Questions of truthfulness in Portland Public Schools special ed whistleblower suit; jury says "bad but legal"

Stacey Sibley testifying in court

Schools aren't likely to improve as long as arrogant egotists can run them any way they want, and the public lets them get away with it. The first thing needed is for the public to demand that school officials obey the law and tell the truth under oath.

In the case below, it seems clear that someone in that jury room convinced eight people that they had to ignore the truth and protect the school district from being forced to make reparations for harmful decisons.

Somehow the jury claimed to believe that Joanne Mabbott had unintentionally grabbed Stacey Sibley by the shoulders and shoved her backward several feet in the lobby of the school district, just before telling her she was losing her job.

"We all said the school district made a lot of bad decisions...We all felt admiration for the job (Sibley) did, and we all felt pretty crummy coming out of the jury room having to make this decision."

"We thought it was bad form...Once again, we thought Mabbott made a bad decision. Was it the wrong place? Yes. Was it a stupid thing to do? Yes." But it did not meet the legal test of being intentional..."

Closing arguments raise questions of truthfulness in Portland Public Schools special ed whistleblower suit
By Betsy Hammond
OregonLive
December 06, 2011

Stacey Sibley, ousted principal of Portland's Pioneer Program schools, wipes away tears after testifying in her lawsuit against the school district that staff members at her school had to change student diapers without protective gloves after the school district refused to buy wipes and other supplies.

A bruising 13-day trial testing whether top Portland Public Schools officials demoted a special education principal because she stood up for workplace safety and special education students' rights was turned over to a Multnomah County jury Tuesday.

Stacey Sibley, founding principal of Portland's Pioneer Program schools for students with disabilities, concluded her case that she is a wronged whistleblower by tallying the many times she spoke out against changes she thought would endanger staff members or students. Her lawyer then tallied the successive cuts in job responsibilities, job conditions and prestige that Sibley suffered.

Lawyers for Portland Public Schools summarized their side by saying Sibley's complaints were merely disagreements with a boss, not galling problems or violations that needed a whistleblower to alert higher authorities. Sibley couldn't accept not getting her way and wanted special treatment when she didn't, attorney Thomas Sand said.

Sibley was demoted because, as the district streamlined administrative positions, she refused to take certain jobs and lacked the skill set to win other jobs she wanted, Sand said.

Both sides agree that the jury is being asked to decide the truthfulness of some of the highest ranking officials of Oregon's largest school district, including acting human resources director Michelle Riddell, longtime general counsel Jollee Patterson, and former special education director Joanne Mabbott. The jury can't award Sibley the $750,000-plus she seeks unless it decides those three lied on the stand, Sand told jurors.

Several emails, memos and the testimony in their own depositions suggest, but do not prove, those three took part in a key 2009 meeting to plan Sibley's demotion that was scheduled but that they now say never happened.

With numerous meetings that spring related to multiple special education and staffing issues, they were confused when they said during depositions that the meeting had happened, Patterson and others testified.

Mabbott, who has since been demoted and dismissed from Portland Public Schools, denied knowing that Sibley was going over her head with complaints about staff and student safety when she made her May 2009 decision to demote her. But some evidence, including a letter Sibley wrote to Mabbott, Superintendent Carole Smith and others, spelled out that Sibley was frustrated her complaints to Mabbott's bosses went unheeded.

"I have tried to advocate for them this year by going to Joanne, Jollee and Michelle, and I feel I have received no support for my students and my staff," Sibley wrote.

In the end, Sibley was demoted from principal of Pioneer to assistant principal at a small K-8 school, Ockley Green. Her pay was not lowered from the $102,000 a year she earned at Pioneer but her pay was capped, meaning she would not get future raises.

Two laws are key to Sibley's claims against the district: The Oregon Safe Employment Act, which bars employers from discriminating against employees who report unsafe working conditions, and a state whistleblower law, which prohibits employers from demoting employees because they report what they believe is a violation of federal or state regulation.

Sibley's chief complaints about workplace safety involved Mabbott's plans to put students of different ages and disabilities on one campus without barriers separating them, forcing staff to put their own bodies at risk to keep, for example, a 6-foot, 300-pound teen with violent tendencies from harming medically fragile kindergartners on the same hallway.

She also opposed plans to put medically needy cognitively impaired students on a separate campus, denying them contact with less disabled students.

Sibley is seeking $500,000 in damages for suffering related to being demoted. She is also seeking about $220,000 in economic damages.

Sibley left Portland schools in summer 2010 for a job as director of special programs at Willamette Education Service District in Salem, a job that pays $103,000.

