School officials and their attorneys make sure nothing ever changes: San Ysidro spent almost half a million on Manuel Paul

The shenanigans never stop. It's ridiculous to keep pursuing Manuel Paul without cleaning up the corruption that exists currently. Paul was just playing the game; he just wasn't as good at it as most school officials, attorneys, etc. who get wealthy off of schools. The truly greedy players stay in power while the public is distracted by small-time crooks like Paul.

Even so, the money spent on lawyers regarding Manuel Paul is negligible compared to the $3 million MiraCosta College spent on a case involving $305 in stolen water for palm trees. In the end, MiraCosta let the palm trees die. Obviously, many, if not most, schools are run for the benefit of individuals, not the public.

San Ysidro School District Has Spent $480K Trying to Recover $291K From Ex-Superintendent
Ashly McGlone
Voice of San Diego
October 16, 2017

San Ysidro School District is still trying to recover more than $291,000 from disgraced former superintendent Manuel Paul, and has racked up far more than that in legal bills trying to make it happen.

The district has paid Long Beach law firm Leal-Trejo $480,000 as part of the lawsuit against Paul, filed in February 2015, according to figures provided to Voice of San Diego in response to a Public Records Act request...

“I will consult with the Board of Education to find the best remedy for this case,” Deputy Superintendent Arturo Sanchez-Macias wrote in an email. Sanchez-Macias, who is currently serving as interim superintendent, declined to comment further on the fees...

If stubborn education attorneys had settled case of girl forced to pee in a bucket, San Diego Unified wouldn't have to pay over $1.29 million

A student was forced to urinate in a bucket during class. She sued — and won.

By Lindsey Bever  

Washington Post

January 26, 2017

A Southern California classroom was filled with high school freshmen when one of them realized that she needed to run to the restroom.

Patrick Henry High School in San Diego, however, had a policy at the time stipulating that students were not permitted to take bathroom breaks during class — and the teacher took a strict interpretation of it.

The teacher, Gonja Wolf, forbid the 14-year-old girl from leaving the classroom that Wednesday in February 2012. Instead, she let the girl pee in a bucket, then empty it in a classroom sink, according to a lawsuit.

The gossip reportedly spread through the school, then hit the news media, leading to the girl’s anxiety, depression and an attempted suicide.

Now five years later, the San Diego Unified School District was ordered Wednesday to pay the student, who is now 19, more than $1.25 million in damages and $41,000 to cover medical bills, according to the San Diego Union-Tribune.

“Something like this never should have happened to a 14-year-old girl just entering high school,” Brian Watkins, an attorney for the teenager, told the newspaper this week. “She took the stand and told a really embarrassing story, she told the jury how this has affected her life and how she is still working through issues.”

The ruling Wednesday concluded a years-long court battle in the Superior Court in San Diego.
The lawsuit, which was filed in 2012 against Wolf and the San Diego Unified School District, claims that on Feb. 22, 2012, the girl was forced to urinate in a small supply room next to the classroom and then take her urine back into the classroom for disposal. The lawsuit argues it was done to “humiliate and disgrace” the girl for trying to use the restroom during class time.

It states:

In the presence of several of [the student’s] male classmates, Wolf told [the student] that she could not leave the classroom regardless of the urgency of the situation and that she would have to pee in a bucket if she really needed to go. These instructions were explained in the presence of said classmates and Wolf then took [the student] to a small room and instructed her to pee in a bucket, then empty the contents in an unused classroom sink, and finally return the bucket back to the room.

The lawsuit alleges that the girl “was given no choice except to comply with these instructions.”...

North County Report includes intesting comments about CAB bonds and secretive lawyers

 UPDATE APRIL 9, 2016

Someone complained to Google about the following post, and Google decided to play around with my blog. They moved the post from my home page. So I'm republishing it.

Note to Google:

By the way, Google, who is it exactly that you're doing favors for? I think this is a pretty tame opinion piece. What exactly is it that you don't want the public to see?

Your move, Google. Remember your own motto: don't be evil.


 ORIGINAL POST:

"...Beatty voiced concerns with Shinoff’s work for San Ysidro schools and a recent unsuccessful attempt to get a restraining order against an outspoken Poway Unified resident WITHOUT THE BOARD'S KNOWLEDGE" (emphasis added).

-- from North County Report by Ruarri Serpa, Voice of San Diego April 6, 2016

Maura Larkins' comment:

I applaud Kimberly Beatty's efforts to have the Poway Unified School Board take more responsibility for the district's actions in court.
 
But Ms. Beatty has her work cut out for her if she thinks she's going to be able to get the board to deal with issues that it has traditionally let lawyers deal with.

There's a reason that school lawyers take action without consulting the board. It's the way things are done in most districts. It helps incumbent board members avoid controversial issues. And Beatty might have the courage to deal with hot-button issues, but I think she'll find that most of her fellows on the board will want to leave things as they are.

Sure, the board might decide to discontinue its relationship with Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm. But will the board want to change the way legal business is normally handled?
School board members regularly set up firewalls so they can claim they know nothing about what the lawyers are doing. If Beatty is talking about the Chris Garnier case, then the board can hardly claim ignorance of what was going on. Perhaps Dan Shinoff didn't consult with them ahead of time, and ask for an official decision about how to proceed, but the board must have heard about the case since it was covered in the San Diego Union-Tribune and on Channel 10 News.

If the board had a policy of having school lawyers consult with them before filing any request for a TRO, we would have heard board members howling about the breach of protocol at the very next board meeting. Instead, the board maintained silence through months of news stories. During that time, the board must have been approving payments to Stutz law firm.

Many people know that I've had my problems with school attorneys, but it has become clear to me that legal problems are not entirely the fault of the attorneys.

Attorneys are hired first and foremost to protect school officials, not to protect the public interest. Attorneys are expected to do what needs to be done so the district can present a calm, happy face to the world, and the incumbents can be reelected when it comes time to vote.

We seem to have unique ethics rules for lawyers.

For example, most people would agree that an elected official is supposed to act in the interest of the public that elected him and pays his salary. But this apparently does not apply to the elected City Attorney of San Diego. Remember when San Diego went into paroxysms of outrage when City Attorney Mike Aguirre claimed that his job was to act in the public's interest in regard to the big pension scandal? Even the California Bar Association said that public entity attorneys represent the officials, not the public. Of course, the Bar Association's goal is to advance the careers of attorneys. I do not believe that any court has actually ruled on this question.)

The system is set up to protect board members from responsibility for their lawyers' actions. This set-up ensures that board members have plausible deniability if the district ends up in court. Board members can plead ignorance. In addition, school attorneys fight tooth and nail to keep board members off the witness stand. So when you go to the voting booth in school board elections, you're going to have to choose between incombents who have absolutely nothing to say about the district's legal problems and challengers who are also ignorant of what goes on behind the scenes.

So how does a school district communicate with lawyers on a day-to-day basis? You might think that the superintendent steps in and takes responsibility for communications with the district's legal counsel. Nope, not the superintendent, at least not in my experience at Chula Vista Elementary School District or in many districts I've read about.

Who is the district's contact person for the lawyers? Usually, it's the Human Resources Director. And does the HR director tell the attorneys what to do? Heavens no. The attorneys instruct the HR director.

(I did see an exception to this rule in Grossmont Union High School District in around 2008 when board members Priscilla Schreiber and Larry Urdahl challenged the status quo and asked questions openly in board meetings about what was going on with the lawyers. At that time Superintendent Terry Ryan revealed that Shinoff had a verbal agreement with SDCOE rather than a written one.)

It is clear to me that many elected officials and superintendents intentionally abdicate responsibility.

Why? I think they like not having to think about pesky problems like lawsuits. I guess you'd call that laziness. And they don't want the voters to hold them responsible for what goes on in schools. They think that if they keep problems covered up, they will be reelected.

And they are almost always right about that.

North County Report includes intesting comments about CAB bonds and secretive lawyers

......Beatty voiced concerns with Shinoff’s work for San Ysidro schools and a recent unsuccessful attempt to get a restraining order against an outspoken Poway Unified resident WITHOUT THE BOARD'S KNOWLEDGE" (emphasis added).

