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.

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.

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.

Judge delays Hartnett decision even though SDCOE's Superintendent Randy Ward admitted there was no investigation

To see all Rodger Hartnett v. SDCOE posts, click HERE.
See also Michelle Fort-Merrill story in Voice of San Diego.

It really should be a simple concept, but San Diego County Office of Education Superintendent Randolph Ward doesn't get it: employers should investigate before they fire employees who are whistle-blowers. Randy Ward protested in March 2009, when Hartnett won the right to reinstatement, that "in all cases, the hearing is the investigation." But serious wrongdoing isn't alleged in all cases, is it, Mr. Ward?

The necessity of investigating serious allegations is great, particularly since the hearings generally result in putting a rubber-stamp on whatever decision the public agency wants. The hearing is most certainly NOT an investigation. Virtually all hearing officers assume that public agencies behave lawfully. Randy Ward should have investigated this accusation, as well as other serious accusations that have been made.

Voice of San Diego reports: "Hartnett...claims he "discovered and reported a culture of corruption within my department involving conflicts of interest and interpersonal relationships" that led to legal business being sent to friends and spouses of employees. He alleges that [Michelle] Fort-Merrill orchestrated his firing "because I had further discovered, exposed and reported what I reasonably believed to be conflicts of interest in her husband [Woody Merrill] acting as general counsel."

Furthermore, it would hardly have been proper for SDCOE to investigate itself, Mr. Ward. You should have brought in outside investigators. But it's not too late. You can still do that.

Somehow Randy Ward's lawyer Steven Cologne has convinced a judge to delay his own tentative decision to deny Randy Ward a new trial.

Cologne argued that the court can find that SDCOE actually did do an investigation if the court simply reconsiders what the meaning of "is" is. No, wait a minute. Cologne wants the court to reconsider what the meaning of "investigation" is, after his client already publicly admitted that he didn't do an investigation.

It is very unusual for a judge to delay his decision. Maybe Judge Denton will change his mind and grant a new trial. A new trial might be interesting. At any rate, Denton has shown more courage than most judges in demanding that SDCOE follow the law. It's no surprise that so few judges have courage. They fear they'll be targeted by powerful interests at election time if they demand that public officals obey the law.




Here is Voice of San Diego's update on the situation:

Judge Delays Decision in Hartnett Case

Superior Court Judge Steven Denton held off ruling today whether the San Diego County Office of Education can get a new trial in the case of Rodger Hartnett, a former employee who alleges he was fired for blowing the whistle on conflicts of interest in the agency. (Check out this article for more information on the allegations.) Denton had issued a tentative ruling yesterday that would have denied a new trial to the office, which would have been a win for Hartnett.

In March, Denton ruled that Hartnett was entitled to his job and back pay because the county office had failed to properly investigate his claims. But today attorney Steven Cologne, who represents the county office, convinced the judge to give the issue more consideration before issuing his final ruling.

"This court has concluded for some reason that it was not a proper investigation," Cologne said, adding, "That is not my burden, it's [Hartnett's] burden." He argued that Denton needed to hear more evidence about how the office checked Hartnett's claims before ruling that no investigation was done. He also questioned the legal definition of "investigation."

Barry Vrevich, who represents Hartnett, countered that the office had to prove it had done an investigation, rather than forcing Hartnett to prove it had not. "What constitutes an investigation is a matter of common sense," Vrevich said, adding that it would include interviewing witnesses and reviewing documents. He added, "There has been no showing in opposition that an investigation was performed."

Denton did not name a date when he would make a final decision.

-- EMILY ALPERT

Friday, May 22, 2009








ORIGINAL POST:

Judge Denies New Trial in Hartnett Case
EMILY ALPERT
Voice of San Diego
May 22, 2009

A Superior Court judge has tentatively denied a push by the San Diego County Office of Education for a new trial in the case of Rodger Hartnett, a former employee who claims he was wrongfully fired for blowing the whistle on conflicts of interest in the agency.

The same judge, Steven Denton, had earlier ruled that Hartnett was entitled to his job and back pay because the agency had failed to properly investigate his claims. The COE pushed to vacate that ruling or get a new trial. Denton disagreed with its arguments that requiring both a hearing and an investigation for Hartnett would be "absurd."

[Maura Larkins' comment: SDCOE should never have asked for a hearing until it had done a thorough investigation. Judge Denton is dealing with powerful interests here. I hope he continues to insist that Randy Ward but obey the law. This will take the kind of courage with which Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is credited: "As a trial judge, she earned a reputation as a sharp and fearless jurist who does not let powerful interests bully her into departing from the rule of law." (from boston.com]

The matter goes before the court this morning. Check back for details on how the County Office is responding and whether Hartnett will be reinstated.

A letter to the editor about SDCOE's cozy relationships regarding spending

Tenacious Reporting
Letter to editor of Voice of San Diego
By Alice Marquis, La Jolla
Friday, April 24, 2009

Emily Alpert's story about a questionable practice at the County Office of Education: a woman recommends attorneys for labor cases and her husband gets the job.

These cozy relationships occur wherever there are bureaucracies handling money. There is only one barrier to such behavior -- media exposure.

I would bet that half the people in San Diego County aren't even aware that there is a County Office of Education. The activity at that office is rarely reported; it took a disgruntled employee who was unfairly fired to bring the information out into the daylight -- and a tenacious reporter at voiceofsandiego.org to follow up.

Alice Marquis' letter to Voice of San Diego regarding San Diego County Office of Education cronyism

Tenacious Reporting
By Alice Marquis, La Jolla
Friday, April 24, 2009

Emily Alpert's story about a questionable practice at the County Office of Education: a woman recommends attorneys for labor cases and her husband gets the job.

These cozy relationships occur wherever there are bureaucracies handling money. There is only one barrier to such behavior -- media exposure.

I would bet that half the people in San Diego County aren't even aware that there is a County Office of Education. The activity at that office is rarely reported; it took a disgruntled employee who was unfairly fired to bring the information out into the daylight -- and a tenacious reporter at voiceofsandiego.org to follow up.

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.