Sand said Sibley deserves no compensation for voluntarily leaving a $102,000 job for one that pays better and for not getting her way on the job. Other committed educators in the school district heard her complaints but disagreed with her, he said.

"She has not earned the damages."

Sibley's attorney, Judy Snyder, called her a courageous and committed educator who bore the costs for speaking up.

"She worked tirelessly to improve (conditions for special education students) until Joanne Mabbott took that all away from her."


Portland Public Schools soft-pedaled its demotion of special ed principal, emails show
Betsy Hammond
Oregonlive
on November 20, 2011

Concern about the safety of students on this playground at a Pioneer Program school in Southeast Portland was one factor that prompted Pioneer principal Stacey Sibley to complain about her boss's decisions.

Evidence presented last week in a special education whistleblower lawsuit against Portland Public Schools shows a major assertion of the district's defense -- that Stacey Sibley was not pushed out of her job as Pioneer Program principal after complaining about student safety -- is untrue.

On Monday, Sibley and the school district begin week two of a three-week trial to determine whether Oregon's largest school district saved money or retaliated against an advocate for students when it moved Sibley from her principal's job.

Sibley, who complained that many of her boss's decisions posed a safety risk to students and staff members, was willing in April 2009 to take on a lower-ranking administrator's duties plus her own as long as she could remain overall principal of the cluster of special education schools known as the Pioneer Program. She said so in an email to her boss, special education director Joanne Mabbott.

Within weeks, however, Mabbott decided to eliminate the principal job and demote Sibley to an administrator job with less responsibility and a lower pay scale. Higher-ranking district officials helped Mabbott deny Sibley her former position and another lower-ranking administrative job she was willing to take.

In the end, she was demoted to assistant principal of a small K-8 school and assigned an isolated second-floor office with no heat.

Many emails and witness testimony presented in court last week document those and other unflattering details about the way Mabbott and other district leaders treated employees including Sibley.

The case represents the second time in a decade that a special education employee has sued the Portland district, alleging she was fired or demoted for standing up for students' best interests. Physical education teacher Pamella Settlegoode won $1 million in 2004.

Sibley's case is different because she wasn't fired, nor was her pay lowered.

District lawyers argue that financial straits forced the district to cut administrative positions in 2009 and that administrators with higher pay and responsibility than Sibley also were asked to accept lower positions in schools.

But in his opening statement to the jury Monday, attorney Thomas Sand said Sibley could have remained at Pioneer if she had accepted additional responsibilities, but she refused.

However, Sibley did not refuse to run Youngson School, one of the four in the Pioneer Program, in addition to remaining principal of all four. In an April email, Mabbott wrote, "If you are at Youngson ... I would still see you as the overall principal." Sibley answered, "Yes, I believe I would," then detailed how she would make sure the administrators under her would be treated fairly.

Nor was she ultimately allowed to remain principal.

Matt Shelby, public information officer for Portland Public Schools, cautioned that the trial is only half completed and contradictory evidence could come out this week or next.

Sibley is expected to testify Monday, according to her attorney, Judy Snyder.

After Mabbott reversed her decision to let Sibley remain principal, Mabbott broke the news to Sibley in a bizarre way, according to a co-worker's testimony and Sibley emails.

Mabbott confronted her in the foyer of the school district headquarters. She took Sibley by the shoulders, pushed her several feet and told her she would be able to handle being moved down a notch.

District lawyers and human resource leaders then spent several meetings planning how they would justify the change to Sibley and to parents and staff members, according to emails.

In May, Mabbott's boss suggested to Sibley that she could have her choice of special education administrator jobs, and Sibley named her choice, emails show. Mabbott decided not to give her that position.

Sibley got on Mabbott's bad side by complaining repeatedly, including to Mabbott's bosses, that the special education director was pushing decisions that placed students and staff at risk. For instance, Mabbott decided to move a 6-foot, 365-pound teenager with impulsive and violent tendencies -- a student who required his own classroom and two or three staff members at all times -- from a high school-only setting to one where he was on the same hallway as middle school students and shared playground space with kindergartners.

Mabbott also hired as a special education administrator, and kept on board, Laraine Adams, a co-worker from her previous job described by the assistant director of special ed as a close friend of Mabbott's. Adams was given three different jobs during her first six months working in Portland because she could not handle the first two. Students at one challenging special education school erupted into out-of-control near riots under her leadership.

Sibley wrote to Mabbott's bosses that Adams was a "lovely woman" but unable to do the job, so Sibley worried for the safety of students if Adams were given certain jobs.

Emails show Sibley begged to meet with top district officials to learn why she was being moved out of her job, given that she felt it was because she advocated for student safety. Weeks went by without such a meeting.