-- from North County Report by Ruarri Serpa, Voice of San Diego April 6, 2016

Maura Larkins' comment:

I applaud Kimberly Beatty's efforts to have the Poway Unified School Board take more responsibility for the district's actions in court.
 
But Ms. Beatty has her work cut out for her if she thinks she's going to be able to get the board to deal with issues that it has traditionally let lawyers deal with.

There's a reason that school lawyers take action without consulting the board. It's the way things are done in most districts. It helps incumbent board members avoid controversial issues. And Beatty might have the courage to deal with hot-button issues, but I think she'll find that most of her fellows on the board will want to leave things as they are.

Sure, the board might decide to discontinue its relationship with Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz law firm. But will the board want to change the way legal business is normally handled?
School board members regularly set up firewalls so they can claim they know nothing about what the lawyers are doing. If Beatty is talking about the Chris Garnier case, then the board can hardly claim ignorance of what was going on. Perhaps Dan Shinoff didn't consult with them ahead of time, and ask for an official decision about how to proceed, but the board must have heard about the case since it was covered in the San Diego Union-Tribune and on Channel 10 News.

If the board had a policy of having school lawyers consult with them before filing any request for a TRO, we would have heard board members howling about the breach of protocol at the very next board meeting. Instead, the board maintained silence through months of news stories. During that time, the board must have been approving payments to Stutz law firm.

Many people know that I've had my problems with school attorneys, but it has become clear to me that legal problems are not entirely the fault of the attorneys.

Attorneys are hired first and foremost to protect school officials, not to protect the public interest. Attorneys are expected to do what needs to be done so the district can present a calm, happy face to the world, and the incumbents can be reelected when it comes time to vote.

We seem to have unique ethics rules for lawyers.

For example, most people would agree that an elected official is supposed to act in the interest of the public that elected him and pays his salary. But this apparently does not apply to the elected City Attorney of San Diego. Remember when San Diego went into paroxysms of outrage when City Attorney Mike Aguirre claimed that his job was to act in the public's interest in regard to the big pension scandal? Even the California Bar Association said that public entity attorneys represent the officials, not the public. Of course, the Bar Association's goal is to advance the careers of attorneys. I do not believe that any court has actually ruled on this question.)

The system is set up to protect board members from responsibility for their lawyers' actions. This set-up ensures that board members have plausible deniability if the district ends up in court. Board members can plead ignorance. In addition, school attorneys fight tooth and nail to keep board members off the witness stand. So when you go to the voting booth in school board elections, you're going to have to choose between incombents who have absolutely nothing to say about the district's legal problems and challengers who are also ignorant of what goes on behind the scenes.

So how does a school district communicate with lawyers on a day-to-day basis? You might think that the superintendent steps in and takes responsibility for communications with the district's legal counsel. Nope, not the superintendent, at least not in my experience at Chula Vista Elementary School District or in many districts I've read about.

Who is the district's contact person for the lawyers? Usually, it's the Human Resources Director. And does the HR director tell the attorneys what to do? Heavens no. The attorneys instruct the HR director.

(I did see an exception to this rule in Grossmont Union High School District in around 2008 when board members Priscilla Schreiber and Larry Urdahl challenged the status quo and asked questions openly in board meetings about what was going on with the lawyers. At that time Superintendent Terry Ryan revealed that Shinoff had a verbal agreement with SDCOE rather than a written one.)

It is clear to me that many elected officials and superintendents intentionally abdicate responsibility.

Why? I think they like not having to think about pesky problems like lawsuits. I guess you'd call that laziness. And they don't want the voters to hold them responsible for what goes on in schools. They think that if they keep problems covered up, they will be reelected.

And they are almost always right about that.

Los Angeles Schools Win Teacher Sex Suit By Blaming 14-Year-Old Girl

The LAUSD school board members are pretending that they were clueless as to how a lawyer would defend the school district in a teacher-sex-with-a-14-year-old lawsuit. No, it's worse than that. They're acting as if they're morally superior: they removed the lawyer for doing exactly what he understood he was hired to do. The Council of School Attorneys has very uniform standards about how to conduct litigation. Education attorneys understand that schools hire them to keep secrets and to disregard the basic rules of decency in their efforts to win cases.

The board itself should have resigned en masse.

The board's decision to remove the lawyer was purely political. It wouldn't have happened except for public criticism. Usually school boards get rid of lawyers who are too decent during court cases.

Los Angeles Schools Win Teacher Sex Suit By Blaming 14-Year-Old Girl
BRIAN MELLEY
Huff Post
11/14/2014

LOS ANGELES (AP) — The Los Angeles school district on Friday removed a lawyer who successfully defended it in a sexual abuse lawsuit in which he told jurors that a 14-year-old girl who had sex with a male teacher shared responsibility despite her age.
The trial victory spared the cash-strapped district a potentially pricey verdict, but news of the trial strategy and remarks by attorney W. Keith Wyatt that it was a more dangerous decision to cross the street than to have sex with a teacher drew criticism.
"Mr. Wyatt's comments yesterday were completely inappropriate, and they undermine the spirit of the environment we strive to offer our students every day," Dave Holmquist, general counsel for the school district, said in a statement. "Our deepest apologies go out to the young woman and her family, who were hurt by the insensitive remarks of Mr. Wyatt."

Wyatt, who had worked with the district through an outside firm for 27 years and had 18 cases pending, would not comment.
The girl who lost the case is appealing because the judge allowed evidence of her sexual history to be presented and because Wyatt blamed her for consenting to the sex even though she was too young to do so.
"She lied to her mother so she could have sex with her teacher," Wyatt had told KPCC, which first reported the story. "She went to a motel in which she engaged in voluntary consensual sex with her teacher. Why shouldn't she be responsible for that?
The teacher in the case, Elkis Hermida, was sentenced in 2011 to three years in prison for lewd acts against a child.
The Los Angeles Unified School District claimed it was unaware of the relationship between the teacher and student and was cleared last year of wrongdoing by a civil jury in Los Angeles Superior Court. The girl was not awarded damages for the emotional trauma she said she suffered during a five-month relationship with the teacher.
The case exposed an apparent inconsistency in the standard for sexual consent in California criminal and civil cases.
In criminal cases, a 14-year-old girl is too young to consent to sex with an adult. Wyatt, however, cited a federal court decision that said a minor could consent to sex in some circumstances.
The federal case cited by Wyatt relies on a California Supreme Court decision about jury instructions in an incest case, said Mary Fan, a law professor at the University of Washington. The creative application of the language was probably never envisioned by the state's high court.
"Some language plucked out of the original case has grown to monstrous proportions," Fan said. "Pretty soon it looks like a viable argument. When a court accepts it, it just grows into its own beast."
Lawyers and advocates for sexual abuse victims said the legal tactic was surprising.
"I was shocked. I've done sexual abuse cases against school districts before and I've never seen the persistence of this argument," said Holly Boyer, who filed the appeal for the girl. "I've never seen this at all that the victim willingly participated in this and that they should bear some responsibility in their injuries."
While Wyatt had argued that the teacher and girl went to extreme lengths to hide their relationship, Boyer said there were enough warning signs that the school should have been aware of the teacher's conduct.
He was seen hugging other girls and began to groom the victim at age 13 through texting, phone calls and exchanging photos, Boyer said, adding the sexual abuse began when the girl was 14 and some of it occurred in the classroom.
Boyer also plans to argue that the girl's sexual past should not have been allowed into evidence. Typically, such evidence is barred in criminal cases by rape shield laws, but not always in civil actions.
"It's terrible, but not unusual that a school would try to muddy the waters" by presenting such evidence, said Fatima Goss Graves, a vice president at the National Women's Law Center. "The law on whether and when that sort of evidence is permitted is sort of murky and one of the reasons why Congress is looking at additional law ... that looks more like a criminal rape shield law."

What sort of employee is preferrred at a corrupt community college like Southwestern? Court of Appeal decides Poveda case

This Southwestern College employment case has been reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeal. It was argued by school attorneys Atkinson Andelson Loya Ruud Romo. This is the new law firm of Mark Bresee, who has a long history in San Diego and Orange Counties. Mr. Bresee worked closely with school attorney Dan Shinoff in Chula Vista Elementary and other schools.


