When San Diego County Office of Education-Joint Powers Authority executive director Diane Crosier recently got subpoenaed by me (Maura Larkins) to testify in the defamation lawsuit against me by Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, Crosier was determined not to testify. She is the individual who has assigned millions of dollars worth of SDCOE-JPA cases to her friend Stutz lawyer Daniel Shinoff, and she's as loyal as they come.
Crosier wasn't in her office on our first attempt to serve the subpoena, but the secretary in the office assured us that Crosier would be in the next day after 1:30 p.m.
But lo and behold, Ms. Crosier was nowhere to be seen at 1:45 p.m. the next day. "She has a right to change her schedule," the secretary said. (I guess she felt defensive; she must have known that evading a subpoena is against the law.)
Another woman in the office aggressively demanded my name and the name of the server. The woman told me I couldn't serve the subpoena since I was a party in the case. I pointed out to her that I had brought someone else to serve. We left quickly.
Next I got a message from Stutz law firm that Shinoff was representing his benefactor Diane Crosier in the matter, and his office would accept service. My server went to Shinoff's office for a final, successful attempt at service.
Yesterday I got a letter from Stutz attorney Jeffrey Wade saying Crosier would not testify.
Apparently Crosier and her boss, Randolph Ward, are so anxious to help Shinoff shut down my website that they are not only devoting the public resources of SDCOE to Shinoff to prevent Crosier's deposition, but are devoting public resources to harrassing and intimidating me.
They have filed a lawsuit against me for harrassment.
Apparently they think I shouldn't be allowed to serve subpoenas on them. I haven't seen the lawsuit, but it is clearly related to the deposition subpoena served on Diane Crosier. It would seem that one of the labels for this post should be abuse of power, and another should be misuse of taxpayer dollars for private purposes.
It's legally prohibited for public entities to sue for defamation, but Diane Crosier and Randall Ward have found a way to use public resources to advance Stutz law firm's defamation suit against me.
Diane Crosier and Randolph Ward are being sued by SDCOE-JPA insider Rodger Hartnett.
Showing posts with label misappropriation of public funds. Show all posts
Showing posts with label misappropriation of public funds. Show all posts
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Friday, January 02, 2009
California Department of Education (CDE) pays off whistleblower and lawyers
Sacramento Bee
California Department of Education settles whistle-blower suit for $4.25 million
By John Hill
Published: Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2008
The state Department of Education has settled a long-running lawsuit with a whistle-blower, paying $4.25 million to the former worker who said he suffered retaliation after he reported corruption and fraud to then-Superintendent Delaine Eastin.
But that wasn't the department's only cost. Over seven years, it has paid another $1.2 million to law firms for defending the state through two jury trials and appeals.
Still, the $4.25 million settlement represents a savings of sorts. In the second trial in 2007, a jury awarded whistle-blower James Lindberg $7.6 million. With interest, the value of that judgment had increased to $8.6 million, said Hilary McLean, spokeswoman for superintendent of schools Jack O'Connell.
"The settlement reflects both parties' determination that there were risks with continuing the litigation that outweighed the benefits of trying to pursue a final resolution in the Court of Appeal," McLean said.
"We think it was a benefit to taxpayers to reach a settlement. It ends the expense of continuing to defend this case in court."
Lindberg's attorney, Gaspar Garcia II, did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
The case centered on corruption in a program that handed out money to community-based organizations between 1995 and 2000 to teach English and citizenship to recent immigrants. Some of the schools that got grant money didn't even exist.
Lindberg, a 20-year state worker, said that when he and others reported $11 million in misappropriations to Eastin, she ignored them. Then he was transferred to a job with no duties, leading to stress that he said triggered two heart attacks and put him in a wheelchair.
Another whistle-blower settled for $350,000 in 1999, McLean said.
Lindberg's first jury trial in 2002 led to a $4.6 million verdict. The department appealed, and the case was sent back for another trial. But that jury awarded Lindberg $3 million more.
The state was pursuing yet another appeal when the settlement was reached.