When Superintendent Carole Smith's chief of staff Zeke Smith and interim Chief Academic Officer Eyelyn Brzezinski finally met with her, they concluded Sibley had two main issues, according to Brzezinski's written summary: Mabbott's plans for the Pioneer Program were unsafe and too costly, and she felt she was being retaliated against for saying so.

In June., Mabbott, who has since been demoted from her job and dismissed from the district, emailed Brzezinski about Sibley, saying, "The most difficult piece is Stacey is messing with my reputation." Brzezinski replied, "It is understandable that you feel like you do. Let me reiterate that Zeke and I trust your judgment re: the Pioneer moves."


Jury clears Portland Public Schools in special ed demotion case, says treatment of former principal was bad but legal
Betsy Hammond
December 07, 2011

Stacey Sibley, a former special education principal in Portland Public Schools, turned to her husband, Steve, after a jury rejected her legal claims to be a wronged whistleblower.

After a 13-day trial, a Multnomah County jury Wednesday cleared Portland Public Schools of allegations that it illegally retaliated against a special education principal who stood up to her bosses over staff and student safety.

Stacey Sibley, founding principal of Portland's Pioneer Program schools for students with disabilities, sought $750,000 in damages after top district officials demoted her in 2009. She said her job was eliminated and she was made an assistant principal because she opposed her boss's actions and plans as unsafe for employees and students.

But the jury awarded her nothing, saying she did not prove her case.

The 12-member jury reached its decision on a narrow legal basis, and its ruling should not be seen as exonerating district conduct, said juror Kirk Andrews, one of nine jurors who sided with the school district on all three central legal questions.

Jurors all agreed Sibley had spoken up about important workplace safety issues, and most concluded she had been demoted, Andrews said. But they did not find that her reporting of safety concerns was a key factor behind her supervisors' decision to move her down in rank, he said.

It was a hard decision that came down to the specific legal tests, two other jurors agreed.

"We all said the school district made a lot of bad decisions," Andrews said. "We all felt admiration for the job (Sibley) did, and we all felt pretty crummy coming out of the jury room having to make this decision.

"She did a great job, she set up a great program, and she was an advocate for the kids," he said. "But we had a limited scope. We did not believe (her reports of safety problems) were the underlying reason" she was moved.

Andrews, a former manager at Intel, said jurors discussed a host of factors that could have been the real reason Sibley was moved, but he declined to reveal them.

The jury also had to decide whether Sibley was wronged when her boss, then-special education director Joanne Mabbott, confronted her in the open lobby of school district headquarters and demoted her. Sibley sought damages because Mabbott put her hands on Sibley's shoulders and pushed her several feet before breaking the bad news. Sibley's lawyer, Judy Snyder, said that constituted battery.

But jurors disagreed, saying there was no evidence Mabbott grabbed Sibley intentionally to cause her harm.

"We thought it was bad form," Andrews said. "Once again, we thought Mabbott made a bad decision. Was it the wrong place? Yes. Was it a stupid thing to do? Yes." But it did not meet the legal test of being intentional, he said.

Snyder built her case in part on emails and testimony that suggested some top officials met to plan a way to demote Sibley for her advocacy but paint the decision as a way to streamline jobs and save money. Several of those officials testified in their pre-trial depositions that they met to discuss Sibley's demotion but said on the witness stand that the meeting never took place. Snyder accused them of "spinning" information and suggested they weren't truthful.

Andrews and another juror said the jury didn't try to determine whether that meeting took place.

Sibley left Portland in 2010 to become director of special programs at the Willamette Education Service District in Salem.

After losing her case, she said, "I feel very good. I didn't have to resort to lying. I do worry about the people left behind (still working for the school district) who spoke up for me. I'm headed back to work, and I'm looking forward to it."

Thomas Sand, lead attorney for the school district, declined to comment on the verdict.

Robb Cowie, the district's executive director of community involvement, said, "We are very pleased that the jury found that Portland Public Schools acted fairly in the employment of Stacey Sibley."

Snyder said the case showed how hard it is for people who feel they have been wronged to win lawsuits. She said she found it interesting, but was unsure what to make of it, that all five women on the jury initially concluded that Sibley had been wrongly demoted for calling out staff safety problems while the seven male jurors determined her safety reports weren't the reason she was moved down.

One of the female jurors said the fact that top district officials had destroyed notes from important meetings and interviews that would have shed light on their true motives helped convince some jurors that Sibley's repeated safety complaints were a prime reason she was demoted.