Mark Bresee

Poveda v. Southwestern Community College Dist.
CA4/1, D062460 (Cal. Ct. App. 2014)
California Courts of Appeal

Date Filed: January 17th, 2014
Docket Number: D062460
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

(Super. Ct. No. 37-2011-00099248- CU-WM-CTL)

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION ONE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FERNANDO POVEDA,

Plaintiff and Appellant,

v.

SOUTHWESTERN COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,

Defendant and Respondent.

APPEAL from an order of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Richard E. L. Strauss, Judge. Reversed and remanded with directions.
v David S. Bristol, Boudreau Williams and Jon R. Williams for Plaintiff and Appellant.

Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo, Marlon Craig Wadlington for Defendant and Respondent.

Fernando Poveda appeals the trial court's denial of his petition for writ of mandate filed under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. He contends that during the 39 months after his former employer, respondent Southwestern Community College District (Southwestern), laid him off for lack of funds, he applied for several positions at Southwestern, but Southwestern filled those positions without granting him the reemployment preference to which he was entitled under Education Code1 section 88117. Southwestern counters that it filled all those positions internally with current Southwestern employees. It interprets section 88117 as requiring it to grant Poveda reemployment preference over only external applicants, that is, those not currently employed at Southwestern.

The issue presented is whether the term "new applicants" used in section 88117 applies only to external applicants or to both internal and external applicants. We agree with Poveda and conclude that the latter interpretation comports with the statute's plain terms and the legislative scheme. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment and remand for the court to grant Poveda's writ petition and determine the appropriate relief under Code of Civil Procedure section 1095.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In an October 2011 verified petition for writ of mandate, Poveda alleged that Southwestern hired him in October 1991 as coordinator for outreach/school and community relations, a classified administrative position that later was elevated to a 2 directorship level. In 1999, Poveda held the position of interim dean of student activities for approximately seven months. Effective June 2009, Southwestern eliminated Poveda's job as director of outreach because of lack of work or funds, and not because of his work performance. Southwestern notified him he was eligible for reemployment preference under section 88117. In July 2011, Poveda applied for three deanships, two directorships, three supervisor positions and all open supervisor or administrative positions at Southwestern.2 Southwestern never interviewed Poveda, but instead filled the vacancies internally. Poveda's writ petition sought damages, including employment in one of the positions he had applied for, back pay and lost benefits.

In opposing Poveda's writ petition, Southwestern did not dispute his factual claims; rather, it argued that section 88117 granted Poveda preference over new external applicants only, and not over internal ones. Southwestern acknowledged that although it is not a merit district, section 88117 applies to it under section 88014. Southwestern argued that, faced with massive budget cuts over several years, it was forced to restructure its operations and therefore eliminated certain positions, reduced the total number of full-time employees, and filled other positions internally as permitted by California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 530213. Southwestern claimed that

3 California Code of Regulations, title 5, section 53021 states: "Except as otherwise provided in this section, community college districts shall actively recruit from both

because it does not use promotional or other employment examinations, it could not have violated section 88117, subdivision (a)(2).

Joseph Quarles, Southwestern's interim vice-president of human resources, explained in a supporting declaration why Southwestern did not grant Poveda the reemployment preference. Quarles stated that approximately 87 percent of Southwestern's expenditures are personnel costs, including salaries and benefits. In 2011, in light of reduced state and federal funding, Southwestern reorganized and restructured its operations and programs. Quarles stated that in filling the challenged positions, Southwestern relied on its internal policy titled, "Recruitment and Hiring Policy and Recruitment and Hiring Procedure (No. 7120)," and reviewed all vacancies "for a determination of the necessity of continuing the position and other means of providing services that were less costly. Only where [Southwestern] determined that an absolute need existed for the services provided by a particular position was the position filled. Because the ultimate goal was a reduction in personnel costs, it was determined that instead of following the normal hiring procedure, the vacancies would first be advertised

within and outside the district work force to attract qualified applicants for all new openings. . . . The requirement of open recruitment shall apply to all new full-time and part-time openings in all job categories and classifications." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, 53021, subd. (a).) However, the regulation creates an exception permitting the community college to conduct " '[i]n-house or promotional only' " recruitment under limited circumstances. (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 53021, subd. (b)(1).) The regulation specifies: "For purposes of this section, a new opening is not created when: (1) there is a reorganization that does not result in a net increase in the number of employees; (2) one or more lateral transfers are made and there is no net increase in the number of employees; (3) a position which is currently occupied by an incumbent is upgraded, reclassified, or renamed without significantly altering the duties being performed by the individual." (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 5, § 53021, subd. (c).)

4 internally for current employees only. If no qualified current employees were found, then the position would be advertised to non-employees. The positions identified by [Poveda] in his declaration and pleadings were all advertised internally only and only current employees were permitted to apply for the positions."4

The court denied Poveda's petition for writ of mandate. It ruled nothing in section 88117 required Southwestern to grant Poveda reemployment preference over internal applicants, and if the Legislature had intended that result, it would have specified that laid-off individuals were entitled to preference over "other new applicants." It reasoned that section 88117 did not apply to Poveda because he was a laid-off employee, and not a "new applicant."

DISCUSSION

Poveda contends that under a plain reading of section 88117, the term "new applicants," over whom he had reemployment preference, applies to both internal and external applicants. By contrast, Southwestern interprets section 88117 to require it to grant a laid-off employee a reemployment preference only over external applicants...

All statutory references are to the Education Code unless otherwise stated.

Woman confronts former teacher about sexual abuse, captures call on video

"All these years I've been waiting to get some justice."

[Maura Larkins' comment: In my personal experience at Chula Vista Elementary School District, powerful cliques protect bad teachers and administrators. School politics helps wrongdoers and the incompetent survive by attacking effective employees who are seen as a threat.]

Woman confronts former teacher about sexual abuse, captures call on video
by Jen Hayden
posted by Scout Finch
Daily Kos
Jan 22, 2014

A 28-year-old woman who identified herself as "Jamie" worked up the courage to call her former teacher and confront her about years of alleged sexual abuse, which she claims began when she was 12 years old and continued until she finished high school. The former teacher and basketball coach had moved onto an assistant vice principal position in another school district.

When Jamie finally worked up the courage to pursue criminal charges, she was disappointed to learn the statute of limitations had expired and she would be unable to pursue criminal charges. Knowing her former teacher was still working with children, she bravely called her abuser, Andrea Cardosa, who was working as Alhambra High School’s vice principal of student services. Jamie recorded the call and posted it on YouTube.

Her call to Andrea Cardosa can be seen here.

Cardosa did not dispute the allegation and almost immediately resigned:

School officials identified the accused as Andrea Cardosa, a vice principal at Alhambra High School, and said she resigned Friday after an interview with administrators.

The resignation followed the release of a YouTube video made by Jamie Carrillo, 28, of Victorville. The video was posted on Friday. By 4 p.m. Monday, there were about 131,800 views.

Today the video has more than 750,000 views.

As for Jamie's next step, she's considering legal options:

Her attorney, David Ring, said Jamie’s former teacher was previously investigated by both school and law enforcement authorities in 1999 when rumors began to swirl about the alleged abuse. But the investigation resulted in no arrests, charges or disciplinary action, he said.

Ring said the former teacher, who was her basketball coach, was allowed to resign with a positive recommendation.

“They call this 'passing the trash,'” Ring said.

Ring said Jamie is considering a lawsuit alleging misconduct on the part of the school districts that hired the former teacher.

Two whistle-blowers--a teacher and a business manager--settle with Willamette ESD

Fired WESD superintendent Maureen Casey.

Two whistle-blowers settle with Willamette Education Serivce district (Oregon)

(See also Willamette ESD problems with open meetings.)

WESD finalizes $150,000 settlement with former teacher over whistleblower lawsuit
Nov. 1, 2013
Queenie Wong
Statesman Journal

A laid off Willamette Education Service District teacher and her lawyer will get $150,000 as part of a settlement to a whistleblower lawsuit filed against the district three years ago.