The $1.2 million in legal fees went to two separate law firms – one defending the department and the other representing Eastin, the former superintendent.
Eastin also is covered by the settlement, McLean said. As part of the settlement, the state admitted no liability, she said.
California Department of Education settles whistle-blower suit for $4.25 million
By John Hill
Published: Wednesday, Apr. 23, 2008
The state Department of Education has settled a long-running lawsuit with a whistle-blower, paying $4.25 million to the former worker who said he suffered retaliation after he reported corruption and fraud to then-Superintendent Delaine Eastin.
But that wasn't the department's only cost. Over seven years, it has paid another $1.2 million to law firms for defending the state through two jury trials and appeals.
Still, the $4.25 million settlement represents a savings of sorts. In the second trial in 2007, a jury awarded whistle-blower James Lindberg $7.6 million. With interest, the value of that judgment had increased to $8.6 million, said Hilary McLean, spokeswoman for superintendent of schools Jack O'Connell.
"The settlement reflects both parties' determination that there were risks with continuing the litigation that outweighed the benefits of trying to pursue a final resolution in the Court of Appeal," McLean said.
"We think it was a benefit to taxpayers to reach a settlement. It ends the expense of continuing to defend this case in court."
Lindberg's attorney, Gaspar Garcia II, did not respond to phone calls seeking comment.
The case centered on corruption in a program that handed out money to community-based organizations between 1995 and 2000 to teach English and citizenship to recent immigrants. Some of the schools that got grant money didn't even exist.
Lindberg, a 20-year state worker, said that when he and others reported $11 million in misappropriations to Eastin, she ignored them. Then he was transferred to a job with no duties, leading to stress that he said triggered two heart attacks and put him in a wheelchair.
Another whistle-blower settled for $350,000 in 1999, McLean said.
Lindberg's first jury trial in 2002 led to a $4.6 million verdict. The department appealed, and the case was sent back for another trial. But that jury awarded Lindberg $3 million more.
The state was pursuing yet another appeal when the settlement was reached.
The $1.2 million in legal fees went to two separate law firms – one defending the department and the other representing Eastin, the former superintendent.
Eastin also is covered by the settlement, McLean said. As part of the settlement, the state admitted no liability, she said.
Monday, November 10, 2008
Accelerated Charter School Sued by Former Teacher
Click here for all blog posts about Accelerated Schools.
OFFICIALS OF CHARTER SCHOOL, LA UNIFIED MISUSED STATE FUNDS, SUIT SAYS
Former teacher accuses officials of improperly using state construction funds
DEFENDANTS SAY THE ACTION IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.
By Joel Rubin and Evelyn Larrubia,
LA Times
February 24, 2007
Seven years ago, the Los Angeles Unified School District joined with a charter school to build a sparkling new campus in South Los Angeles. The deal, using public funds and private donations, was hailed as an ideal partnership.
But that transaction is coming under scrutiny. Several individuals from the Accelerated School and the school district were named in a lawsuit this week alleging improper use of state school construction funds.
Among those named in the suit is Accelerated's co-director, Johnathan Williams, who is running for a seat on the district's seven-member school board.
Neither Williams nor his campaign staff had seen the lawsuit, but campaign consultant Ace Smith called the litigation "a shameless political attempt to try to denigrate the fantastic work that's been done by the Accelerated School in South Los Angeles."
Williams could not be reached for comment. But Kevin Sved, who directs and founded the school with Williams, defended the deal to build the school. He had not read the lawsuit, but said lawyers for the school and district had carefully vetted the project at the time.
"The result," Sved said, is a school "providing free, quality education in an underserved section of Los Angeles."
The lawsuit was filed by Dennis Dockstader in Los Angeles Superior Court last summer but kept under seal until late last week. Dockstader, a whistleblower and former teacher, has made at least two similar, unsuccessful allegations against the school district, according to Michelle Meghrouni, a senior district lawyer.
Dockstader brushed aside allegations that the suit was politically motivated, noting that it was originally filed months before Williams declared his intention to seek office.
