Showing posts with label SDCOE Fringe Benefits Consortium. Show all posts
Showing posts with label SDCOE Fringe Benefits Consortium. Show all posts

Saturday, October 19, 2013

Remembering the San Diego Union-Tribune expose of Dan Puplava


Current SDCOE board members Mark Anderson, Susan Hartley, Lyn Neylong, Gregg Robinson and Sharon Jones still don't require that Diane Crosier, executive director of SDCOE's Risk Management Department, report the gifts she receives.

Remember this story? Here's how the San Diego County Office of Education's Dan Puplava scandal started four-and-a-half years ago. SDCOE Superintendent Randolph Ward and the SDCOE board allowed Diane Crosier and Dan Puplava to silence whistle-blowers and anyone else in their way.

“He's getting paid a salary by the taxpayers to manage the registered representatives, not to be a registered representative..."


Benefits manager’s work questioned
County employee also acted as a broker
By Jeff McDonald
San Diego Union-Tribune
March 17, 2009

A San Diego County Office of Education employee tasked with managing a retirement program for thousands of teachers and administrators supplemented his salary for years with commissions on outside investments he sold to those same clients.

Daniel Puplava makes $100,000 to $108,000 a year as the deferred compensation manager for a consortium that serves public educators in three counties. At the same time, Puplava has been allowed to pursue those clients for his private broker business.

In 2006, Puplava collected at least $355,000 in commissions as a broker for AIG Financial Advisors Inc., according to documents obtained by The San Diego Union-Tribune. He was named to the 2008 Achiever's Council, an honor reserved for agents of AIG Financial Advisors whose commissions and fees exceed $250,000 a year.

His attorney said Puplava shared that money with other brokers.

[Maura Larkins comment in 2013: Diane Crosier and Dan Puplava never produced any evidence that Puplava "shared that money with other brokers." Their lawsuits seem to have been intended to intimidate their critics into settlement rather than to have their day in court to prove their innocence.]

Officials at the county schools office said they knew about Puplava's broker business and saw no conflict of interest because he has done the work on his own time.

“It's not unheard of for public employees to have a business on the side,” spokesman James Esterbrooks said.

The arrangement does not appear to violate federal securities laws, but it tests the limits of the state education code and has become one of the main sticking points in litigation involving the office.

Puplava's work as a broker also appears to have been done at county offices. Client statements obtained by the Union-Tribune list Puplava's phone number at the county schools office as his primary contact.

“It certainly strikes me as an apparent conflict of interest,” said Ronald F. Duska, director of the Mitchell Center for Ethical Leadership at The American College in Bryn Mawr, Pa. “It just sets up incredible temptations for the guy who's supposed to be acting as a manager.”

Puplava, who is 47 and lives in Escondido, declined to be interviewed. His attorney, Randall Winet, responded to questions with a March 6 letter to the newspaper stating that Puplava has divested himself of his personal clients and received only a portion of the commissions cited in documents.

“The funds from financial services companies were paid directly to him, which he then was required to distribute to a number of brokers working for him,” the letter says.

Winet also said Puplava had “a significant, thriving practice prior to ever joining the County Office of Education.”

Puplava is a registered broker for SagePoint Financial Inc. in Phoenix, which until recently was called AIG Financial Advisors.

His full-time job is to manage the deferred compensation retirement program for the Fringe Benefits Consortium, which provides access to health insurance, annuities and other services for school employees across San Diego, Riverside and Imperial counties.

The consortium was created in 1982 to help school employees negotiate better deals on health insurance by pooling resources.

Twelve districts representing 2,500 or so teachers initially joined the self-insurance partnership, but the client roster grew to 72,000 as the consortium attracted more districts and expanded its services.

When the Office of Education hired Puplava in 1997, he was permitted to keep his “book of business,” or private clients, county schools officials said.

Puplava also was allowed to grow his client base by soliciting teachers he met through his county job.

Four years after his hiring, the county schools office was among the first agencies in the country to organize an umbrella retirement program for teachers, who as public employees receive government pensions but often supplement those benefits by setting up individual investment accounts.

The idea was to give teachers the opportunity to buy investment products without paying the high fees and commissions normally associated with individual transactions.

Puplava was put in charge of the deferred compensation program. He contracted with outside financial advisers to promote the services, and together they hosted hundreds of informational seminars outlining the various products and services.

About 6,000 teachers and administrators have bought supplemental investment products offered through the deferred compensation program.

Consortium director Diane Crosier said that after a new superintendent was hired in 2006, a decision was made to allow Puplava to keep existing clients but restrict him from accepting new teachers and educators as customers. But by then, even incoming Superintendent Randolph Ward had bought an annuity from Puplava.

[Maura Larkins comment: Did your employee give you a good deal, Randy?]