Former teacher Terri Moore claimed she lost her job because she repeatedly reported safety violations at the high school at Hillcrest Youth Correctional Facility and filed a formal complaint about harassment and bullying by Bill Conlon, the school's principal.

She filed a lawsuit in Marion County Circuit Court in 2010 asking for as much as $500,000, plus attorney fees and reinstatement as a full-time teacher.

Under the settlement, Moore will get $86,355.75 and the law firm representing her — Lafky and Lafky — will receive $63,644.25.

She won't be entitled to return as a full-time employee at WESD, but could still work as a substitute teacher, according to the agreement.

WESD’s liability carrier the Special Districts Association of Oregon decided to settle the lawsuit because of the costs of going to trial last month.

The district’s board chairman Ken Hector said in a statement Friday he understood the carrier’s decision to settle the case.

“Choosing to move forward to defend the case at trial would burden WESD with all attorney fees and costs, impacting our general fund,” Hector said. “The ultimate outcome of resolution for this case is best for WESD and the districts we serve.”

Moore taught health and physical education at WESD's youth correction education programs but was laid off in 2009 after 11 years with the district.

WESD has denied the allegations brought by Moore, noting that they have been thoroughly investigated and found to be without merit. The district’s settlement signed by Moore is not an admission of wrongdoing or liability.

Moore’s lawyer Kevin Lafky said it’s clear Moore was retaliated against. She wanted to get her old job back, but since that did not happen they decided settling was the best thing for her to get some sort of compensation for the retaliation.

“The money she’s getting paid certainty doesn’t make up for losing a full-time job with benefits,” Lafky said. “For years, she’s been working as a substitute teacher to make ends meet since she was terminated from WESD.”

It’s not the first time that the education service district has settled a whistleblower lawsuit filed against a former teacher.

In 2010, the district settled a lawsuit for $45,000 with Maggie Vogenbeck in which the former teacher claimed state and federal discrimination, whistleblower retaliation and wrongful discharge.

WESD provides education services such as special education, home school registration and professional development to 17 school district in Marion, Polk and Yamhill counties, according to its website.


SECOND WHISTLE-BLOWER STORY:

Oregon Whistleblower suit settled for $125,000
Legal News.com
July 25, 2012

SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- An agency that provides centralized services to schools in the middle Willamette Valley has quietly settled a lawsuit brought by a whistleblower.

Complaints from the former business manager of the Willamette Education Service District set off investigations of mismanagement and resulted in the firing of the district's superintendent, Maureen Casey.

The former business manager, Kathy Campbell, will get $125,000 in the settlement -- about a third going to her lawyer, the Salem Statesman Journal reported Monday.

The paper says the district signed the settlement June 1 but that came to light only recently, when the paper asked the district for documents.

Campbell alleged Casey retaliated against her. She filed suit in September 2010, asking for $1.58 million in damages.

The district said it settled with Campbell under pressure from its insurance carrier. If it had continued to litigate, the district would have borne the cost.

"The board has reluctantly agreed to settle this case," board member Larry Trott said in a statement.

Campbell declined to comment.

"Her only statement is that the matter has been resolved, and she's glad to put it behind her," said her lawyer, Larry Linder.

The agency serves 17 school districts in Marion, Polk and Yamhill counties. It's one of 17 such districts in the state that provide centralized services such as information technology or special education.

An internal investigation into Campbell's complaints confirmed management and financial improprieties.

Then a state audit completed in January 2010 found questionable expenditures, improper contracting, commingled funds and an effort to hide the district's true financial condition. The Statesman Journal's investigation documented further problems and showed that concerns about the problems were ignored for years.

Since then, the district has faced multiple lawsuits, shut down money-losing entrepreneurial ventures and laid off a third of its workers. With an annual budget of $95 million, the district ended the last school year $2.1 million in the red. Among the lawsuits is Casey's, alleging wrongful termination.

Oregon public meetings law allows public bodies to discuss lawsuits in sessions closed to the public, but final decisions must be made in a public vote. The board's minutes don't record a vote on the settlement.

District spokesman Brian Florip said a vote was not required because the district's contract with its carrier allows the insurance company and the district's lawyer to resolve the case without the board's approval.

A SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM?

Willamette ESD mess stinks on so many levels
State officials must step in to take control of the situation
Statesman Journal
November 23, 2005

The Willamette Education Service District is a mess - a rotten, stinking mess. State and federal investigators should be crawling all over it, rooting out evidence and filing legal and ethics charges.

Stories in Thursday's and Friday's Statesman Journal revealed a WESD management that allowed widespread violations in the migrant-education program - and then rewarded them.

The WESD's own investigation found a roster of abuses by former migrant-education director Nicolasa Mohs and her program: Hiring of family members. Severe problems in the food services. Applying for outside jobs on ESD time. Outlandish requests for reimbursements, including for alcohol. Retaliation against employees and violations of worker laws and district policies. Lack of accountability for grant money. And on and on.

About the only people who seemed to have a handle on the situation were the leaders of area school districts who refused to do business with Mohs.

If these allegations were true, they should have gotten Mohs fired and strung up before the state ethics and teacher-licensing commissions. Firing was the recommendation of Assistant Superintendent Dave Novotney, who conducted the investigation.

Instead, WESD Superintendent Maureen Casey settled with Mohs, after Mohs filed a civil-rights complaint. The Statesman Journal's review of the documents found that Mohs was rehired as an independent contractor at her old salary, plus additional payments, in return for dropping the complaint.

That's unconscionable, but it gets even worse. The documents show that Mohs was promised a positive letter of reference, that the problems would not be disclosed to potential employers and that the results of the internal investigation would not be reported to state regulatory commissions.

If that's the case, neither Mohs nor Casey deserves to work in education one more day. The WESD board should get rid of them, along with any other staff members who allowed these problems to fester.

The board also owes the public a prompt accounting of what happened and why.

School boards are charged with protecting the public's interests. Where was the WESD board during all this? Either asleep, being manipulated by the district administration or both. Board member Jolene Garland resigned last week, saying in part it was because the board lacked any real say in district operations.

Board members said that they first learned of the civil-rights complaint during a closed-door meeting, which was of dubious legality. Casey, they said, did not tell them about the investigation report, the settlement agreement or the consultant contract until after the Statesman Journal started asking questions.

These tawdry dealings should send shockwaves through the state educational establishment. They are one more indicator that the 2007 Legislature should have the guts to either eliminate education service districts or put them under tighter control.

This case also calls into question the role of school boards and the accuracy of job recommendations. How many other school boards in Oregon are so trusting and unquestioning of their administrators that they lack an accurate picture of what's going on? How many problem educators are passed along from one district to another with glowing recommendations instead of being barred from the profession?

Under a 2005 change in state law, WESD board members now will be chosen by school districts instead of voters. That can't come soon enough.

Until then, state officials should exercise whatever emergency powers are available to take control of the Willamette ESD and clean up this mess.

WILLAMETTE ESD

Lowndes County Schools' attorneys insists Kendrick Johnson video is "a raw feed with no edits"

Kendrick Johnson

Education attorneys at Lowndes County Schools insist the video they released of the day student Kendrick Johnson died is "a raw feed with no edits."

In my experience, school attorneys try very hard to conceal events in schools from the public, the courts and from parents of students who have been injured or killed.

"We're missing information." --Grant Fredericks, forensic video analyst

Click link to see school videos:

Kendrick Johnson footage released; expert finds it 'highly suspicious'
From Victor Blackwell
CNN
November 21, 2013

Missing video in teen gym-mat death?

(CNN) -- Kendrick Johnson's family waited months for hundreds of hours of surveillance video, hoping it would answer their questions. It only raised others.

Rather than showing how their 17-year-old son's body ended up in a school gym mat in January, the four cameras inside the Valdosta, Georgia, gymnasium showed only a few collective seconds of Johnson, jogging. The camera fixed on the gym mats was blurry...