Dockstader would not further discuss the suit — or the other false claims actions he has filed previously.
False-claim suits seek the return of government funds from a person or entity that improperly used or obtained them. If successful, Dockstader and his legal team would be entitled to 25% to 50% of the recouped money, said attorney Mark Allen Kleiman, a false-claims specialist not involved in this case.
Such suits are filed under seal until the attorney general decides whether to dismiss, participate in or stand aside during the litigation. In this case, state prosecutors chose to let the suit proceed without their active involvement.
The lawsuit alleges that the land and construction contract violated numerous state rules and bidding requirements and seeks the return of all state money applied to the project, estimated in court documents at more than $12.5 million. Dockstader charges in the suit that, among other things, the school project was designed to bilk the state out of $2.8 million it paid the district to help defray the costs of the campus land.
According to the lawsuit and Los Angeles Unified documents, the district and Accelerated pursued and then abandoned the idea of Accelerated donating the land to the district. (The land had originally been given to Accelerated by the previous owner.) The district instead bought the nearly four-acre site at South Main Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The move qualified the district for the additional state funds, which were used to help build the modern campus. The suit argues that the state was defrauded of money for which the school district and Accelerated had no legitimate claim.
Williams was not named in the original complaint, which targeted only L.A. Unified, the Accelerated School and the Cal State Los Angeles Foundation, which held the title to Accelerated's land. But a recent state Supreme Court ruling barred litigation against government agencies, so attorneys working with Dockstader amended the list of defendants this week to drop L.A. Unified and add specific individuals, including Williams, his partner Sved and Jim McConnell, the former head of construction for L.A. Unified. McConnell declined to comment on the lawsuit.
When the construction collaboration was conceived, L.A. Unified desperately needed to relieve overcrowding and was eligible for millions in state school construction funds. Accelerated, for its part, had a ready plan for a new, larger campus, but was short on capital.
Ultimately, the project cost more than $50 million, said Eric Johnson, the president of Accelerated's board of trustees. He estimated that about $21 million came from state and district funds and $18.6 million from Accelerated's own fundraising. In addition, L.A. Unified lent $9.9 million to Accelerated, and the nearly $6 million paid for the land deal was also used to build the new campus.
Johnson said it was clear practically from the start that the best idea was to sell the district the land, then pump that money back into the project.
"Someone may have suggested that the land be donated, but clearly that's not the smart way to do it," he said.
The state will only pay so much for construction costs, based on how many pupils the school will serve, he explained. But it will pay for half of the district's land acquisition costs on top of that.
"Part of their job is to get as much bond money as possible," Johnson said Friday. "I think the school district would have been clearly remiss to structure it any other way."
Separate from the lawsuit, Accelerated has fallen behind on repaying the loan from the district. (It made its first payment in more than a year in December.) With more than $9 million still unpaid and the loan due in summer 2009, school district officials have said they are negotiating an extension for the balance of Accelerated's debt. They also emphasized that the terms of the loan do not impose any penalties on Accelerated for late payments.
In previous interviews, Williams has characterized attention to the loan issue as politically motivated.
Williams, 40, is running a well-funded campaign to unseat Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte, the one-term incumbent who represents District 1 of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
The school he co-founded was once named Time magazine's elementary school of the year. Accelerated's state-of-the-art campus opened formally in April 2005 and serves about 1,200 students in pre-kindergarten through grade 12.
Charter schools are publicly financed but, in exchange for boosting student achievement, are free from many of the restrictions imposed on traditional schools.
State officials had no immediate response on whether they were fully notified about the land transaction or what difference that could have made.
"The Office of Public School Construction takes the allegations very seriously," said Rob Cook, a deputy director for the California Department of General Services, which supervises the construction agency. He said agency staff "will take a close look at this matter."
The story below is more proof that TAS was having problems even before Patrick Judd arrived.