Running an outside business is legal for full-time county Office of Education employees. But according to the California Department of Justice, a deferred compensation program manager is supposed to be a neutral party – not someone who profits from marketing financial products.

“The statute prohibits school employees from acting as sales agents for 403(b) vendors in return for commissions,” according to an August opinion from the Attorney General's Office analyzing the state's education code.

Section 403(b) of the Internal Revenue Service doe allows public and nonprofit employees to pay into tax-deferred supplemental accounts to boost their retirement nest eggs, much like 401(k) programs in the private sector. Former employees and independent advisers say the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigated Puplava's dealings. Crosier said the SEC has looked into Puplava, but that was more than a year ago and nothing has happened.

The San Diego County District Attorney's Office requested copies of related civil case files but closed its investigation in July after finding no evidence of criminal conduct.

The SEC and the District Attorney’s Office declined to discuss the situation, as did Ward.

In August, the consortium terminated the contracts of six brokers who had been enrolling and serving clients for years. Three weeks later, the schools office sued those brokers, claiming they had stolen clients and business from the consortium.

The brokers fought back, filing a 26-page cross-complaint last month that lodged numerous allegations against Puplava, Crosier and county schools office officials.

Among other things, the cross-complaint says Puplava opened a partnership with three of the fired advisers – Barry Allred, Christopher Dougherty and Michael Zeiger – that operated as FBC Insurance Services.

The partners shared tens of thousands of dollars in fees and commissions paid by FBC clients, the cross-complaint alleges.

Court papers also say Puplava negotiated a deal with Aviva Life and Annuity Co. that paid him 30 percent of all commissions the partnership received from Aviva. In 2006, Puplava personally collected more than $26,000 in Aviva commissions from February to October, the cross-suit says.

Citing the ongoing litigation, Crosier declined to address specific allegations, including why Puplava was permitted to sell his clients financial products not available under the consortium when the fired brokers were sued for the same activity.

“There are huge inaccuracies in that lawsuit,” Crosier said. Kris Kertzman, who worked as a consortium broker from 2002 to 2007 but is not part of the pending litigation, said Puplava's clients think he “has their best interests in mind because he works for the county.”

“He's getting paid a salary by the taxpayers to manage the registered representatives, not to be a registered representative,” Kertzman said.

Thursday, September 27, 2012

Who is exposing the underbellies of school systems, U-T San Diego or Voice of San Diego?

My challenge to Will Carless at VOSD and Jeff McDonald at U-T San Diego: Why don't you find out the truth about what's going on at SDCOE?

Now that Will Carless has replaced Emily Alpert at VOSD, why doesn't he conduct a "Crosier Watch" similar to the "Petty Watch" he conducted in 2008?

Over the past few years, only a few limited stories about the tactics of education attorneys have crept into the press. Reporters have to beg and plead and practically stand on their heads to get their stories published. Voice of San Diego dropped its coverage of SDCOE attorney shenanigans, and laid-off its stellar education reporter Emily Alpert. CEO Scott Lewis claimed that he didn't have enough money to pay her.

But that explanation doesn't hold water.

Voice of San Diego benefactors Buzz Woolley and Irwin Jacobs, who claim to care about education, could have easily paid Emily's salary with their pocket change if they'd wanted her to stay. And I suspect she would have wanted to stay if her job description had been made more appealing, which would have included being allowed to publish her stories freely. At one time she must have hoped that all her work would result in some changes for children in schools.

It seems Buzz Woolley, Irwin Jacobs and Emily Alpert weren't on the same page.

I recently discovered (in a story by Jeff McDonald at the U-T) that SDCOE executive Dan Puplava, whom Emily had started investigating, was fined $7000 and had his brokers license suspended while AIG Financial, which was paying Puplava big bucks for moonlighting with them, was fined $300,000 for not properly overseeing him. Still, Puplava retains his job as head of the SDCOE Fringe Benefits Consortium.

Voice of San Diego never even placed a link in its Morning Report to the U-T San Diego story.

To its credit, VOSD's Will Carless is doing a great job investigating a school bond scam in Poway pulled off by board members and their lawyers.

But if VOSD had been willing to aggressively investigate education attorneys, the Poway Capital Appreciation Bonds scandal might have been prevented. Of course, the downside of that for VOSD would be that it wouldn't have an exciting school bond story to write about.

It seems that journalists are a bit like Plaintiff lawyers: they actually benefit from corruption and wrongdoing because investigation it gets them money and fame.

All along, of course, the school attorneys are making work for themselves by advising school boards to ignore the law.

But the public doesn't hear much about this.

In fact, even private bloggers like me and Scott Dauenhaur get sued by SDCOE lawyer Dan Shinoff for defamation on behalf of himself and his pals at SDCOE. SDCOE should stop tax dollars to stop public discussion of school attorney tactics, but it won't.