"(The surveillance video has) been altered in a number of ways, primarily in image quality and likely in dropped information, information loss," he said. "There are also a number of files that are corrupted because they've not been processed correctly and they're not playable. I can't say why they were done that way, but they were not done correctly, and they were not done thoroughly. So we're missing information."

Two cameras in the gym are missing an hour and five minutes, their hiatus ending at 1:09, when Johnson enters the gym. Another pair of cameras are missing two hours and 10 minutes each. They don't begin recording again until 1:15 and 1:16, according to their time stamps.

What's certain, based on video from a camera outside the gym, is that numerous students walked into the gym during the hour and five minutes that the cameras weren't recording, but it's not clear whether that was sufficient to activate the cameras' motion sensors.

The time stamp on a camera outside the gym also appears to be 10 minutes behind the cameras inside the gym.

"I can't tell you whether there was no information recorded in the digital video system or whether somebody made an error and didn't capture it or whether somebody just didn't provide it," Fredericks said.

CNN has requested access to the original surveillance servers. But Fredericks cautions that the video could be gone, as newer surveillance would replace it if it wasn't recovered promptly from the school's digital video recorder.

The police have said they didn't receive a copy of the videos until several days after Johnson's body was found, according to an unredacted report obtained by CNN after a legal process.

Fredericks told CNN he found it "highly suspicious" that an hour of video could be missing, especially considering how the material was acquired by police.

"The investigator's responsibility is to acquire the entire digital video recording system and have their staff define what they want to obtain," he said.

According to an incident report from the Sheriff's Office, however, a detective watched a portion of the video then asked an information technology officer employed by the school board to produce a "copy of the surveillance video for the entire wing of the school with the old gym for the last 48 hours."

Five days later, the sheriff's report says, the IT officer delivered a hard drive to the detective, who verified it contained what he requested.

"Right now, what they've done, is they've left it up to the school district as to what it is they want to provide to the police, and I think that probably is a mistake," Fredericks said.

"You don't want somebody who might be party to the responsibility to make the decision as to what they provide the police."...


$10,000 Reward Offered In Death Investigation
...[previous story]by: Garin Flowers
WCTV
October 18, 2013

Valdosta, GA - A new surveillance video shows Kendrick Johnson wasn't alone in the gym.

An attorney for Lowndes High School says additional surveillance video shows other students in the gym around the time Kendrick Johnson walked in.

That video has not been released because officials don't have consent for the additional minors seen in the video.

Attorneys for the family of Kendrick Johnson plan to have a hearing with a Lowndes County judge on October 30.

They will seek a court order for that surveillance video inside of the gym and other areas that may add more evidence to the case.

Attorneys Chevene King and Ben Crump represent the family.

They're hoping the U.S. Department of Justice opens a formal investigation into the case. We spoke with the attorneys and the Johnson family on Friday.

"There were four cameras inside that gym, one of which was aimed in the direction of the corner where Kendrick's body was found," King said.

"If you have a video surveillance that shows what happened to Kendrick Johnson, doesn't the family at least deserve to see the truth," Crump said.

"The only time we'll be able to feel comfortable in some sort, when Kendrick get justice," said Kenneth Johnson, father of Kendrick.

The Georgia Bureau of Investigation ruled Kendrick Johnson's death a result of positional asphyxiation.

The Johnson family conducted its own autopsy, which showed the teen died from blunt force trauma.

School attorney firm Best Best & Krieger sued for in City of Bell corruption: is similar corruption is going on in our schools?

Isn't this just business as usual taken to an extreme? The cronyism that makes this sort of thing possible can be found almost everywhere. My estimate is that only about 10% of public entities are run in an honest, open manner. The US seems to be becoming more corrupt and more divided between rich and poor. We're turning ourselves into a banana republic without the bananas.

Public entity attorneys have a tendency to see no evil, hear no evil and speak no evil when it comes to the public officials who pay them.

Bell sues its former city attorney, claiming faulty legal advice
LA Times
Jeff Gottlief
July 29, 2011

The city of Bell filed a malpractice lawsuit against its former city attorney and his two law firms Thursday, alleging that they were given faulty legal advice.

The suit contends that attorney Edward Lee provided legal advice that allowed Bell officials -- including former city Administrator Robert Rizzo and City Council members -- to receive extraordinary salaries and benefits. The suit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, also alleges that Lee gave the city poor advice regarding a variety of subjects, including business license fees and loans that Rizzo gave to employees.

The lawsuit singles out Lee's most recent firm, Best Best & Krieger, for allegedly failing to properly advise Bell on a $35-million bond offering in 2007.

"The city attorney was responsible for preventing the abuses of power by the prior city government that left the city in its current difficult financial situation," Bell's attorney, William Stoner, said in a news release. "The lawsuit seeks to place responsibility for not protecting against those abuses of power where it belongs and obtain just compensation from those responsible."

Lee had been Bell's city attorney for 15 years, first with Oliver Sandifer & Murphy and, for the last four years, with Best Best & Krieger. He resigned from Best Best & Krieger shortly after The Times revealed that Rizzo's salary was nearly $800,000 a year.

Duff Murphy of Oliver Sandifer & Murphy said he didn't know about the suit.

BBK is a well-known firm with more than 200 attorneys in eight offices in California and Washington, D.C., and serves as city attorney for many towns.

BBK's general counsel, Richard Egger, said he had not reviewed the complaint, "however, the firm believes that it acted appropriately at all times and looks forward to vigorously defending itself."

[Maura Larkins' comment: Watch out, taxpayers. Public entity attorney are apparetnly not planning to change their ways. We haven't heard a peep from the California Bar Association, have we?]

Lee could not be reached for comment.


Ex-Bell city attorney unsure how his signature got on contracts Edward Lee, Bell's former city attorney, said he had no reason to suspect anything was amiss with city finances. By Jeff Gottlieb LA Times October 28, 2013

Bell’s former city attorney testified Monday that starting in 2005, the rapidly escalating contracts of Robert Rizzo and Angela Spaccia were never discussed nor approved by the City Council.

Edward Lee said that even though his name was on most of the contracts, he did not recall signing them, raising the possibility that his name was forged or that the papers were slipped to him in a stack of other documents that required his signature.

[Maura Larkins' comment: The third possibility is that he has a bad memory or a selective memory.]

Lee testified that in order for the Rizzo and Spaccia contracts to be legal, they would have to have been placed on council agendas, discussed in public meetings and then be approved by a council majority.

Asked if it appeared to be his signature on a July 1, 2008, addendum to Rizzo’s contract, Lee replied, “Unfortunately, yes.”

But, he added, he had no idea how it got there.

Lee's testimony came during the second week of Spaccia’s corruption trial, in which she faces 13 felonies. Rizzo pleaded no contest to 69 corruption-related charges and is expected to be sentenced to 10 to 12 years in prison.

Lee, who served as Bell’s contract attorney from 1996 until shortly after the corruption scandal broke, said that after voters passed a city charter in 2005, he never saw Rizzo’s contract come before the council.

Asked by Spaccia’s attorney, Harland Braun, why he never brought it up, he replied, “I figured that was between Mr. Rizzo and the City Council… Either the council is going to raise it with me or Mr. Rizzo is going to raise it with me.”

The former city attorney said he had no indications of anything illegal going on in the city, “nothing that rang any alarm bells that said there was a legal issue I needed to look at.”

{Maura Larkins' comment: See what I mean about see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil?]

He said independent auditors didn’t bring up problems with finances and there were no questions from the staff.

“It all appeared from the surface the city of Bell was doing well,” he said.

Lawyers against bullying: has the San Diego County Bar Association decided to clean up its act? No, it's going after bullies who aren't members

I'm wondering, can the Constitution rein in abuse, deception and intimidation by lawyers?

It's interesting to note that Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz is still golden for the Anti-Defamation League in San Diego, and for Cal Western law school.

SDCBA to host forum on cyber-bullying
Daily Transcript
September 20, 2013

The San Diego County Bar Association (SDCBA) and the Anti-Defamation League are hosting a workshop to discuss cyber-bullying Sept. 24 from 5-7:15 p.m. at the SDCBA's Bar Center.

