UC Berkeley, other elite schools on federal sex assault probe list; thanks goodness the US Dept of Ed hired Catherine Llamon rather than David Loy

Attorney Catherine Llamon, seen with Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigoza in 2011, is now investigating sexual assaults on colleges

Here's a bit of backstory on the US Dept. of Education's Catherine Llamon:

I'm glad the US Department of Education hired a Los Angeles liberal (Llamon) instead one from my hometown, San Diego.

Southern California lawyer Catherine Llamon worked on the ACLU suit against Los Angeles Unified School District regarding the devastating and unequal impact on the poorest schools of teacher layoffs based only on seniority.

Liberals in San Diego won't challenge the California Teachers Association no matter how badly students are harmed by the status quo in teacher layoff procedures. (May 3, 2014 update: a story that came out today supports my point.)

While Catherine Llamon was fighting for kids in Los Angeles, San Diego ACLU attorney David Loy was regularly rolling over and playing dead as schools and their lawyers abused the rights of students and employees. Did Mr. Loy have a good excuse for his deference to San Diego school districts? His defense for inaction was that layoff policies had not yet actually destroyed schools in San Diego.

Emily Alpert noticed the disparity between LA and San Diego. The intrepid reporter (whose school investigations were halted by Voice of San Diego and who was later fired by Voice of San Diego), wrote an article on March 20, 2011 called, "Why Isn’t That Happening Here?"

Alpert wrote, "Lhamon argues that history or no history, school districts can point to the predictable results of last-in-first-out layoffs...the [San Diego] chapter of the ACLU isn’t raring for a lawsuit and wants to let the school district find other solutions short of litigation."

And now back to the main story of this post.

UC Berkeley, other elite schools on federal sex assault probe list
By Kimberly Hefling
Associated Press
05/01/2014

WASHINGTON -- The Education Department on Thursday took the unprecedented step of releasing the names of the 55 colleges and universities facing a Title IX investigation for their handling of sexual abuse complaints, including UC Berkeley and the University of Southern California.

The release came two days after a White House task force promised greater government transparency on sexual assault in higher education. Going forward, the department said, it will keep an updated list of schools facing such an investigation and make it available upon request.

The schools range from large public universities like UC Berkeley, USC, Ohio State University and the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor to private schools like Occidental College and Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania. Ivy League schools like Harvard, Princeton and Dartmouth are also on the list.

The agency previously would confirm such an investigation when asked -- this newspaper reported on the UC Berkeley investigation last month, and the probes into many of the schools have appeared in news accounts -- but students and others were often unaware of them.

"We hope this increased transparency will spur community dialogue about this important issue," Catherine Lhamon, the department's assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement.

Lhamon said a school's appearance on the list does not mean that it has violated the law but that an investigation is ongoing.

Title IX prohibits gender discrimination at schools that receive federal funds. It is the same law that guarantees girls equal access to sports, but it also regulates institutions' handling of sexual violence and increasingly is being used by victims who say their schools failed to protect them.

In February, dozens of UC Berkeley students and alumna filed a complaint with the Office for Civil Rights, saying the university mishandled their cases. They said Cal put them and others at risk by inadequately disciplining their alleged assailants. Some said the campus treated them insensitively or kept them in the dark about the outcome of the campus disciplinary process.

Some victims turn to their campuses -- in addition to or instead of -- to the police for protection and justice.

The White House has said that 1 in 5 female students is assaulted. President Barack Obama appointed a task force comprised of his Cabinet members to review the issue after hearing complaints about the poor treatment of campus rape victims and the hidden nature of such crimes.

The task force announced the creation of a website, notalone.gov, offering resources for victims and information about past enforcement actions on campuses. The task force also made other recommendations to schools, such as identifying confidential victims' advocates and doing surveys to better gauge the frequency of sexual assault on their campuses.

The department publicized guidance on Title IX's sexual assault provisions in 2011 and complaints by students have since increased. The department can withhold federal funding from a school that doesn't comply with the law, but it has not used that power and instead has negotiated voluntary resolutions for violators.

Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., and Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., have said noncompliance under the law is "far too common." They say a lack of federal resources is partly to blame, and they've sought more money to ensure timely and proper investigations.

Staff writer Katy Murphy contributed to this story.

School investigation in Claremont USD a waste of taxpayer money?