Shockingly, it seems that U-T San Diego's Jeff McDonald is more willing to expose SDCOE than Voice of San Diego is. As a member of Voice of San Diego, I never thought I'd be forced to confess that we need the U-T in order to get balanced news reporting in San Diego. I never thought Doug Manchester's rag would sometimes do a better job on education than Buzz Woolley and Irwin Jacobs.

The U-T freely admits that it is using the paper to influence voters and officials. You know you're reading a biased paper when you read the U-T. The Union-Tribune has been killing important stories for years.

The problem with VOSD is that the bias is in the censorship--you don't know which stories they killed because donors didn't like them. Except, of course, in cases where VOSD started a story--and then killed it.

See similar problem in Maryland.

Sunday, December 26, 2010

Diane Crosier and Dan Puplava cozied up to Life Insurance of the Southwest, among others

See all Diane Crosier posts.
See all Daniel Puplava posts.

Diane Crosier and Dan Puplava recently cozied up to Life Insurance of the Southwest, a company whose agents, Anthony Pavia and James Sanford, altered a document that I signed in 1999. The falsified document, approved by Chula Vista Elementary School administrator Lowell Billings, can be seen at the bottom of this page.


Hotel Stays, Flights and a $400 Bottle of Wine
December 26, 2010
by Emily Alpert
December 26, 2010

When San Diego County Office of Education employees flew to Boston to learn more about a company they were considering doing business with, they didn't need to worry about the bill.

The company paid for their flight to Boston. It also paid for their hotel stay. And when of the employees, Dan Puplava, picked out a bottle of wine from Napa Valley over dinner, he wasn't really sure who paid, but believes it was either the company or its marketing company. He thought the bottle cost $400.

"Here the bottle of wine would be, like, 150 bucks," Puplava later testified. "Out there it was outrageous."

Puplava manages a program that helps school district and charter school employees invest for their retirements. Four years ago, he and supervisor Diane Crosier made the visit to Aviva, a company they were weighing whether to do business with, to learn more about its investment products.

It wasn't their only trip. Between 2006 and 2008, the employees repeatedly took trips to visit companies the program worked with or was considering working with, paid for by those same companies.

Crosier is supposed to publicly report gifts she gets from companies or people related to her work. Yet the trips aren't listed on her economic disclosure reports. Ethicists say the free trips are also problematic because workers could be improperly swayed by gifts from companies they negotiate with.

"It smells bad," said Jessica Levinson, director of political reform for the Center for Governmental Studies in Los Angeles. "They're clearly trying to influence them."

The County Office argues that the free trips did not compromise its integrity and helped spare resources. Trips to visit companies are indeed common among other investment programs run by government agencies, a way to keep up with vendors and the services they offer. But several other government programs surveyed by voiceofsandiego.org don't let companies pick up the tab.

"We don't want to be beholden to anyone," San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector Dan McAllister said. His office runs a similar program for county employees and pays for its own trips to see vendors. "We will turn down offers like that because we never want to leave the impression that there is a conflict."

Boston wasn't their only destination. They took several other trips on the tab of companies they were visiting: In Philadelphia, Crosier and Puplava met with Lincoln Financial, a company they were considering to manage their brokers. In Ohio they stopped in to see both Meeder Financial, which helps school employees manage their money, and Nationwide, their investment platform.

In Dallas they visited Life Insurance of the Southwest, a company that provided a special kind of investment plan for the program. In Utah they visited the company that administers the program, National Benefit Services. And they repeatedly visited Aviva's marketing company in Santa Barbara...

California also sets dollar limits on gifts to public employees, which bar them from taking more than $420 worth of gifts from each source each year. The rules are supposed to reduce the sway of money in government and allow the public to keep an eye on how public officials could be influenced.

In response to questions from voiceofsandiego.org, the County Office wrote in an email that it believed Crosier had followed the gift rules. But despite repeated questions, it would not specifically explain why the trips could be legally left off the forms. In an email, Crosier said only that the trips were not included "due to discussion with legal counsel."...

The investment program that Puplava manages is offered by a consortium of dozens of school districts and charter schools, which have joined together to get employee benefits at a lower cost. That pact, known as the Fringe Benefits Consortium, is run by the County Office of Education. The program has more than $210 million in assets and more than 6,500 participants.

The program says it offers a less expensive investment option to public school teachers. Attorney [XX], who fielded questions on behalf of Crosier and Puplava, said the agency had hired good, honest people.

"It's unfair to demonize people who have otherwise done great things," [XX] said in an interview earlier this year. "Public employees have saved millions because of their efforts."

