Lawsuit Claims SDCOE Supt. Randy Ward Took Thousands in Illegal Pay

Lawsuit Claims County Superintendent Took Thousands in Illegal Pay

By Ashly McGlone

VOSD

July 8, 2016

 

A taxpayer group is suing county superintendent of schools Randy Ward, claiming he illegally paid himself as much as $100,000 in recent years, and doled out improper pay to his top staffers.

The lawsuit – filed Thursday in San Diego County Superior Court by the California Taxpayers Action Network, represented by San Diego attorney Cory Briggs – takes aim at several aspects of Ward’s compensation, including so-called “me-too” raises they say violate strict state conflict-of-interest laws.

Ward has served as the top executive of the San Diego County Office of Education since June 2006, and his pay has put him among the highest compensated K-12 public school employees in the state.

In June 2013, the elected five-member board added language to Ward’s contract that let him collect the same raises teachers get as long as he earned a satisfactory performance evaluation.

In June 2014, the board did away with the evaluation requirement and gave him the same raises as teachers automatically, without consideration of his performance. As a result, that year, Ward received a 5.1 percent raise worth $14,535, and has continued to receive guaranteed raises matching teachers ever since.

Me-too clauses can be legal, but California laws generally prohibit self-dealing to ensure that government officials’ responsibility to negotiate salaries in the best interest of taxpayers isn’t compromised by a personal financial incentive.

Since Ward negotiates with the teacher’s union and helps decide what raises teachers get, his actions could be considered self-dealing. If deemed illegal in court, at least $70,000 in payments could be voided and ordered repaid to the agency.

Another bone of contention raised in the lawsuit deals with an earlier raise granted to Ward before the “me-too” raises were put in place.

In 2008, the board gave Ward a 3.8 percent raise, but he postponed taking it. Then, two years later, he retroactively authorized it via an interoffice memorandum to the business department causing a windfall of up to $31,400.

Staff did not respond to questions asking whether the move could have spiked his pension – or improperly boosted his retirement benefits in violation of state rules. The impact on Ward’s pension is not discussed in the lawsuit.

The California Constitution generally prohibits non-union employees like Ward from getting paid long after work was performed, so the belated me-too pay bumps are also unconstitutional, the nonprofit taxpayer group says.

The lawsuit also names the County Office of Education’s longtime chief business officer, Lora Duzyk, claiming she too acted illegally and abused her office.

“Defendant Ward has no legal right to accept retroactive pay increases, and none of the Defendants has the legal authority to increase their compensation without first obtaining the BoE’s (board) approval,” the lawsuit says.

The group contends the board’s action adding me-too raises to Ward’s contract doesn’t mean the payments were legal.

A recent salary bump for Ward of 4 percent that took effect July 1 brought his base salary to $331,736 and is also being questioned by the group. Voice of San Diego also asked the County Office of Education for an explanation of the recent raise and has not yet heard back.

Ward just began the final year of a three-year superintendent employment contract that expires July 1, 2017.

Ward and Duzyk did not immediately respond to requests for comment...

Trustee seeks to keep bonus issue before school board

Trustee still irate over retirement bonus
Written by
Jeff McDonald
SDUT
Aug. 11, 2011

County schools Trustee Jerry Rindone continues to rail against a $25,000 retirement bonus given to Superintendent Randolph Ward — and is complaining about how his no vote was recorded.

At the Board of Education meeting this week, Rindone requested that the two issues be added to a future agenda for further discussion.

“I am asking my board colleagues to support this request since Superintendent Ward in fact requested not to receive a $25,000 retirement payment in fiscal year 2009 due to the very difficult economic times,” Rindone said.

In addition to the $25,000 bonus approved earlier this year, Rindone objected to the way the board meeting notes discounted his opposition to the payment approved in June. He voted against approving the minutes and requested a discussion over how board notes are written.

It is unclear whether the board will comply. A majority of trustees declined to pursue the discussion Wednesday despite Rindone’s request.

Board President Susan Hartley did not immediately return a call seeking comment. Earlier this year, the board voted itself a modest pay raise, with Rindone opposed.

Oakland Schools are being charged $25 million in fines for Randy Ward's mismanagement

When Randolph Ward first came to San Diego to be superintendent of SDCOE, the County Office of Education, I couldn't figure out why he didn't insist that Lora Duzyk and Diane Crosier clean up the corruption in the business office. Now I understand.

See all posts about SDCOE.