Jim Kouri
Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
...Accelerated School, Los Angeles: On August 17, 2004, Corey Lay pleaded no contest to possession of child pornography charges in county court. The 36-year-old man formerly served as a fourth-grade teacher at the Accelerated School in Los Angeles. ICE agents executed a search warrant at Lay’s home in December 2003 and discovered child pornography on one of his computers. Lay is now a registered sex offender...
.
.
http://4lakids.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/kouri/2005/03/child-porn-ring-smashed-by-immigration.html
OFFICIALS OF CHARTER SCHOOL, LA UNIFIED MISUSED STATE FUNDS, SUIT SAYS
Former teacher accuses officials of improperly using state construction funds
DEFENDANTS SAY THE ACTION IS POLITICALLY MOTIVATED.
By Joel Rubin and Evelyn Larrubia,
LA Times
February 24, 2007
Seven years ago, the Los Angeles Unified School District joined with a charter school to build a sparkling new campus in South Los Angeles. The deal, using public funds and private donations, was hailed as an ideal partnership.
But that transaction is coming under scrutiny. Several individuals from the Accelerated School and the school district were named in a lawsuit this week alleging improper use of state school construction funds.
Among those named in the suit is Accelerated's co-director, Johnathan Williams, who is running for a seat on the district's seven-member school board.
Neither Williams nor his campaign staff had seen the lawsuit, but campaign consultant Ace Smith called the litigation "a shameless political attempt to try to denigrate the fantastic work that's been done by the Accelerated School in South Los Angeles."
Williams could not be reached for comment. But Kevin Sved, who directs and founded the school with Williams, defended the deal to build the school. He had not read the lawsuit, but said lawyers for the school and district had carefully vetted the project at the time.
"The result," Sved said, is a school "providing free, quality education in an underserved section of Los Angeles."
The lawsuit was filed by Dennis Dockstader in Los Angeles Superior Court last summer but kept under seal until late last week. Dockstader, a whistleblower and former teacher, has made at least two similar, unsuccessful allegations against the school district, according to Michelle Meghrouni, a senior district lawyer.
Dockstader brushed aside allegations that the suit was politically motivated, noting that it was originally filed months before Williams declared his intention to seek office.
Dockstader would not further discuss the suit — or the other false claims actions he has filed previously.
False-claim suits seek the return of government funds from a person or entity that improperly used or obtained them. If successful, Dockstader and his legal team would be entitled to 25% to 50% of the recouped money, said attorney Mark Allen Kleiman, a false-claims specialist not involved in this case.
Such suits are filed under seal until the attorney general decides whether to dismiss, participate in or stand aside during the litigation. In this case, state prosecutors chose to let the suit proceed without their active involvement.
The lawsuit alleges that the land and construction contract violated numerous state rules and bidding requirements and seeks the return of all state money applied to the project, estimated in court documents at more than $12.5 million. Dockstader charges in the suit that, among other things, the school project was designed to bilk the state out of $2.8 million it paid the district to help defray the costs of the campus land.
According to the lawsuit and Los Angeles Unified documents, the district and Accelerated pursued and then abandoned the idea of Accelerated donating the land to the district. (The land had originally been given to Accelerated by the previous owner.) The district instead bought the nearly four-acre site at South Main Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Boulevard. The move qualified the district for the additional state funds, which were used to help build the modern campus. The suit argues that the state was defrauded of money for which the school district and Accelerated had no legitimate claim.
Williams was not named in the original complaint, which targeted only L.A. Unified, the Accelerated School and the Cal State Los Angeles Foundation, which held the title to Accelerated's land. But a recent state Supreme Court ruling barred litigation against government agencies, so attorneys working with Dockstader amended the list of defendants this week to drop L.A. Unified and add specific individuals, including Williams, his partner Sved and Jim McConnell, the former head of construction for L.A. Unified. McConnell declined to comment on the lawsuit.
When the construction collaboration was conceived, L.A. Unified desperately needed to relieve overcrowding and was eligible for millions in state school construction funds. Accelerated, for its part, had a ready plan for a new, larger campus, but was short on capital.