But ethicists said the problem isn't whether Puplava and Crosier are good people. Taking the gifts could open Crosier and Puplava up to improper influence that public employees should try to avoid, they said.

Crosier and Puplava advise the committees that decide which companies get contracts with the program or what investments it can offer to employees.

[XX] said they don't give their opinion on companies. But La Mesa-Spring Valley School District Superintendent Brian Marshall, who sits on the executive committee, said that when vendors are up for approval, Crosier typically makes a recommendation to the committee...

The gifts came to light because the program is tangled in a lawsuit. Nearly two years ago, the consortium run by the County Office of Education sued a group of investment advisers it had terminated, accusing them of stealing trade secrets and other violations.

The advisers sued back, claiming the consortium had baselessly fired them.

After the Union-Tribune story on Puplava came out, County Office of Education employees Dan Puplava and Diane Crosier filed a defamation suit against one of the advisers, Barry Allred, and a former consultant, Scott Dauenhauer. Crosier claimed the two had given false information to a Union-Tribune reporter "to enact an unethical revenge."

Crosier's suit also argued that private emails between Allred and Dauenhauer were defamatory, including claims that did not appear in the newspaper. In one of those e-mails, Allred said Crosier and Puplava had accepted paid trips to Boston, Colorado, Utah, Ohio and Santa Barbara.

Attorneys for Allred and Dauenhauer declined comment for this article or didn't respond to phone calls by deadline. In their court filings, they attempted to counter the defamation claims by arguing that the emails about the trips were factual, quoting Puplava's testimony about his Boston trip.

Tuesday, December 14, 2010

The Diane Crosier/Daniel Puplava lawsuit by SDCOE has a status conference

The Diane Crosier/Daniel Puplava lawsuit by SDCOE has a status conference coming up. I think the "C: in front of Diane Crosier's name means "cross-complainant" or, more likely, "cross-defendant."

12/17/10 11:00AM Dept 62 Central
Judge Styn, Ronald L.
Status Conferen 37-2008-00090684-CU-BT-CTL
C)Diane Crosier
[represented by XXX]

It seems that Diane Crosier got a new lawyer in the case.

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Tentative Rulings in SDCOE Fringe Benefits Consortium, Dan Puplava, Diane Crosier lawsuit

All tentative rulings heard on April 9, 2010 were finalized.

The judge didn't give any litigant everything he wanted without a trial. Judge Styn made the following Tentative Rulings:

1. Dan Puplava will have to answer for unfair competition, but not
conversion or interference. LINK

2. Puplava motion for summary judgment denied: "Puplava fails to cite authority providing for summary adjudication of whether a duty was breached. Absent such authority, there is no basis to summarily adjudicate the claims for breach of duty as requested by Puplava. Even if there was such authority, Puplava's separate statement fails to identify the specific breach of duty and the undisputed facts as to each breach of duty for which summary adjudication is sought.

3. Triable issues of fact remain re Puplava's damages. LINK

4. Judge Styn kept alive the Breach of Written Contract charge against the Consortium as well as Breach of Contract, Interference and Unfair Competition against Crosier. He threw out Breach of Oral/Implied Contract against the Consortium. LINK

5. Click HERE for Tentative Ruling concerning the following:
1. Breach of Contract--Defendants' motion for summary
adjudication is granted.
2. Furtahdo wins: Breach of Implied Contract--Defendants' motion for summary adjudication is granted.
3. Misappropriation of Trade Secret--Defendants' motion
for summary adjudication is denied.
4. Statutory Libel--Defendants' motion for summary
adjudication is denied.
5. Intentional Interference with Prospective Economic
Advantage
Defendants' motion for summary adjudication is denied.
6. Misappropriation of Name--Defendants' motion for
summary adjudication is denied.




The judge did not favor the big dogs as blatantly as he did in Maura Larkins' malpractice lawsuit against attorney Elizabeth Schulman. In a better world, Judge Styn would have forwarded the evidence in the Schulman case to the Bar Association. Instead, he ignored it (helping Elizabeth Schulman avoid all responsibility for her wrongful acts), and then punished Maura Larkins financially for bringing the lawsuit.

The decisions of the court in the Schulman case illustrate why Elizabeth Schulman felt confident that she could get away with violating the legal requirements for an
attorney who agrees to represent a client. Schulman possessed sworn testimony that
contradicted the testimony of the witnesses appearing for Chula Vista
Elementary School District. Why did she not present it? Judge Styn’s prejudices against in pro per litigants not only protected Schulman from any legal consequences for her wrongdoing, but caused him to dismiss with prejudice a case in which the
complaint itself contained enough evidence to prove Schulman guilty of the
causes of action against her.

See all Dan Puplava posts.
See all Diane Crosier posts.
See all Lora Duzyk posts.
See all SDCOE posts.

Thursday, March 25, 2010