Panelists will include California Western School of Law professor Ruth Hargrove, San Diego County Deputy District Attorney Oscar Garcia, San Diego Unified School District Police Chief Reuben Littlejohn, and Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz partner Jeffrey Wade.

U.S. Attorney Laura Duffy will moderate the discussion, titled “Cyber-Bullying – Classroom to Courtroom: Can the Constitution Rein in the Bullies?”

The panelists will explore legal issues and developing case law surrounding the issue of cyber-bullying, a practice that increasingly results in intervention by the judicial system.

The event offers 1.5 CLE general credits and is free for SDCBA law student members. The cost is $45 for SDCBA and Anti-Defamation League members and $65 for non-members.

Carlsbad Unifed cancels FFF contract; Is it time for the school attorneys at Fagen Friedman Fulfrost to change the name of their firm again?

What did Fagen Friedman Fulfrost law firm do to cause the Carlsbad Unified school board to cancel its contract? The explanation can be found right here. I am impressed with the community of Carlsbad for drawing a line regarding the ethical behavior of school law firms. I don't feel so alone anymore in my quest to get schools to hire lawyers who will advise them to honor policies, laws and contracts instead of hiring lawyers who will help them get away with violations.

The question now becomes, who will end up doing the $100,000 worth of legal work that was going to go to FFF, and will the new firm behave any differently than FFF? Or will the district simply approve a new contract for FFF when no one is looking? After all, a law firm with two former Carlsbad Unified officials working for it could offer some special advantages. Communication could be more easily accomplished through back channels. I'm hoping Rachel Stine of Coast News will keep watching.

CUSD cancels contract with law firm...
By Rachel Stine
Coast News
Sep 12, 2013


“How did this get so far and missed?” Trustee Lisa Rodman, right, asked staff members... Photo by Rachel Stine

CARLSBAD — The Carlsbad Unified School District (CUSD) Board of Trustees voted to cancel its contract with the law firm that hired a former trustee and prioritized Prop P infrastructure projects at its Sept. 11 meeting.

The Board was presented with the opportunity to continue, scale back, or cancel its $100,000 annual contract with the law firm Fagen, Friedman, and Fulfrost LLP after the firm hired former trustee Kelli Moors. Fearing conflict of interest accusations, the Board had decided to re-vote on the firm’s contract after realizing that Moors had voted to support the contract 12 days before announcing her resignation to accept her position with the firm.

The Board had contracted with the law firm to handle special education and personnel matters since 2006.

The four current trustees voted unanimously to cancel the contract without discussion at the meeting.

Board President Elisa Williamson had previously expressed that she intended to recommend that the Board reduce the scale of the firm’s contract with the district to only current cases that would be too costly to transfer to other firms.

After the meeting she explained that she had changed her mind to recommend canceling the contract with the firm after learning from Superintendent Suzette Lovely that the firm was not working on any cases that would be difficult to transfer to another firm, and that numerous alternative firms had been identified.

After voting on the law firm contract, the Board considered how to prioritize its remaining $33 million in Prop P money for building projects throughout the district’s campuses.

Projects up for consideration were split between infrastructure improvements at various CUSD campuses and a new aquatics center or performing arts center at the new Sage Creek High School.

District staff primarily presented information regarding the cost of building and operating an aquatics center or performing arts center, and some details about potential revenues for each facility.

They ultimately concluded that the performing arts center would be the least costly to operate and most likely to be used by more students.

But they also mentioned that the funds could be used to update several sites throughout the district that do not meet current building standards set by the Division of the State Architect, including safety and handicap accessibility criteria.

William Morrison, a senior project manager for Gafcon, explained that while all buildings in CUSD meet the standards that existed at the time of their construction, any buildings that are remodeled would have to be improved to meet current codes. So while all buildings are compliant with state regulations, any infrastructure improvements would be accompanied by most likely costly adjustments to meet the newest standards.

He cited the district’s Cultural Arts Center, which was built in 1980, as one of the primary sites in need of safety and accessibility upgrades.

“Basically when you walk into the entrance, that’s about as ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act) compliant as it is,” he said.

He explained that there is almost no way for a person in a wheelchair to get into the orchestra pit, the counter height of the ticket booth needs to be adjusted, and the fire suppression system is in need of some upgrades.

Board members expressed shock that these upgrades were not included in the facility’s most recent interior remodel.

“How did this get so far and missed?” Trustee Lisa Rodman asked. “I’m surprised we’re here.”

Morrison said that those in charge of the last project maintained that compliance issues did not fall within the spectrum of what they were upgrading.

The trustees voted to send out a request for applications from architects to address the building safety and access issues at current facilities and asked for staff to come forward with more information about the revenue earning potential of a new aquatics center and performing arts center at Sage Creek High School.

How Fagen Friedman Fulfrost managed to lose its contract with Carlsbad Unified: both Democrats and Republicans are disgusted

UPDATE: FAGEN FRIEDMAN FULFROST LOSES CONTRACT WITH CARLSBAD UNIFIED DUE TO ETHICAL QUESTIONS

On September 11, 2013 the Carlsbad Unified School District canceled its contract for legal services from Fagen, Friendman and Fulfrost. I am amazed that there were negative repercussions for unethical behavior by school attorneys (see original post below). I thought school attorneys could act with impunity in every case.

Let's hope that the law firm that gets the work will understand that the Association of School Boards and Council of School Attorneys won't always be able to protect them, and that the public is starting to get wise to what is going on behind the scenes.

ORIGINAL POST: Whose side am I on? Fagen Friedman Fulfrost or Carlsbad Unified School District candidate Sage Naumann? Neither!

See all posts about Kelli Moors and Fagen Friedman Fulfrost.


Sage Naumann, 18, listens to CUSD Board member Kelli Moors condemn his negative campaign tactics at the Aug. 14 meeting. Naumann has been critical of current board members since he began his campaign in January 2013 for election to the CUSD Board...
Photo by Rachel Stine CUSD to appoint new board member Coast News Aug 15, 2013

[Irony alert: Kelli Moors voted for a school district contract with Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost law firm, then 12 days later went to work for the firm. She apparently wants citizens to leave the negative tactics to the lawyers. Efforts to silence complaints by the public have also been going on at Sweetwater Union High School District, where lawyer Dan Shinoff lectured members of the public on civility and wrote a threatening letter to a member of the bond committee.]


Fagen Friedman Fulfrost (FFF) law firm founder Howard Fulfrost,
member of the School Attorney Advisory Board

Mr. Fulfrost, partner in Carlsbad Unified's law firm Fagen Friedman Fulfrost, is famously loyal to school officials. So loyal, in fact, that a federal judge has accused his former firm of lying and obstruction. This is a big deal to me (Maura Larkins), and I've provided some information about FFF below that has not been mentioned by the media during the current brouhaha--though it should have been.

Nevertheless, I believe that some things are more urgent than the sisyphean task of finding an ethical firm of school attorneys for Carlsbad Unified.

Although I am similar to Sage Naumann in that I demand accountability from school board members, right now I'd like to set aside the issue of corruption in schools and talk about something more important: teaching and learning!

Sage Naumann is right that school districts are corrupt.

But so is almost every other institution in the city, the state, and the world. Most human beings are greedy and shortsighted, and they abuse power when they get it. And it is true that corruption tends to lower the average quality of teachers and administrators since personnel decisions are so deeply influenced by politics. But good teachers and good ideas are struggling to be heard, and we need to listen. We can't stop everything to try to eliminate a problem that has existed as long as human beings have existed.



Mr. Naumann is wrong on the most important current issue: implementing Common Core standards in classrooms.

Once in a while people actually work for the common good, and Common Core is the product of one such effort. The designers worked hard because they want students to understand their world and know how to navigate it.

Our education system is a failure, and it's not just the fault of kids and families. Most teachers are mediocre, and many are downright bad. Few of them have received adequate training, not to mention a real education. Common Core is a system that helps teachers do a better job.

The main idea of Common Core is that instead of rapidly introducing a long series of facts, American teachers will imitate successful schools in successful countries, and deeply explore a smaller number of ideas. Quick learners can learn how to fully analyze information, and slower learners will have a chance to really learn something, instead of being lost most of the time.