It seems that a school investigator up in Claremont, Edward Saucerman, is almost as controversial as San Diego's ubiquitous school investigator Robert Price. Well, not quite. Mr. Saucerman's investigation cost $20,000. That hardly compares to the $1.5 million cost of Bob Price's MiraCosta College investigation that exposed $305 in water bills that hadn't been properly remimbursed.

Do Saucerman and Price approach their jobs with a pre-set agenda? I suspect that schools don't spend $1.5 million unless they are determined to find something bad to pin on someone. In this day of school budget cuts, they don't even spend $20,000 unless they're hoping to find something.

Usually investigators work closely with the law firms that hire them, and the law firms work closely with school administrators. I don't think the school administrators wanted an impartial investigation. My guess is that they wanted someone to find as much dirt as he good. It appears the investigator came up empty.


Change of fate for D'Emilio brings questions about investigation
Kathryn Dunn
Claremont Courier
May 31, 2012

After months of investigation and community uproar, Frank D’Emilio has been reinstated as a teacher for the fall. As many residents grapple with what proved to be an emotional narrative, lingering questions about the investigation remain unanswered. Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources Kevin Ward said that CUSD enlisted Workforce Investigations on the recommendation of the district’s legal counsel to investigate allegations Mr. D’Emilio had failed to report suspected child abuse. This is the first time CUSD has utilized the services of Workforce Investigations or its lead investigator, Edward Saucerman.

The use of a private investigator, according to Mr. Ward, was recommended because the district’s legal counsel felt the best practice was to hire an outside, impartial party to look into the matter. Brian Bock of Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost, who has worked with Mr. Saucerman for 10 years, made the recommendation.

“When an organization anticipates that a matter might become emotionally charged, conducting an internal investigation can unintentionally create a situation where people are accused of dredging up bias and blame,” Mr. Bock said.

CUSD paid $125 per hour for Mr. Saucerman’s services with the total cost for the investigation, including meetings, interviews, analysis, drafting and transcription, coming in at just under $20,000.

“From the onset, the district’s goal with this investigation was expressly to gather essential facts so the [district] could make an informed decision,” Mr. Bock said. “That is simply what Mr. Saucerman did in this matter.”

Mr. Bock asserts Mr. Saucerman was selected because he worked with other school districts in similar investigations for nearly a decade.

“Given his reputation for reliably providing a thorough, thoughtful and honest work product, it was determined that he would be the right person to handle this matter for the district,” Mr. Bock said.

But lack of information about Mr. Saucerman’s experience, his relationship with the law firm that recommended him, and conflicting reports on what was said and how some interviews were conducted, has given pause to some community members as to whether the investigation was truly impartial.

It’s clear Mr. Bock and Mr. Saucerman had a business and personal friendship based on photographs of Mr. Saucerman, Mr. Bock and law partners Peter Fagen and Howard Friedman—attorneys from Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost—at an Angels baseball game that were posted to Facebook on April 6, during the time of the investigation.

A Thursday morning call to Interim CUSD Superintendent Gloria Johnston as to whether she considered this off-the-job association appropriate had not been answered as of that afternoon.

As part of the investigation, Mr. Saucerman interviewed and collected written documentation from Sumner School staff, with Claremont Teachers’ Association President Joe Tonan sitting in on at least one interview.

Mr. Tonan contends the interview included leading and hypothetical questions, and the teacher was told that she could be fired depending upon the answers given.

“The teacher was in a tough bind,” Mr. Tonan said.

Mr. Saucerman denies the claim.

“I was very shocked when I was reading [in the newspaper] that I had threatened someone, a teacher or a party. I didn’t threaten anyone,” Mr. Saucerman said. “That’s a fabrication. I treat everyone with respect.”

Lita Abella, a current board member of the California Association of Licensed Investigators—a professional association of private investigators—has known Mr. Saucerman for many years. She also owns her own investigation firm and spent 20 years with the Los Angeles Police Department.

“If you’re a good investigator, you don’t need threaten anybody. That’s not what a professional does in any industry,” Ms. Abella said.

Mr. Saucerman’s LinkedIn page states he completed the LAPD police academy in 1989 and, beginning in 1997, acted as a field-training officer with the Pasadena Unified School District for 8 years. Although not noted on his LinkedIn page, Mr. Saucerman also worked as a school police officer with Fontana Unified School District beginning in 1994 and ending with his resignation in May 1998, according to Riverside Press-Enterprise article. Dates of employment with LAPD and the Pasadena Unified School District Police could not be verified.