Ultimately, the project cost more than $50 million, said Eric Johnson, the president of Accelerated's board of trustees. He estimated that about $21 million came from state and district funds and $18.6 million from Accelerated's own fundraising. In addition, L.A. Unified lent $9.9 million to Accelerated, and the nearly $6 million paid for the land deal was also used to build the new campus.
Johnson said it was clear practically from the start that the best idea was to sell the district the land, then pump that money back into the project.
"Someone may have suggested that the land be donated, but clearly that's not the smart way to do it," he said.
The state will only pay so much for construction costs, based on how many pupils the school will serve, he explained. But it will pay for half of the district's land acquisition costs on top of that.
"Part of their job is to get as much bond money as possible," Johnson said Friday. "I think the school district would have been clearly remiss to structure it any other way."
Separate from the lawsuit, Accelerated has fallen behind on repaying the loan from the district. (It made its first payment in more than a year in December.) With more than $9 million still unpaid and the loan due in summer 2009, school district officials have said they are negotiating an extension for the balance of Accelerated's debt. They also emphasized that the terms of the loan do not impose any penalties on Accelerated for late payments.
In previous interviews, Williams has characterized attention to the loan issue as politically motivated.
Williams, 40, is running a well-funded campaign to unseat Marguerite Poindexter LaMotte, the one-term incumbent who represents District 1 of the Los Angeles Unified School District.
The school he co-founded was once named Time magazine's elementary school of the year. Accelerated's state-of-the-art campus opened formally in April 2005 and serves about 1,200 students in pre-kindergarten through grade 12.
Charter schools are publicly financed but, in exchange for boosting student achievement, are free from many of the restrictions imposed on traditional schools.
State officials had no immediate response on whether they were fully notified about the land transaction or what difference that could have made.
"The Office of Public School Construction takes the allegations very seriously," said Rob Cook, a deputy director for the California Department of General Services, which supervises the construction agency. He said agency staff "will take a close look at this matter."
The story below is more proof that TAS was having problems even before Patrick Judd arrived.
Jim Kouri
Vice President of the National Association of Chiefs of Police
Wednesday, March 30, 2005
...Accelerated School, Los Angeles: On August 17, 2004, Corey Lay pleaded no contest to possession of child pornography charges in county court. The 36-year-old man formerly served as a fourth-grade teacher at the Accelerated School in Los Angeles. ICE agents executed a search warrant at Lay’s home in December 2003 and discovered child pornography on one of his computers. Lay is now a registered sex offender...
.
.
http://4lakids.blogspot.com/2007_02_01_archive.html
http://mensnewsdaily.com/blog/kouri/2005/03/child-porn-ring-smashed-by-immigration.html
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Manhattan Beach USD superintendent and board member charged with misappropriating funds
Steve Cooley, Los Angeles District AttorneyThank you to the person who left the comment on the previous post about the good job the Los Angeles County District Attorney is doing at upholding the rule of law in public schools.
This is something we need in San Diego, but it won't happen until our district attorney, Bonnie Dumanis, is replaced.
Here is the story the commenter brought to my attention regarding the Los Angeles Public Integrity Unit:
TORRANCE – The former superintendent of the Manhattan Beach Unified School District pleaded guilty today to misappropriating public funds for personal expenses.
Gerald Frederick Davis, 58, who retired from the district in 2003 and now lives in Florida, was fined the maximum of $10,000 by Torrance Superior Court Judge Thomas R. Sokolov...
Deputy District Attorney Juliet Schmidt of the Public Integrity Division said the judge also ordered Davis to repay more than $6,000...
Davis pleaded guilty as charged to one felony count of appropriation of public money without authority of law (Section 424(a)(1) of the California Penal Code)...
In cases filed last week, Schmidt also charged former Manhattan Beach school board member Mary Agnes Rogers, 63, with one count of misappropriating public funds...
Monday, December 24, 2007
CVESD board members use public funds to fight grassroots "trustee area" campaign
Is this legal? Are school board members allowed to use public resources to affect elections?
Is Pamela Dempsey of Parham & Rajcic the lawyer who is being paid to do this?