Oakland schools paying for administrator's errors
Chip Johnson
San Francisco Chronicle
April 15, 2011

It's one thing for Oakland school administrators to miscalculate district finances and be penalized with the loss of authority, which is exactly what happened in 2003 when the district received a $100 million state bailout and was put in the hands of a state-appointed administrator.

It's quite another matter for that administrator to amass more than $25 million in fines and other charges from the state Controller's Office for fiscal mismanagement - and then expect the district to foot the bill.

Yet that is exactly what the state is trying to do.

Those fines and charges were racked up by Randy Ward, the state administrator who led the school district from 2003 to 2006 as part of the state takeover.

Local officials regained control over their beleaguered district in 2009, and say they shouldn't have to pay for Ward's fiscal mistakes. Those mistakes include underestimating payroll liability and failing to reconcile cash accounts.

East Bay Assemblyman Sandré Swanson has intervened in hopes of getting the district off the hook for the $25.25 million in total fines and other costs.

But the situation suggests that on some financial matters, Ward ran the district in much the same cavalier fashion as before the takeover.

Annual audits for the district's cash expenditures were never conducted between 2003 and 2006. Ward led the district during that period. An accounting of cash expenditures conducted in 2010 overstated the district's cash assets by $7 million, said district spokesman Troy Flint.

For a school district that slashed $122 million from last year's budget and faces a projected $30 million deficit in the coming school year, expecting that it can come up with millions of dollars in fines is an unreasonable demand...

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.

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.

Dear Randy Ward, how about allowing a broadcast by school inmates along the lines of Brixton Prison radio?

It's long been popular to give school kids the opportunity to present news and information to their peers; now this idea seems to have become popular in prisons. Does broadcasting improve the minds of the people who do it? How could it not? It makes them think; it teaches them to speak.

It's too bad students and teachers can't do probing interviews like the Brixton inmate who interviewed the former government minister who was sentenced to prison for perjury (story below).

A lot of problems in schools could be fixed if they weren't covered up by officials. Instead of selling exposure on public television to commercial interests, perhaps San Diego County Office of Education Superintendent Randolph Ward could create a television broadcast in which the inmates of San Diego schools, along with the public, could give real information to voters and taxpayers about schools.



Prison Radio Shines
Forbes
Parmy Olson
05.11.09

A tiny prison radio station in London is competing against the BBC for a prestigious award.

...A tiny prison radio station in South London is up for four prestigious Sony awards on Monday night, putting it alongside the some of the top talent of the BBC and other commercial radio stations in the United Kingdom.

Electric Radio in Brixton Prison is run by the Prison Radio Association, a British charity, and broadcasts to just 800 inmates--but it has a rich array of programming...

Its nominations include an award for talk radio and the all-important Interview Award.

...one of Brixton Prison's inmates interviewed former U.K. government minister Jonathan Aitken, who was sentenced to 18 months in Belmarsh prison in 1999 for perjury and perverting the course of justice.

The interviewer was half-way through a four-year sentence when he conducted the interview, and the two men were "socially, culturally and educationally poles apart," the Prison Radio Association says. But while Aitken comes across as well-spoken and slightly pompous, Tis' is not afraid to ask probing questions, creating an intriguing interview in which Aitken opens up about his divorce, bankruptcy and experiences in jail. The interview can be listened to here...




[Maura Larkins' comment: Perhaps freedom of speech, though it may be the foundation of our country's success, is not popular with education officials. Perhaps Randy Ward and Diane Crosier, who are supporting their lawyer Daniel Shinoff in his defamation lawsuit against me, believe that anyone who tells the truth about their actions should face a court system that has often helped them cover up their actions. Thank goodness they don't have as much power as officials in Iran.]





Blogger jailed in Iran is dead
CNN
March 19, 2009

A young blogger arrested in Iran for allegedly insulting supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in an Internet posting has died in prison, his attorney said Friday.


The blogger had been jailed for allegedly insulting Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in an internet posting.

Attorney Mohammad Ali Dadkhah said Omid Mir Sayafi, reported to be in his 20s, died in Evin prison, which is located in Tehran and known for its wing that holds political prisoners.

Dadkhah said a fellow inmate, Dr. Hessam Firouzi, called him Wednesday night with the news -- and said he believed Sayafi would have lived if he received proper medical care.

Dadkhah said Firouzi, an imprisoned human-rights activist, said that he carried a semi-conscious Sayafi to a prison doctor but that he didn't receive the care he needed.