And big money is being offered to help teachers do this.

I oppose Sage Naumann for one reason: he opposes Common Core. But he's right about all that other stuff.


CARLSBAD UNIFIED TRIES TO DEFEND ITSELF, BUT SHOOTS ITSELF IN THE FOOT

Carlsbad Unified claims that it hired Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost immediately after the law firm was formed (by Howard Fulfrost and other lawyers who were sanctioned by a federal judge for lying in the Moser case when working for Lozano Smith). Soon after that ruling, Lozano Smith shut down its special education section. Basically, FFF is Lozano Smith under a new name. And Carlsbad Unified is using this to defend themselves? Just how smart are these people?


CUSD Board President Elisa Williamson

CUSD Board President Releases Statement on Law Firm Contract
Posted by Deanne Goodman (Editor)
August 26, 2013
Patch

The following is written by Elisa Williamson [and was also posted on the district's website]:

We are aware that concerns have been raised regarding the relationship between the school district and the law firm of Fagen, Friedman, & Fulfrost in light of that firm's hiring of Trustee Kelli Moors. Although the Board is not privy to the details surrounding the timing of Ms. Moors' discussions with the firm, in an abundance of caution, the contract that was voted on at our July 24 meeting will be brought back for a re-vote at our meeting on September 11. Re-voting on the contract renewal after Trustee Moor's departure will obviate any questions about the validity of the Board's ultimate vote under the law.

The school district has utilized the services of Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost since the firm was founded in 2006. The bulk of expenditures over the past seven years have been for legal services related to Special Education and Personnel matters. Prior to 2006, the partners in Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost provided legal assistance to CUSD while working for another firm.

[Maura Larkins comment: The firm that Ms. Williamson is referring to without naming it--for good reason!--is Lozano Smith. Carlsbad Unified chose to hire a law firm whose previous incarnation used lying and obstruction to deprive a special education student of an appropriate education. See following article.


Melanie Petersen of FFF

Ms. Williamson also says that "partners in Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost provided legal assistance to CUSD while working for another firm." I think she may be talking about Melanie Petersen.]

Despite the district's long-standing relationship with the firm, on August 7th I informed the Superintendent that, at the September 11, 2013 Board meeting, I will be recommending that the District limit its use of the services of Fagen, Friedman, & Fulfrost to only those areas that staff deems critical to the District.

Elisa Williamson, President
Board of Trustees

ELAINE YAMA WORKED FOR HOWARD FULFROST AT LOZANO SMITH

Attorney Elaine Yama, sanctioned along with Howard Fulfrost for lying and obstruction when they were at Lozano Smith

Article about Moser v. Bret Harte High School District on the Parent Advocates website:

California Federal Judge Sanctions Law Firm For Lying in a Special Education Case
Fresno law firm Lozano Smith billed the school district $500,000 for a case that could have been settled years ago for $8,000. How this makes sense is beyond us. Betsy Combier

Lying, obstruction cited in sanctions for law firm
Fresno's Lozano Smith, attorney ordered to train in ethics
By Erin Kennedy
The Fresno Bee
January 18, 2005

Fresno law firm Lozano Smith and its attorney Elaine Yama have been sanctioned by a federal judge for lying, misrepresenting law and facts, and intentionally dragging out a case involving a school district and a special education student.

U.S. District Court Judge Oliver Wanger fined the law firm, Yama and Bret Harte Union High School District in Calaveras County $5,000 each. He also ordered Yama to take 20 hours of ethics courses and Lozano Smith to conduct ethics training for all of its attorneys and shareholders...[Click HERE to see the whole article.]

CSBA AND ELAINE YAMA AND ELISA WILLIAMSON AND KELLI MOORS

So, whom do you think the California School Boards Association (CSBA) chose for its legal team? You guessed it--Elaine Yama.

And who trained Board President Elisa Williamson AND trustee Kelli Moors? Right again--CSBA. It gave them each a "Masters in Governance".

So who actually runs the district--the lawyers or the officials? It's hard to unscramble the egg, isn't it? But here's a clue: school board members come and go, but the lawyers remain the same.

The thing I can't understand is why Carlsbad Unified and Elisa Williamson thought nobody was going to find out the backstory about FFF after the Kelli Moors story broke. But there's another backstory I'd like to learn about. What did the board member who abstained from voting on the FFF contract know about FFF? Very likely she knew more than I know.

Elaine Yama-Garcia joins CSBA legal team
April 30, 2012

CSBA’s new associate general counsel is Elaine Yama-Garcia, a mid-career professional with more than 15 years experience practicing law in the areas of education, special education, and labor and employment. Along with General Counsel Keith Bray, she will manage the Education Legal Alliance and respond to corporate legal issues for CSBA and its affiliates.

Yama-Garcia has practiced with the Law Offices of Bennett & Sharpe in the Central Valley, where she represented clients in the areas of labor and employment and special education law. Before that, she worked for the law firm of Lozano Smith in Fresno, specializing in education law, and until recently she managed her own law firm representing school districts and county offices of education.

She earned her law degree from the San Joaquin College of Law in Fresno.

Born and raised in Fresno, Yama-Garcia is married and has an adult married son, a step-son attending college in Costa Rica, and a teenage step-daughter.

“I am thrilled to be part of CSBA’s legal team,” said Yama-Garcia. “I look forward to the many exciting and positive changes we can make to benefit school districts and county offices of education in the state.”

[Maura Larkins comment: I'll give credit to Ms. Yama for one thing. At least she doesn't claim to be trying to benefit students.]




Richard Riehl

Politics Enters Carlsbad School Board Race
Richard J. Riehl
San Diego Reader
August 10, 2013

In the 2008 election I voted for 19-year-old Evan Delaney Rodgers for the Carlsbad City Council. I was sad to see her lose because of the youthful energy and positive attitude she would have brought to that gang of mostly good old boys.

After Kelli Moors announced her retirement from the Carlsbad School Board a few days ago, 18-year-old Sage Naumann declared he's more than eager to take her place. But unless you favor contentiousness and political grandstanding, Naumann has already revealed he wouldn't be the right choice.

Unlike Rodgers' city council campaign, filled with dozens of practical suggestions for improving the city's quality of life, Naumann has begun by smearing two highly respected school district retirees, former Superintendent John Roach and board member Moors. Here's what he posted on his Facebook page:

"Is it just me, or does it seem suspicious that both our Superintendent and a board member have jumped ship to take jobs with a law firm that taxpayers are actively paying for? That’s why I am emailing you. Should I assembly (sic) my team to begin looking deeper, or does this just seem like a harmless coincidence? I’m eager to hear your response."

He urged his followers to reply to "Our mailing address: Sage Naumann for Carlsbad School Board 2014, 2307 Fenton Parkway, Suite 107-114, San Diego, CA 92108.

To paraphrase the young candidate, is it just me, or does it seem suspicious that a candidate for the Carlsbad School Board has a campaign headquarters address next door to Qualcomm Stadium? Email your response to fogcutter1@yahoo.com.

The law firm to which Naumann refers is Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost, which contracts with the school district for legal advice and hired Roach and Moors as consultants after they left their positions with the district. In the style of Congressman Darrell Issa's discredited witch hunt of the IRS, Naumann makes no accusations, since he has nary a shred of evidence of legal or ethical misbehavior. He simply rallies his supporters with the implication of corruption. Those of us of a certain age remember how effectively Joe McCarthy used that technique.

Naumann's outrage that "taxpayers are actively paying for" the services of a law firm reveals both his naiveté and misuse of an adverb for exaggeration. Would he be less offended if taxpayers paid the law firm inactively?

[Maura Larkins' comment: Defenders of CUSD might want to be careful when criticizing the critical-thinking and writing skills of a recent graduate of Carlsbad High School. It's sort of a two-edged sword. And the phrase "actively paying" sounds perfectly fine to me. It conjures an image of money flowing. I call that good writing.]