“What I can speak to is, first of all, I’ve been doing this for 23 years. I’m a retired police officer of 16 years,” Mr. Saucerman said. “I retired from the Pasadena Unified School District police department. I’ve taught police officers and I’ve trained officers on interview techniques and investigative techniques.”

A request for Mr. Saucerman’s formal resume from Fagen, Friedman and Fulfrost was not fulfilled.

The report and the Sumner staff

The use of a private investigator in what was considered a personnel matter exacerbated an already-tentative situation among Sumner staff. The report itself raised concerns with Mr. Tonan, who felt some of the responses to questions were not accurately reflected in the report. Additionally, terms like “founded,” “unfounded” or “sustained” were used liberally throughout the report to establish credibility or to discredit those who were interviewed, according to Mr. Tonan.

At one point, Mr. Saucerman’s report expressed the following conclusion about Mr. D’Emilio.

“This investigator did not find Mr. D’Emilio credible during the investigation…Although he admitted to being dishonest with [redacted], this investigator must question the overall integrity of Mr. D’Emilio.”

Mr. Bock explained that Mr. Saucerman applied “the legal standard of the preponderance of evidence” to make a determination about the credibility of Mr. D’Emilio and other parties involved.

“This preponderance standard is dictated by California courts and in layman’s terms means that it is ‘more likely than not’ that something occurred or did not occur,” Mr. Bock said.

Jan B. Tucker, a private investigator out of Torrance and 7-term chairman of CALI, noted that this kind of legal terminology would be used more appropriately in police disciplinary actions, not in personnel investigations.

“The use of terms like ‘sustained’ makes me think that Saucerman is running it like an internal affairs investigation at a police department,” Mr. Tucker said. “It’s a little like a kid playing dress-up. It is ridiculous for investigators to use terms like that. We are not judges.”

Mr. Tucker, who has been a full-time, licensed private investigator in California since 1979, added that investigators are typically hired to conduct investigations and collect data through interviews, but not to draw conclusions.

However, Mr. Saucerman contends that a private investigator’s task goes beyond just fact-finding, as investigators are paid to collect information and make a recommendation to the client based on what is gleaned.

“We’re hired to do an investigation and make a determination,” he said. “Collecting evidence is part of the investigation, but it’s not all of it. An investigation is to make a determination on whether or not something occurred.”

Mr. Bock stands by the report and investigation, stating, “It is a standard and proven practice to hire an outside, impartial investigator to thoroughly examine the situation, gather and report the facts.”

Through community support and reconsideration by the board, Mr. D’Emilio will begin to put the ordeal behind him and return to the classroom. The methods used in the investigation, by CUSD and the board of education have undoubtedly impacted the community, but the lasting effect this has on future personnel matters remains to be seen.



[Maura Larkins comment: In this incident, a 7-year-old girl kissed and laid on top of an 8-year-old girl. Is that child abuse? Usually an abuser is older than the abused child, not younger. I can understand why a principal might not report the matter to the district. He probably decided it was experimentation between children of the same age rather than abuse. I don't see this as immoral behavior by the principal. It was a tricky judgment call. Do you want to label an inquisitive 7-year-old as a child abuser?

On the other hand, I have concern for the 7-year-old. Is she being abused? That is the question that needs to be investigated. But apparently the matter was reported to Child Protective Services before it was reported to the principal. So that's not an issue.

If there is a district policy that principals should keep the district in the loop in every case, then I can see why the district would be unhappy. But it seems a stretch to say the principal was immoral. Districts need to be constantly vigilant about this issue. They should be doing their own oversight on a regular basis, not calling in an investigator to find something once in a blue moon. Districts should know a lot about every employee. But they don't bother. In my district, Chula Vista Elementary, the district basically did not know, and didn't seem to care, what kind of people were working in its schools.]



EARLIER REPORT CUSD dismisses principal over handling of student incidents
Claremont Courier
May 17, 2012

Sumner Elementary School Principal Frank D’Emilio has been placed on unpaid leave after failing to notify officials of suspected child abuse incidents.

The decision by the CUSD board stems from occurrences in May 2011 where 2 female students, ages 7 and 8, allegedly participated [with each other] in acts on campus that were sexual in nature.