"It was Dr. Firouzi's opinion that if he would've received proper medical attention, he would not have died," Dadkhah said.

He said Sayafi was buried on Thursday and that his calls to the prison asking for an explanation have not been returned.

Dadkhah said Sayafi "sounded OK" at about 2 p.m. on Wednesday when he last spoke to him by telephone. He said the blogger asked for a book about Nowruz, the Iranian New Year, which begins Friday.

The International Campaign for Human Rights in Iran, which advocates for activists in the country, quoted Firouzi on its Web site as saying Sayafi suffered from depression and had taken extra doses of medication on Wednesday.

The group blamed Iran's government for unsafe conditions in its prisons.

"Iranian leaders have relegated the administration of the prison system to a group of incompetent and cruel officials who are showing their utter disregard for human life," said Hadi Ghaemi, spokesman for the campaign. "If the authorities do not move quickly to hold negligent officials responsible, they are reinforcing impunity and the lack of accountability."

Sayafi was first arrested in April, then released for 41 days before being arrested again. He was sentenced to 2½ years in prison for comments on a blog that his lawyer argued was intended only for a few friends to read.

SDCOE has given millions of tax dollars to its business pals; now it will sell advertizing rights to make up for some of the loss

Instead of selling exposure on public television to commercial interests, why doesn't SDCOE Superintendent Randolph Ward allow school stakeholders to produce a free and unfettered broadcast that gives voters a peek into how our schools are run?


Your company's name here . . .
County Office of Education's courtship of corporate sponsors could raise big cash – and concerns about the lessons learned
By Chris Moran,
San Diego Union-Tribune Staff Writer
June 24, 2009

For $3 million, the county Office of Education's sixth-grade camp could take a corporate name such as Cuyamaca Outdoor School presented by Mission Federal Credit Union. Or maybe Qualcomm's Camp Cuyamaca.

For $75,000, a company can present the high school girls volleyball championship on ITV, the office's cable channel. For another $75,000, a company president can appear on ITV handing over the trophies to the winning students in a video production contest...

Naming-rights deals once associated with sports and entertainment venues are migrating to public education, leading critics to warn that schools may be venturing down the wrong path.

“One of the purposes of education and of school is to promote reasoning, and advertising by its nature subverts reason, and for that reason alone has no place in the schools,” said Susan Linn, director of the nonprofit Campaign for a Commercial-Free Childhood at the Judge Baker Children's Center in Boston.

The county Office of Education's plan, released last week, would be the biggest corporate sponsorship of its kind in the region...

“In tough economic times, it's very difficult for parents to raise $270 for a week of their children going to school when you're coming from a socio-economic situation where that's a very difficult choice,” said county schools Superintendent Randy Ward...


That Camp Cuyamaca administrators feel compelled to seek private money demonstrates that society doesn't value public education enough, Linn said.

She said a corporate presence in an educational setting carries extra weight because it benefits from the “halo effect” of the tacit endorsement of teachers.

“It's ironic that the kids are going to be really face-to-face with marketing that is going to be inculcating consumerism, which is antithetical to environmental values” that camps try to promote, Linn said.

Officials with the Office of Education insist that the naming rights are not advertising...

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.

How Randy Ward chooses San Diego County Office of Education attorneys

Voice of San Diego reporter Emily Alpert has been busy learning about SDCOE lawyers while I've been down here in El Salvador learning about Central America´s justice system.

Advice from Her Can Mean More Work for Her Husband
By EMILY ALPERT
April 23, 2009

An employee at the San Diego County Office of Education advises her boss on whether to retain attorneys for personnel cases, a decision that routinely leads to her husband's law firm receiving business from the agency.

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.


Neither Ward nor Fort-Merrill specifies which attorney to use, Ward said. But BB&K is routinely used for personnel cases unless its attorneys lack expertise in a specific topic, Ward said. The county office does not have a written policy outlining the process by which attorneys are hired.

"It's been decided by history that Best, Best & Krieger would be used for disciplinary matters," Ward said. He added, "What typically happens is we would ask BB&K whether they have the expertise on a certain issue, and if we didn't feel they did, we would go to a different counsel."

The phenomenon is one in a spate of complaints raised in a recent lawsuit by a former employee, Rodger Hartnett, who alleges he was fired for blowing the whistle on "a culture of corruption" that resulted in government business going to friends and spouses of San Diego County Office of Education employees.