Here is a quote from the minutes of a recent CVESD board meeting:
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
MINUTES
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Regular Meeting
November 13, 2007
7 P.M.
"...President López recessed to public session at 8:47 p.m and reported the following: The Board directed Legal Counsel to take all steps necessary to avoid litigation while educating the County Committee of the negative repercussion of the political actions related to the Petition for Trustee Areas..."
http://www.cvesd.k12.ca.us/cvesd/schoolboard/boarddocs/pdf/minutes11132007.pdf
Is Pamela Dempsey of Parham & Rajcic the lawyer who is being paid to do this?
Here is a quote from the minutes of a recent CVESD board meeting:
CHULA VISTA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT
MINUTES
BOARD OF EDUCATION
Regular Meeting
November 13, 2007
7 P.M.
"...President López recessed to public session at 8:47 p.m and reported the following: The Board directed Legal Counsel to take all steps necessary to avoid litigation while educating the County Committee of the negative repercussion of the political actions related to the Petition for Trustee Areas..."
http://www.cvesd.k12.ca.us/cvesd/schoolboard/boarddocs/pdf/minutes11132007.pdf
Capistrano Unified Former Superintendent & Assistant Indicted; used funds for enemies list
Capistrano Unified district officials are not exactly the "white knight" role models that the district offers to students.
Click HERE to see the original post.
Friday, May 25, 2007
The Orange County Register
UPDATE:
Saturday, June 16, 2007
The Orange County Register
ALMANAC
Arraignment Postponed Capistrano
Unified School District
The arraignment of two retired Capistrano Unified officials set for Friday was put off until July 13 so the defendants could review grand jury testimony. Ex-Superintendent James Fleming and former Assistant Superintendent Susan McGill face charges related to the creation of “enemies lists.” McGill is also accused of lying to the grand jury. Ronald Brower, Fleming’s attorney, said the arraignment was delayed because grand jury testimony was unavailable until this week. In e-mails, Fleming has denied the charges and called McGill’s indictment “a terrible injustice.”
McGill declined to comment as she left court.
http://www.cusdrecall.com/files/block_8/07-0616%20OCR%20almanac.pdf
Capistrano Unified retired head charged with using public
funds to create ‘enemies lists' and sway elections.
By SAM MILLER
Former Capistrano Unified School District superintendent James Fleming was indicted on charges of misappropriating public funds in creating “enemies lists” of political foes, making him the highest-ranking school official ever indicted in Orange County, District Attorney Tony Rackauckas said. Fleming, who retired in August after 15 years in charge of the 50,000-student south county district, was charged with three felony counts that could result in four years in prison. He was released on his own
recognizance.
Susan McGill, a retired assistant superintendent, also was indicted and failed to appear in court Thursday. She is charged with conspiracy and perjury, which could carry sentences of four years, eight months. Superior Court Judge Daniel Didier issued a $20,000 arrest warrant for McGill but said she can surrender June 15, when she and Fleming will be arraigned.
“The investigation and the grand jury inquiry found no legitimate educational purpose for any of the multiple versions of the enemies lists that were created,” Rackauckas said at a news conference Thursday. “It's a shame that resources were shifted away from students to create an unlawful list of political enemies.”
The indictment is the latest chapter in the ex-superintendent's fall from power. Fleming, 64, was once the state superintendent of the year, the highest-paid education chief in Orange County and the leader of the high-achieving south-county district. But he retired in August amid numerous accusations raised by Register investigations.
Thursday's announcement reopens old wounds in CUSD. Since August, district officials have repeatedly called for the community to move on, after a district-commissioned inquiry, a legal settlement, board policy changes, a political shakeup and the hiring of a new superintendent. Yet the controversies still stir emotions for many parents.
Fleming declined to comment as he entered an elevator to leave the courtroom. His attorney, Ronald Brower, said the indictment is an unreliable account of Fleming's actions.
“The school district commissioned retired judge (Stuart) Waldrip to investigate this, (with) no limit on subject matter,” Brower said. “He issued a report which found no criminal wrongdoing on the part of Dr. Fleming.