Mr. D’Emilio was suspended by the CUSD board as a result of an investigation and closed-session discussion at the Thursday, May 3 meeting, where the board dismissed the principal for violating the state’s Education Code relating to “immoral or unprofessional conduct, dishonesty, evident unfitness for service and for persistent violation of or refusal to obey the school laws of the state.”

In his response to the Statement of Charges provided by the district, Mr. D’Emilio submitted his resignation as the principal of Sumner, but stated that he would like to return as a classroom teacher for the 2012-2013 school year.

Mr. D’Emilio was contacted for comment, but declined to elaborate beyond what was submitted in his written response to the district.

Mr. D’Emilio has 30 days from Thursday, May 3 to file a Request for Hearing before an administrative law judge in order to maintain employment with the district.

“I cannot comment other than to say he is allowed due process,” said Kevin Ward, assistant superintendent of human resources. “The hearing is a time when he can enter evidence, review testimony and have witnesses appear on his behalf. The decision of the judge at that time is final.”

On May 3, Mr. D’Emilio submitted a 7-page written response to the allegations, where he apologized for not being forthright with the district. Mr. D’Emilio refutes the dismissal on the basis of immoral or unprofessional conduct and unfitness for service, emphasizing that the alleged incidents were between 2 young students, not an adult.

In December 2011, a parent of a district student at Sumner notified Mr. D’Emilio that she suspected her child had been victimized by another student.

The parent of the 8-year-old said that in separate incidents in May 2011, a 7-year-old female student kissed her daughter and laid on top of her while on the playground.

In another incident, the parent claims that the 7-year-old asked the 8-year-old and another classmate to stand upright as a “pole,” then danced, making physical contact with both girls. Other alleged conduct on the part of the 7-year old included using a leaf to inappropriately touch her classmate...

La Mesa-Mount Helix Patch investigates Rani Goyal resignation, $56,000 severance deal

The La Mesa-Mount Helix Patch investigation of the Rani Goyal resignation can be found at the bottom of this post. The whole brouhaha got me to thinking about a previous Helix High principal who unfairly came under attack. Here is that story:

HELIX DEFENDS ITS ACTIONS, DISPUTES REPORT RELEASED BY DISTRICT THAT CRITICIZED HELIX ADMINISTRATOR'S RESPONSE TO SEXUAL ABUSE, MISCONDUCT
East County Magazine
February 6, 2009

Did administrators at Helix Charter High School respond appropriately to four incidents of sexual abuse and misconduct involving teachers and students and has enough been done to prevent similar problems in the future? The Helix response criticizes ESI's investigator Robert Price as unqualified and lacking impartiality. A prior ESI investigation was used to revoke the charter of another charter school, the response notes.

According to Helix, Price received over 80 names of former Helix employees provided by the district. Amazingly, when the investigation into 80 separated employees from Helix did not produce the results sought by Mr. Price, the Helix response said, Mr. Price thereafter ground its conclusions in the comments of a small unspecified (and unknown) group of separated Helix employees not reported by the district. The report adds, "Clearly Mr. Price has discounted and omitted any positive comments about the Principal or Helix from his Report despite receiving many such statements." Multiple witnesses contracted by Price called Smith and complained that questions asked appeared to be aimed at finding fault; 2 witnesses told the Helix principal that "The investigator was clearly out to get you", the Helix response states.

The ESI report also fails to list corrective actions taken by Helix after the first incident, including meetings at which staff was encouraged to be vigilant in reporting possible educator sexual abuse/misconduct and told that the school would investigate any such reports and terminate employees for such conduct. Other steps included involvement of social workers, counselors, contacts to parents and more. Why is all of this material information absent from Mr. Price's report? The Helix document asks.

As for allegations that state reporting requirements were not met, Helix maintains that police were notified the same day that the Principal was made aware of the first reported case of sexual abuse/misconduct. The school's response did not encourage future sexual misconduct, Helix argues, because the other case in question was an incident that occurred earlier, but was not brought to the school's attention until after the first incident and the teacher was no longer employed at Helix. The school's reporting of two other incidents was not in question in the District report. Shinoff stood behind the report. "I don't think that is accurate at all", he said when asked about allegations by Helix of bias and omission of facts favorable to Smith. "Quite frankly, Helix from the very inception of the investigation took exception to our investigator talking to their staff." He added, "Absolutely he was never told by us or by the Superintendent or by anybody to come to any specific conclusion. I did not conduct the investigation; these are his findings...I feel quite confident that he was doing his very best for it to be a fair and balanced investigation."