Related Links

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


While Fort-Merrill does not directly assign legal work to any specific firm, her advice helps determine whether the office turns to outsiders or its own staff to handle difficult issues -- and going to outsiders frequently means going to her husband's firm.

University of San Diego public interest law professor Robert Fellmeth said that the practice would only be acceptable if Fort-Merrill had a much more limited role that involved no independent judgment in deciding when an attorney is needed, such as signing a form to formally request that the agency hire an attorney after an employee filed a lawsuit against them. He cautioned that his opinion relied on the facts supplied by a reporter.

"If she is making decisions to invoke contracts with counsel and she knows that the firm generally hired includes her husband -- there is a problem," Fellmeth wrote in an e-mail. "She influences the volume of business going to law firms -- a substantial part of which inures to her husband's firm."

BB&K received nearly $688,000 in business from the office between July 2005 and July 2008 while Fort-Merrill oversaw human resources, according to documents Hartnett provided to voiceofsandiego.org. Fort-Merrill's husband has decades of experience as an employment and labor law attorney, according to the BB&K website, which lists him as one of only two attorneys in the firm who specializes in school labor relations law.

Ward said that there is no conflict posed by Fort-Merrill making the recommendation because he makes the final decision on whether or not to hire attorneys. He called BB&K "a staple counsel" and said that William Merrill, commonly known as Woody, had been hired by the agency long before both Ward and Fort-Merrill were employed there. He declined to comment on whether Fort-Merrill had ever recused herself from recommending whether to hire attorneys, saying it was too related to the ongoing court case...

SDCOE trustee Jerry Rindone is questioning the way Diane Crosier and Dan Puplava do business

We're lucky to have Jerry Rindone on the San Diego County Office of Education board.
It may not be a coincidence that the only trustee at SDCOE who sees a problem with the recently-exposed shenanigans in the Risk Management department is one of the new board members. Jerry Rindone is concerned about administrator Dan Puplava's having a side business with the same financial institutions that he manages on behalf of SDCOE. The state attorney general says this is prohibited.

Longtime board members John Witt, Sharon Jones, and Susan Hartley have been studiously looking the other way for years, ignoring my public records requests and refusing to investigate complaints about Risk Management executive director Diane Crosier.

I had hoped that Superintendent Randolph Ward would clean things up when he arrived, but it appears that he (literally!) bought into the Risk Management schemes within weeks after he was hired in 2006.

I'd like to think the other new trustee, Mark Anderson, is still contemplating the situation. Perhaps he'll have the courage to speak out against the cronyism in the SDCOE Risk Management department.





Employee-broker issue divides school trustees
Superintendent also was client
By Jeff McDonald
San Diego Union-Tribune
March 23, 2009


Background: The manager of the San Diego County Office of Education deferred compensation program ran a side business that sold investments to teachers and administrators served by the program.

One trustee of the San Diego County Board of Education [Jerry Rindone of Chula Vista] is so concerned about a manager's side business selling financial securities to educators that he requested a review of the situation by the superintendent.

...According to the state Attorney General's Office, public school employees – including those in the county education office – are prohibited from acting as commissioned sales agents for vendors of the educator retirement accounts...

County Superintendent of Schools Randolph Ward, who bought an annuity from [Dan] Puplava weeks after being hired in 2006, did not respond to requests for an interview.

At issue is the deferred-compensation program run by the Fringe Benefits Consortium...Over the years, Puplava and a group of independent financial advisers hosted hundreds of workshops to tell school employees about the program...The newspaper obtained one statement that showed Puplava earned more than $355,000 in commissions in 2006...

Board President Sharon Jones said she and her colleagues are “always concerned” about conflict-of-interest allegations but noted that there is no law against running a personal business while working for a public agency...

[Maura Larkins' note: Sharon Jones seems to be concerned about allegations, but not about wrongdoing. She wants SDCOE to keep its secrets. Jones is my representative on the board, and has ignored all my requests for help obtaining public records. The only board member who has ever been responsive to my requests was Nick Aguilar, the previous south county representative. It's interesting that Aguilar's replacement, Jerry Rindone, is the only board member currently concerned about SDCOE's relationship with insurance companies.]

Trustee John Witt declined to discuss the issue;





Trustee Mark Anderson did not return two messages left at his home.





Trustee Susan Hartley said the county schools office looked into Puplava's dealings and found nothing amiss.