“There are parts of that report (Fleming) does dispute. To state the obvious, he doesn't dispute the part that said there was no criminal wrongdoing,” he said.
The indictments focus on two lists of political opponents, which included some personal information and information about children.
The first, created in spring 2005, listed parents – as well as a journalist and at least one student – whose names and e-mail addresses were on an early mailing list by recall leader Kevin Murphy.
Brower said Fleming had the first list created because of fears that recall leaders had hacked into the district's database. Rackauckas said the prosecution will contradict that.
The second, created shortly after the recall failed in December 2005, compiled names of and information about people who had collected signatures in the recall effort. McGill was serving as the district's liaison to the Registrar of Voters Office when Fleming sent her and former spokesman David Smollar to examine signed petitions. While there, Smollar copied down the names of signature gatherers, and gave them to Fleming.
Fleming told the Register he immediately discarded the list. “I couldn't give it back to him fast enough,” he said. District memos, though, showed that McGill had her secretary use the district's confidential pupil record database to gather information – including spouse names, children's names and schools, addresses and phone numbers– on each name collected.
She sent the information to Fleming with a note: “Per your request, attached are the lists of individuals who were listed as petition signature-gatherers along with the information on whether they have children in CUSD.”
The first list, and McGill's visit to the registrar of voters to collect the names, were revealed by the Register in July. Rackauckas said the investigation turned up no evidence that the district had used the lists to retaliate against parents involved in the recall.
But a parent who said she faced retaliation says she wasn't asked about her experience. “Retaliation is a subtle action. There's not going to be written documentation. Fleming isn't going to have an e-mail he sent saying ‘Go get this woman,' ” said recall backer Rebecca Bauer, who said her son was left out of a video montage featuring 125 classmates and denied an award at Ambuehl Elementary after she became involved in the recall. Fleming and Shele Tamaki, principal of Ambuehl, have denied her accusations.
“My point is, what other reason would they have for creating those lists?” Bauer asked. “It should be obvious to the public there was no other reason for those lists to be created.”
Rackauckas said there may be more to come from the grand jury, which has heard testimony from 14 CUSD employees on allegations ranging from conflicts of interest to violations of open meetings laws to the use of Taxpayer funds for political activities.
McGill testified Aug. 16 and 21. Rackauckas said she lied to try to hide the existence of the second list. Fleming was called to testify and pleaded the Fifth Amendment, Brower said. The district attorney's investigators in August raided Fleming's office, taking folders and two computers. “We're not finished yet,” Rackauckas said. “We still have work to do here.”
CUSD spokeswoman Beverly De Nicola would comment only in a prepared statement Thursday.
“This is now a judicial process,” the statement read. “Capistrano Unified is an excellent school district that is committed to providing the highest quality of education possible … and we will continue to do so.” Trustees Ellen Addonizio, Anna Bryson and Larry Christensen – who ran on a “reform” slate in November – released a joint statement calling the indictments “validation” for parents, teachers and taxpayers who have expressed concerns in the past. “I want to move on. But I want things corrected before I move on,” Christensen said.
Fleming retired in August after 15 years with CUSD, and new Superintendent Dennis Smith was hired in March. The district initially paid Fleming's legal bills, but quit that arrangement in March.
McGill, a Laguna Beach resident who had served in multiple roles during her 25 years in CUSD, also retired last summer. She could not be reached Thursday.
[Blogger's comment: Nixon wasn't the only politician to have an enemies list!]ENEMY LIST: During the district attorney's press conference to announce charges brought against Fleming and McGill, two examples of the so-called "enemies list" were displayed.
INVESTIGATION TIMELINE
March 2005 — San Juan Capistrano father Kevin Murphy begins organizing a recall of Capistrano Unified trustees, alleging mismanagement.
March 2005 — A CUSD principal forwarded to James Fleming an e-mail intended for recall supporters. Later, accusers say, the superintendent instructed an assistant to take the names to create a spreadsheet on them, based on confidential district records.