See all Helix Charter High School posts.

Helix Leader Rani Goyal Got $56,000 Severance in Settlement Deal
“General release of all claims,” which included a gag order, leaves reasons for resignation unclear.
By Ken Stone
La Mesa-Mount Helix Patch
June 14, 2012

Rani Goyal was promised a $56,000 severance check from Helix Charter High School when she suddenly resigned May 25 under still mysterious circumstances.

As executive director of the La Mesa school, she was almost two years into a four-year contract paying $130,000 a year plus expenses, according to documents obtained by Patch.

A 1,500-word settlement agreement signed by Goyal and Helix charter board chairman Brian Kick stipulated that “Goyal intends and expressly agrees that [the setlement] shall be effective as a bar to each and every claim, demand and cause of action Goyal has against [Helix].” See attached PDF.

But neither Goyal nor Helix officials have commented on what possible legal actions preceded the agreement, and the deal includes a “No admission of fault” clause for both parties.

The settlement also includes a gag order, saying Helix and Goyal “agree that the events leading to this agreement shall be maintained in privacy and confidence.”

The agreement itself was made available to Patch in response to a California Public Records Act request, and in a separate letter, Kick said the school “is not required to produce documents protected by the attorney client privilege. … To the extent your request includes the above information, or any other information exempted by the Public Records Act, Helix Charter High School denies your request.”

...Goyal signed the three-page agreement May 23, and Kick on May 25. It is described as a “complete, final and binding settlement of all claims and potential claims, if any.”

She quit less than two weeks before graduation.

On May 31, Goyal was to receive full pay for that month, and within 10 days was to be paid “a gross severance amount equivalent to five months of salary in the amount of $56,418.60,” the deal said.

Her original employment contract (attached as a PDF) had a clause on early termination that said:

The board may unilaterally and without cause or advance notice terminate this agreement. In consideration of the board’s right to terminate this agreement without cause, the board shall pay to the executive director the remainder of her salary (based upon any remaining calendared work days) for the term of this agreement or for a period of four months following the effective date of termination, whichever is less.

...At least one theory on her resignation was posted on a San Diego education blog.

On June 1, an anonymous commenter wrote:

Politically powerful teachers doesn’t even begin to describe the Good ol' Boys club of Helix. There’s a specific group of teachers who enjoyed the power and privilege of being the former principal’s cronies and fail to adapt to change. They are blinded by their own hurt egos to see that Ms. Goyal was the best thing that happened to Helix in a long time. The staff at Helix has gone and ignored the students and the parents, and showed that the charter board will forget democracy in order to please the Good ol’ Boys.

The commenter concluded: “I’ll always be a fan of Helix, having been a student there through recent tough times. But I sincerely hope that the teachers that I love and respect pull their act together in the interest of the students.”

The settlement also stipulated that “both HCHS and Goyal agree that they will do nothing to disparage the other in any communications after the date of this agreement.”

Agency to Investigate County Office of Education Employee

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Schools don't investigate wrongdoing because they fear controversy will harm those in power

"...Brown declined to comment on McGeehan's request for an investigation other than to say she feared it would further upset parents and staff who are worried that the controversy will harm their schools..."


As lawmaker calls for probe, CEO of charters defends pay
By Martha Woodall
Inquirer
Philly.com
May. 24, 2008
A Pennsylvania state legislator...Rep. Michael McGeehan, a Northeast Philadelphia Democrat, also said that recent disclosures of high salaries paid to some charter executives and allegations of financial mismanagement at Philadelphia Academy Charter School make this a "good time" for the state "to reexamine charter schools. Some of them may need to be seriously reviewed."

...Brown receives more than $500,000 in salary from four charters and a private school.

Yesterday, Brown again defended the money she receives saying she and three other school employees divide their time between the schools. "I work hard," said Brown. "I really work hard and so do our teachers."

"The citizens of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania deserve nothing less than a full accounting of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars and some level of transparency into this intriguing web of charter schools."

...In an interview, McGeehan disputed Brown's defense of her compensation. He said it was incomprehensible that Brown could effectively carry out the responsibilities of her many jobs.

"This woman has to have eight arms to do the kind of things that are reported," McGeehan said in an interview yesterday. "What she is doing is juggling all these - what are essentially full-time jobs."