[Maura Larkins' note: Maybe you should have someone from the outside investigate, Ms. Hartley.]

Tom Curtis, a retired university administrator from La Mesa with no ties to the county Board of Education...was so angry after reading the newspaper report that he called the headquarters to complain...

[The SDUT first broke this story last week; Voice of San Diego recently wrote about SDCOE lawyer Daniel Shinoff and his relationship with the folks in SDCOE's Risk Management department.]

Why are Diane Crosier and Dan Puplava and the San Diego County Schools Fringe Benefits Consortium suing the brokers they hired?

See all Dan Puplava posts; all Diane Crosier posts.

I understand that public entities sometimes sue people, but I don't understand why Diane Crosier and Dan Puplava, two highly paid employees of San Diego County Office of Education, are also plaintiffs in the San Diego County Schools Fringe Benefits Consortium's suit against brokers it hired.

The obvious question is this: were these two public employees getting--or expecting to get--kickbacks AS INDIVIDUALS from the public entity's sales? I simply don't see how the brokers could have damaged Diane Crosier and Dan Puplava as individuals UNLESS Crosier and Puplava were expecting more money for themselves.

Over the years I've asked a lot of questions about SDCOE
(San Diego County Office of Education)
and Diane Crosier. Yesterday I asked on this blog,
"What exactly is the relationship between AIG and SDCOE?"

I was delighted to wake up this morning and find that my question had been answered, at least in part, by the San Diego Union Tribune:

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.

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.

[Maura Larkins' note: I was one teacher who was almost fleeced by the consultants who were allowed to come into classrooms in Chula Vista Elementary School District to push their products. Anthony Pavia and James Sanford tricked me, but I got most of my money back. Current CVESD Superintendent Lowell Billings tried to cover-up the hoax.]

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.

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.

...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.

[Maura Larkins' note: Now that's a real shocker! Bonnie Dumanis didn't find anything wrong with SDCOE lawyer Dan Shinoff's actions at MiraCosta College, either.]


...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.

[Maura Larkins' note: Wait a minute. If SDCOE was truly helping teachers avoid "high fees and commissions," then how could private brokers steal clients? They must have given them a better deal! It sounds like SDCOE was overcharging teachers. Where did all the extra money go, Diane Crosier?]

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.

...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.

What exactly is the relationship between AIG and SDCOE?

UPDATE: SignOnSanDiego (the Internet version of the San Diego Union Tribune) published an excellent answer less than ten hours after I posted the question, "What exactly is the relationship between AIG and SDCOE?"


ORIGINAL POST:

I was pleased to learn that $12 billion of AIG's bailout money has been paid to municipalities in California.

This use of the money is certainly better than the shocking payments to AIG's Financial Products, the unit of the company that sold high-risk credit swaps.

I'm still concerned. Public entities in California have been investigated regarding kickbacks from insurance brokers. I know that San Diego County Office of Education (which is suing me for harassment) is insured by AIG. I am asking SDCOE to produce records of all payments to SDCOE and/or its employees by AIG.

Randolph "Randy" Ward and Diane Crosier are using public funds to advance Dan Shinoff's private lawsuit against this blogger

When San Diego County Office of Education-Joint Powers Authority executive director Diane Crosier recently got subpoenaed by me (Maura Larkins) to testify in the defamation lawsuit against me by Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, Crosier was determined not to testify. She is the individual who has assigned millions of dollars worth of SDCOE-JPA cases to her friend Stutz lawyer Daniel Shinoff, and she's as loyal as they come.

Crosier wasn't in her office on our first attempt to serve the subpoena, but the secretary in the office assured us that Crosier would be in the next day after 1:30 p.m.

But lo and behold, Ms. Crosier was nowhere to be seen at 1:45 p.m. the next day. "She has a right to change her schedule," the secretary said. (I guess she felt defensive; she must have known that evading a subpoena is against the law.)

Another woman in the office aggressively demanded my name and the name of the server. The woman told me I couldn't serve the subpoena since I was a party in the case. I pointed out to her that I had brought someone else to serve. We left quickly.

Next I got a message from Stutz law firm that Shinoff was representing his benefactor Diane Crosier in the matter, and his office would accept service. My server went to Shinoff's office for a final, successful attempt at service.

Yesterday I got a letter from Stutz attorney Jeffrey Wade saying Crosier would not testify.