March 21, 2005 — According to accusations against him, Fleming drafted a confidential memo to the CUSD trustees outlining the names of the recall proponents and their strategies. He later e-mailed a similar memo to a number of district staff and administrators.
December 2005 — The county registrar ruled there weren't enough valid signatures to force a recall election.
Jan. 6, 2006 — Susan McGill, at Fleming's direction, drove to the Registrar of Voters office with district spokesman David Smollar to review recall signature petitions. They wrote down names of people who collected signatures.
Jan. 12, 2006 — McGill wrote a memo for Fleming, listing petitiongatherers, whether they had children in CUSD and which schools the children attended, according to district documents.
February 2006 — The District Attorney's Office began its investigation of CUSD.
July 10-11, 2006 — The Register reports that the district kept a list of its political opponents, including personal information, and that district employees collected recall volunteers' names – which should have been kept sealed – during the January visit.
Aug. 16, 2006-May 9 — The grand jury heard from 14 witnesses on 14 days. McGill testified Aug. 16 and 21, and, according to the indictment, lied under oath.
Aug. 30, 2006 — Fleming retired.
May 24 — Indictments against Fleming and McGill were unsealed.
Register staff writer Larry Welborn contributed to this report.
Contact the writer: (949) 454-7394 or sammiller@ocregister.com
http://www.cusdrecall.com/files/block_8/07-0525%20OCR%20Miller.pdf
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Message to: Pamela Smith, Bertha Lopez, Cheryl Cox/David Bejarano
To Chula Vista Elementary School District trustees Pamela Smith, Bertha Lopez, Cheryl Cox/David Bejarano and to other public officials who stubbornly deny all claims:
Sometimes, in order to act in your own best interest, you have to act in the interest of someone you have harmed.
You would be wise to stop taking orders from insurance company shills Diane Crosier, Rick Rinear, Rodger Hartnett and Lisa Adrience-Jensen. They are harming students, teachers, and school districts with their advice to cover up crimes and other wrongdoing. If Randy Ward won't stop the wrongdoing, you should.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
*Definition of shill
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
noun
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
verb
3. to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.
4. to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary -
n. One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.
v. To act as a shill for (a deceitful enterprise).
To lure (a person) into a swindle.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Online Etymology Dictionary
1916, "one who acts as a decoy for a gambler, auctioneer, etc." (probably originally circus or carnival argot), probably a shortened form of shillaber (1913) with the same meaning, origin unknown. The verb is attested from 1914.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet
noun
1. a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others
verb
1. act as a shill; "The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Sometimes, in order to act in your own best interest, you have to act in the interest of someone you have harmed.
You would be wise to stop taking orders from insurance company shills Diane Crosier, Rick Rinear, Rodger Hartnett and Lisa Adrience-Jensen. They are harming students, teachers, and school districts with their advice to cover up crimes and other wrongdoing. If Randy Ward won't stop the wrongdoing, you should.
_____________________________________________________________________________________
*Definition of shill
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
noun
1. a person who poses as a customer in order to decoy others into participating, as at a gambling house, auction, confidence game, etc.
2. a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.
verb
3. to work as a shill: He shills for a large casino.
4. to advertise or promote (a product) as or in the manner of a huckster; hustle: He was hired to shill a new TV show.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
American Heritage Dictionary -
n. One who poses as a satisfied customer or an enthusiastic gambler to dupe bystanders into participating in a swindle.
v. To act as a shill for (a deceitful enterprise).
To lure (a person) into a swindle.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Online Etymology Dictionary
1916, "one who acts as a decoy for a gambler, auctioneer, etc." (probably originally circus or carnival argot), probably a shortened form of shillaber (1913) with the same meaning, origin unknown. The verb is attested from 1914.
Online Etymology Dictionary, © 2001 Douglas Harper
WordNet
noun
1. a decoy who acts as an enthusiastic customer in order to stimulate the participation of others
verb
1. act as a shill; "The shill bid for the expensive carpet during the auction in order to drive the price up"
WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)