The word "irresponsible" comes to mind when characterizing Naumann's character attacks on Roach and Moors. The words "empty promises" best describes his "Back to Basics" campaign theme. In a breathtaking leap of logic, he promises in one paragraph to "do everything I can to question purchases, staff and faculty additions, and other funding that seems unnecessary," to stop the "reckless spending," and to "be a taxpayer's "watchdog." In the next he promises to "keep class sizes small, " "materials available" and "teachers stress-free and able to concentrate on their students, " while "no longer will we look to slashing department budgets to fill shortfalls."

Naumann ignores the district's most pressing challenge: putting in place a plan to implement the Common Core of expected learning outcomes. But we have a glimpse of what he feels about it.

In a Guest Commentary in the conservative blog San Diego Rostra, "Putting the Carlsbad School District Back on Track," Naumann assures a reader: "I have already pledged my support against CCSS, and I will continue my advocacy against it throughout my campaign and if I am elected."

At its July 24 meeting the school board learned CUSD will received approximately $2.1 million in state funds to implement the Common Core during 2013-2015. Judging from his vow to be the taxpayer's watchdog, it sounds as if Naumann will do what he can to turn down the funding. So much for his promise to "Keep cuts away from the classroom."

Naumann's platform calls for making connections with the community. A look at a list of his supporters tells us much about the connections he's already made and what Carlsbadians can look forward to from the influence of his network of colleagues.

Topping the list is Carl DeMaio, former member of the San Diego City Council. He's followed by city council members from Vista, Encinitas and Imperial Beach (none from Carlsbad thus far), School Board members from La Mesa/Spring Valley, Encinitas and Dehesa (none from Carlsbad).

The Vice Chair of the California Republican Party heads a list of 10 San Diego GOP Central Committee members, including Sherry Hodges, whose campaign Naumann staffed.

The list of those with titles ended with the president of the Oceanside Rotary Club and the former president of the Oceanside Chamber of Commerce. Curiously missing from the entire list were Carlsbad officials.

See a pattern here? If you liked the vicious tactics of the failed Sherry Hodges campaign and don't mind having a political operative with an agenda joining a non-partisan school board with a history of civility, than Naumann's your guy.

And that would be a sad day for Carlsbad schools.

Richard J. Riehl writes from La Costa.

Kelli Moors, who started the current scandal
when she voted on a contract for FFF,
then 12 days later left CUSD to work for FFF

THE CALIFORNIA SCHOOL BOARDS ASSOCIATION (link: CSBA),
FFF AND CARLSBAD UNIFIED ARE PRETTY MUCH INSEPARABLE:

Friday, November 30 [2012]- CSBA [California School Boards Association] Annual Education Conference
Exhibitor Table Talks
Boards, the Brown Act and Cyberspace

As education leaders turn to social media for timely communication, well-intentioned board members can find themselves in violation of the Brown Act when cyber communication conveys information coming up for vote. If used improperly, social media starts the slippery slope into online serial meetings, resulting in costly, embarrassing legal consequences, and can be subject to public records requests. Attend this workshop to learn how to avoid social media pitfalls in your governance capacity.

--Kelli Moors, Board Member, Carlsbad USD; Christopher Keeler and Namita Brown, Partners, Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost, LLP

See all posts about Kelli Moors and Fagen Friedman Fulfrost.



Here are some links to FFF cases:

Palo Alto, FFF and the Office of Civil Rights regarding bullying

FFF loses against teacher Pamela Lukkarila in Jurupa School District:
http://mauralarkins.com/files/LukkarilaMyPERB2283E.pdf

FFF loses against teacher Ermine Nelson in Jurupa School District

FFF wins against student and parent in Carlsbad School District:
http://www.californiaspecialedlaw.com/wiki/hearing-decisions/oah-2011120317

School investigation in Claremont USD a waste of taxpayer money?

HOWARD FULFROST, THE PARTNER AT FAGEN FRIEDMAN AND FULFROST WAS PAID HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF CCUSD MONEY TO STOP STUDENTS FROM GETTING THERAPY

Fagen Friedman Fullfrost hires school board member 12 days after she votes to renew their contract

For more recent updates, click HERE.

UPDATE: AUG. 25, 2013

So now that Superintendent Suzette Lovely and the entire Carlsbad Unified board know that Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost was secretly talking to at least one board member, will they change their minds about renewing FFF's contract? I doubt it--most school officials like this type of law firm. Also, what other type of education law firm is there? They all belong to the National Council of School Attorneys, which seems to guarantee that they're all on the same page.

Carlsbad to redo law-firm vote
By Aaron Burgin
SDUT
Aug. 23, 2013

The Carlsbad school board on Friday announced that it will redo a vote to renew a $100,000 law-firm contract, one day after U-T Watchdog reported that one board member was in negotiations for a job with the firm at the time...

ORIGINAL POST:


Carlsbad Unified Board Member Kelli Moors

See update on this story HERE.

Compare this story to the hiring of school board member Art Palkowitz by his district's law firm, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz.

I checked the California Bar Association website, and found that Ms. Moors is not a lawyer. So it's a bit counterintuitive that she'd be hired by a law firm. Ms. Moors has worked in business development in the past, so I imagine that that's what she'll do for Fagen Friedman Fulfrost. But I wonder, did FFF have a job opening, or did they create a position for her?

And how can FFF advise the district on adhering to legal and ethical practices when it seems to be manipulating the board for its own benefit?

Link: SCHOOL TRUSTEE’S VOTE AIDED FUTURE EMPLOYER
Hiring by law firm came 12 days after contract renewal
By Aaron Burgin
SDUT
Aug. 23, 2013 updated

Regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission, 18747(a):

“No public official shall ‘make,’ ‘participate in making,’ or ‘use his or her official position to influence’ any governmental decision ... if the decision directly relates to a prospective employer.”

18747(c): “A person is a ‘prospective employer’ of a public official if the official, either personally or through an agent, is ‘negotiating’ or has an ‘arrangement’ concerning prospective employment with that person.”

Timeline

November 2012: Voters re-elect Moors to a four-year term that expires in 2016.

March 2013: Moors is laid off from her position at the Tri-City Healthcare District.

Summer 2013: Moors contacts Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost.

July 24, 2013: Moors participates in vote to renew district’s contract with law firm for an amount not to exceed $100,000.

Aug. 2, 2013: Moors notifies Carlsbad Superintendent Suzette Lovely, that she is accepting a position with the law firm and resigning from the board. Moors said this was the first she time she told anyone with the district of her contact with the law firm.

Aug. 5, 2013: Moors submits resignation to the Carlsbad Unified School District and the San Diego County Office of Education.

Former Carlsbad school board member Kelli Moors was hired by a law firm 12 days after she voted to renew the firm’s $100,000 contract with the district.

Moors announced Aug. 5 that she was resigning from the Carlsbad Unified School District board to take a job with Fagen Friedman & Fulfrost LLP, a statewide law firm that specializes in education and has contracts with multiple local school districts, including Carlsbad.

On July 24, the Carlsbad board had voted 4-0, with trustee Ann Tanner abstaining, to renew 23 contracts with various vendors. The Fagen contract was the largest of the group.

State law prohibits elected officials from participating in or influencing any decision that would financially benefit a prospective employer if the elected official is already in employment negotiations with the employer.

Moors told U-T Watchdog that she had been in talks with the law firm before the July 24 meeting about accepting a position there. She said she did not exert influence or persuade her fellow board members to approve the contract, which was approved without discussion.

“I never discussed my potential employment with Fagen, Friedman & Fulfrost with my fellow board members, district staff or the superintendent because I didn’t want there to be any hint of a conflict of interest,” said Moors, who was elected to the board in 2000.

Gary Winuk, enforcement chief for the state’s Fair Political Practices Commission, said an elected official’s own vote can present a conflict involving prospective employment. This, he said, includes consent agenda votes, which typically come with no discussion.

“The general rule is that once you begin employment negotiations with an outside entity, you may not make, participate in or influence a decision regarding that entity,” Winuk said.

Moors was employed at Tri-City Medical Center before her position was eliminated in March. She said she began searching for new employment several months later. She would not give a specific date when she first contacted the law firm, but said it was earlier in the summer...