Apparently Crosier and her boss, Randolph Ward, are so anxious to help Shinoff shut down my website that they are not only devoting the public resources of SDCOE to Shinoff to prevent Crosier's deposition, but are devoting public resources to harrassing and intimidating me.

They have filed a lawsuit against me for harrassment.

Apparently they think I shouldn't be allowed to serve subpoenas on them. I haven't seen the lawsuit, but it is clearly related to the deposition subpoena served on Diane Crosier. It would seem that one of the labels for this post should be abuse of power, and another should be misuse of taxpayer dollars for private purposes.

It's legally prohibited for public entities to sue for defamation, but Diane Crosier and Randall Ward have found a way to use public resources to advance Stutz law firm's defamation suit against me.

Diane Crosier and Randolph Ward are being sued by SDCOE-JPA insider Rodger Hartnett.

News quiz: What do Tri-City Hospital, SDCOE-JPA and Otay Water District have in common? Answer: their law firms.

Photo: Public entity attorney Daniel Shinoff















"It must be a very fine line between what is criminal and what is, in my mind, very inappropriate and unprofessional."

1. Who said this?

(a) George Coulter, board member Tri-City Medical Center in Oceanside
(b) Judy Stratton, board member of MiraCosta Community College
(c) Donna Frye, San Diego City Councilwoman
(b) Gloria Carranza, board member of MiraCosta Community College

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Answers to this quiz are HERE.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

2. Who is being talked about?

(a) William "Woody" Merrill, attorney for Tri-City Healthcare Medical Center
(b) Art Gonzalez, CEO of Tri-City Healthcare Medical Center;
(c) Daniel Shinoff, attorney, San Diego County Office of Education--Joint Powers Authority;
(d) Randolph Ward, administrator, San Diego County Office of Education--Joint Powers Authority; SDCOE-JPA at first refused to turn over documents about the Victoria Richart settlement;
(e) The speaker was speaking in general terms about district attorney Bonnie Dumanis' investigation of events at MiraCosta Community College.


"Some of these things don't seem ethical and not even legal...He's either got to change his ways or get on his way...We're not getting the transparency that's needed.”

3. Who said it?

(a) George Coulter, board member Tri-City Medical Center in Oceanside
(b) Joe Biden, campaigning to be vice-president
(c) Judy Stratton, board member of MiraCosta Community College
(d) Rick Walker, student trustee at GCCCD


4. Who is being talked about?

(a) President George W. Bush
(b) Art Gonzalez, CEO of Tri-City Healthcare Medical Center
(c) William "Woody" Merrill, attorney for Tri-City Healthcare Medical Center
(d) Omero Suarez, Chancellor of GCCCD
(e) Bonifacio "Bonny" Garcia, attorney for public entities, famously worked for Burke Williams & Sorenson


5. What law firm is now representing Tri-City Healthcare Medical Center?

(a) Best, Best & Krieger
(b) Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost
(c) Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
(d) Burke, Williams & Sorenson
(e) It doesn't matter which of the above it is; they're pretty much the same.


* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Answers to this quiz are HERE.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Randoph Ward's SDCOE forum on education: here's what you missed, Mr. Ward

Randy Ward has asked the public to tell him if he's "missed something" regarding needed reforms in San Diego schools.

An Open Letter to Randolph Ward from Maura Larkins:

Dear. Mr. Ward:

Give the best teachers more responsibility for key instruction and big decisions--not in one classroom, but in several classrooms.

At the same time, give the less-skilled teachers the responsibility for reinforcement exercises and routine classroom chores, with one of these regular teachers in each classroom.

Teacher unions are often criticized, and rightly so, for blocking reforms to education, but the unions get plenty of help in the fight to keep the status quo from school boards and the education establishment.

Everyone knows that there are bad teachers, but school boards and admininstrators don't like to fire them as long as they remain passive and politically loyal. They pretend to be opposed to poor teachers, but they more often go after teachers who push for reforms.

If you go down to the office of administrative hearings and look at the files, you'll find that most teachers were fired for speaking out, even though the district involved admitted that they were good teachers.

Most district administrators are go-along-to-get-along folks. They want to keep everything calm and under control, even though that means that they are creating a population of undereducated citizens.

Mass firings of bad teachers is not what I propose. That would be costly, disruptive, harmful to morale, and could lead to teacher shortages. A better solution would be to give the best teachers more responsibility for classroom decision making and more instructional time, while giving the less-skilled teachers the responsibility for reinforcement of learning and routine classroom chores.

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.