two administrators and other employees, claiming he was fired in 2007 after questioning billing practices.






COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
RODGER J. HARTNETT, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. LORA DUZYK et al., Defendants and Appellants.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Steven R. Denton, Judge. Affirmed.

Rodger Hartnett sued his former employer, the San Diego County Office of Education and its superintendent Dr. Randolph Ward (collectively SDCOE), and several SDCOE employees. Two of those employees, Lora Duzyk and Michele Fort-Merrill, moved to strike the claims against them under the anti-SLAPP statute.

...Duzyk argues this case is "exactly" the same as Dible because Hartnett sued her because she informed Hartnett's employer of the " 'cause' for plaintiff's termination." The argument is not factually supported...

Fort-Merrill also relies on Dible, arguing that Hartnett was similarly attempting to rely on appellants' bad motives to show the case falls outside of the anti-SLAPP statute's protection...Fort-Merrill sent written communications to Hartnett pertaining to the hearing procedures, these communications did not trigger anti-SLAPP protection because the lawsuit is not based on these documents.

Finally, appellants devote a substantial portion of their appellate briefs to challenging various statements made by the trial court during the hearing on the anti-SLAPP motion. We do not reach these arguments because we apply a de novo review
standard...In conducting an independent review, we examine the correctness of the court's ruling, and not its rationale...

If appellants believe the allegations are unsupported, they are free to bring a dispositive motion such as a summary judgment motion or a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

Judge stands his ground: SDCOE, Randolph Ward and Diane Crosier will not get new trial in Rodger Hartnett case

Judge Denies New Trial in County Schools Case
EMILY ALPERT
Voice of San Diego
July 10, 2009

After delaying his decision in May, a Superior Court judge has decided that the San Diego County Office of Education cannot get a new trial in the case of Rodger Hartnett, a former employee who alleges that he was fired for blowing the whistle on conflicts of interest in the agency.

The same judge ruled in March that Hartnett was entitled to be reinstated at his job with back pay because an Office of Education commission failed to properly investigate Hartnett's claims. County Office of Education attorney Steven Cologne had not seen the ruling, but said the office would plan to appeal it, which would prevent Hartnett from returning to work or getting his backpay while the case continues.

Cologne said that Denton also ruled that Hartnett was not entitled to have his attorneys' fees repaid by the County Office of Education. I haven't seen that ruling yet.

Superior Court Judge tells SDCOE Supt. Randy Ward that he was wrong to fire whistle-blower

Randolph Ward knows that school officials don't have to obey the law because California's administrative courts can be relied on to give them legal victories they don't deserve. So Randy doesn't investigate whistle-blower complaints. Ward says, "In all cases, the hearing is the investigation."

This lawlessness among school officials is a key reason that education is failing most of our students. People in power seem to listen to no one except their lawyers.

It's time to stop retaliating against whistle-blowers, Mr. Ward.

Agency fights reinstating worker with whistleblower complaint
By MARK WALKER
North County Times
March 30, 2009

The San Diego County Office of Education said Monday it will appeal a judge's finding that a fired employee must be reinstated because the agency failed to consider his whistleblower complaint for alleged unethical practices.

Last week, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Steven Denton ordered the Office of Education to reinstate Rodger Hartnett to the agency's risk management department, from which he was fired in 2007...

Hartnett contends in court filings that cozy relationships among several agency employees and Daniel Shinoff of the San Diego law firm Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz led to that firm receiving the lion's share of legal work defending school districts faced with lawsuits.

Shinoff, who has represented dozens of area school districts in recent years and is widely regarded as a skilled and dogged advocate, has denied the allegation in published reports.

Efforts to reach Shinoff on Monday were unsuccessful...

In his reinstatement order, Denton said the agency's Personnel Commission violated state law when it failed to conduct an investigation into Hartnett's allegation, thus rendering the firing moot.

Rodger Hartnett wins!! SDCOE's Randy Ward and Diane Crosier wrongfully terminated him

The SDCOE claims coordinator who accused school attorney Daniel Shinoff of inappropriate relationships with risk management executive director Diane Crosier and administrator Rick Rinnear has won his wrongful termination lawsuit.


Judge Gives Schools Official Back Pay, Job
Voice of San Diego
by Emily Alpert
March 27, 2009

A Superior Court judge ruled this week that a former San Diego County Office of Education employee who filed a wrongful termination suit against the agency must be reinstated and awarded back pay to the date of his firing.

Rodger Hartnett once helped oversee litigation as a claims coordinator for the Risk Management Joint Powers Authority, a public agency run through the County Office of Education that handles lawsuits for school districts. He was terminated in August 2007. He claimed in his lawsuit that he was fired for complaining that one firm, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, received a disproportionate share of legal work "based on personal relationships" in the office rather than merit.

The claims were central to this voiceofsandiego.org story investigating the relationship between the firm and the school district.

An internal Office of Education commission found that Hartnett's termination was "for good cause and not excessive" and that he was not the victim of retaliation. The agency has stated that Hartnett was fired for negligence, insubordination and dishonesty, including discussing a confidential file with an outside attorney and lying about it.

But Superior Court Judge Steven Denton ruled on Wednesday that the termination was not done by the book. He concluded that the Office of Education commission "did not proceed in the manner required by law because it failed to conduct an investigation prior to the hearing." Denton did not address any of the "substantive issues" of the case, such as whether Hartnett is justified in his claims about "insider dealings" to Stutz Artiano.

The judge concluded that Hartnett should be immediately reinstated and is "entitled to an award of back pay from the date of his termination through reinstatement." Hartnett estimates that that payout could total nearly $250,000.

"I'm going to go to work on Monday with the order (from the judge) in hand," Hartnett said. "I don't know what they're going to do. They've made it clear they don't want me back." He added, "Their options now are to welcome me back, try to fire me again, or file an appeal of the ruling."

I left a message for County Office of Education spokesman Jim Esterbrooks to find out how the agency plans to respond and how it interprets the ruling.

Hartnett v. SDCOE, Diane Crosier, Randolph Ward, et al

See all Rodger Hartnett posts.
See all Diane Crosier posts.
See all Lora Duzyk posts.
See all Randy Ward posts.

A lot of people seem to be looking for information about the Hartnett v. SDCOE lawsuit. I have placed a link to the tort claim and complaint on this page.

The suit says, "...Lora Duzyk failed to perform an investigation regarding reports plaintiff made regarding the illegal rotation of business and billing practices of panel counsel Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz and Winet Patrick and Weaver in violation of the Political Reform Act."

I've been asking SDCOE for years for an investigation into Stutz law firm.

Rodger Hartnett: Wrongful termination lawsuit

UPDATE: RODGER HARTNETT WINS!

SEE ALL RODGER HARTNETT POSTS HERE.



ORIGINAL POST:

Lots of people are wrongfully terminated, but many are rightfully terminated. I think most people have experienced the frustration of dealing with someone who is incompetent or just doesn't bother to do his job right.

I have no idea which was the case with Rodger Hartnett of SDCOE. I do know that Mr. Hartnett supported the wrongful terminations of many people.

Did Rodger come to a realization that he was supporting illegal actions by SDCOE-JPA and its lawyers? Did he argue against that wrongdoing, and thus inspire Diane Crosier's ire?

Or did Diane Crosier become rightfully concerned about Hartnett's work performance?

I'm sure Rodger could tell some good stories about the unethical inner circle at San Diego County Office of Education--the circle that Superintendent Randolph Ward has protected since his arrival at SDCOE, and the board has protected for even longer.

It seems that SDCOE-JPA is very good at protecting its accomplices.

A lot of people seem to be looking for information about the Harntett v. SDCOE lawsuti. I have placed a link to the tort claim and complaint on this page.

GCCCD Chancellor Omero Suarez






SDCOE lawyers from Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, along with fair-haired boy Randall Winet, pulled off an amazing $3 million deal to pay off MiraCosta College President Victoria Richart, and quickly followed up with an indemnified-for-all-wrongdoing deal with Omero Suarez of Grossmont Cuyamaca Community College. Of course, Dan Shinoff and Randall Winet had help from good friends Judge Moon, Bob Ottilie, and Price Investigations. Diane Crosier certainly seems to have a close-knit group of friends!

On the other hand, maybe it's all the tax dollars flying around, not true friendship, that keep the wagons circled around the Crosier inner circle.

Will SDCOE use taxpayer dollars once again to pay off Harnett to keep its secrets?

Hopefully not. It would be best if there were a trial, and the public learned about the inner workings of the system that controls almost all legal work in San Diego county schools.

What to make of Rodger Hartnett's lawsuit against SDCOE and Diane Crosier?

In Rodger Hartnett v. Diane Crosier, et al, Rodger Hartnett says SDCOE-JPA and its top management have done wrong.

I could have told him that years ago. In fact, I did tell him, and he disagreed with me.

If Hartnett was wrongfully terminated, he shouldn't be surprised. He knows that SDCOE's lawyers facilitate wrongful terminations all the time. Two high-profile cases were Mary Anne Weegar and Coach James "Ted" Carter.

I suppose that Rodger expected loyalty after all the dirty work he did on SDCOE's behalf.

My question is this: does Rodger think that SDCOE has betrayed its obligation to serve insurance companies well, or does he think SDCOE has betrayed the taxpayers who pay the premiums?

Which side is he on? How does he see himself?

Is he outraged on behalf of all school employees who were harmed through illegal actions by SDCOE attorneys, or is he outraged only on behalf of one member of the SDCOE-JPA elite?

Has he gone over to the other side--the side of the voters, citizens, taxpayers, students and school employees--or is this case just a dispute among high level government ripoff artists?

A lot of people seem to be looking for information about the Harntett v. SDCOE lawsuit. I have placed a link to the tort claim and complaint on this page.