After Judge Marilyn Litzenberger told jurors they needed to have at least nine jurors agree on each of the key three questions, the jury deliberated further, and two more jurors took the district's side.

Sibley's trial, which lasted almost four weeks, was the longest court battle for Oregon's largest school district since a class-action lawsuit over its 2002 decision to outsource the jobs of nearly 300 custodians. That case, which ended with the district paying $14.5 million to the wronged custodians, lasted until 2007.

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

McQueary files whistle-blower and defamation lawsuit in Penn State Jerry Sandusky case

Ex-Penn State assistant wants firing decision date
Seattle PI
May 25, 2013

HARRISBURG, Pa. (AP) — A former Penn State assistant football coach who was a key witness in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse case is disputing the university's assertion that he was fired as part of a routine changing of the guard under a new head football coach.

Former assistant coach Mike McQueary has filed a whistleblower and defamation lawsuit against Penn State alleging that statements made in 2011 by then-university president Graham Spanier after charges were filed in the Sandusky case made McQueary look untruthful. The university tried unsuccessfully last month to have the lawsuit thrown out, but a judge ruled that the allegations of "outrageous conduct" on the part of the school are sufficient to keep it alive.

The university has maintained that new head coach Bill O'Brien simply didn't rehire McQueary after his contract expired at the end of June 2012, and it was no different from the turnover of scores of college assistants every year, The (Harrisburg) Patriot-News (http://bit.ly/ZksKX2) reported.

But a response by McQueary filed Friday in Centre County court said he had been employed since 2004 "with no specified ending date," and even if the contract ended last year, "strict proof" is required of when the decision to terminate him was made.

Read more: http://www.seattlepi.com/news/us/article/Ex-Penn-State-assistant-wants-firing-decision-date-4548746.php#ixzz2UMgpXJdp

Retired Teacher: School Officials Knew About Sexual Abuse, Did Nothing

School districts in general dislike people who makes waves. The goal is to present a calm surface to the community. Also, most teachers don't like anyone who challenges their political hierarchy. Dan Witters probably benefited from both of these tendencies.

Very similar things happened in my district, Chula Vista Elementary (CVESD). Recently I learned of yet another cover-up. Then-Asst. Supt. Dennis Doyle mentioned to parents in 2001 that a teacher abused a student, then the whole matter was dropped.

Here's a similar story that happened in a police department. A whistleblower was fired for revealing that witnesses had received inadequate protection, resulting in a murder.

Retired Teacher: School Officials Knew About Sexual Abuse, Did Nothing
Carol Buchanan tried to come forward in the 1990s, but was punished for it
By Cheryl Hurd
NBC News
Mar 29, 2013

Carol Buchanan, a former Moraga School District teacher, tried to alert schools officials of sexual abuse in the 1990s, but was ignored, punished. Cheryl Hurd reports.

Carol Buchanan is a retired teacher who taught in the Moraga School District.

Now she may become best known as a whistleblower in the sexual abuse case involving now University of California at Berkeley swim coach, Kristen Cunnane.

“Why didn’t somebody listen? What else could I have done?" Buchanan asked. “I do feel guilty in hindsight. If this happened today, there would be no problem. I would immediately go to (Child Protective Services).”

Buchannan said in the 1990s, students told her that a popular science teacher, Dan Witters, was sexually abusing them, and she complained to administrators.

She says the district wasn’t responding to her complaints and, after a 25-year career with the district, she wasn’t fired -- but they strongly suggested that she take a leave of absence.

She did.

Buchanan says she felt vindicated when Cunnane publicly came forward last year. She was a middle school student decades ago, and is now a 30-year-old swim coach at UC Berkeley. Her story has gone quite public, and she also claims that Witters Witters and a second female teacher abused her.

“My husband came running in when he heard me just screaming that I knew it I knew it why didn’t somebody do something," Buchanan said.

After finding out about Buchannan, Cunnane released this statement, saying in part: “I can’t believe how many people at the school knew about the sexual abuse and how many warnings the district ignored. To find out that there was someone at the school actually trying to help us and that she got punished for it is incredible.”

A recent article written about Buchannan’s allegation pointed out hat it failed to find documents to corroborate her story but superintendent Bruce Burns says the district is still looking.

Key witness in Sandusky sex abuse case sues Penn State for defamation, whistle-blower violations

Key witness in Sandusky sex abuse case sues Penn State
By Ian Simpson
Oct 2, 2012
(Reuters)

A key witness in the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal sued Pennsylvania State University on Tuesday for more than $8 million on whistleblower, defamation and misrepresentation grounds.

Mike McQueary, a former Penn State assistant football coach, claimed in the suit filed in Center County Court that he lost his job, was misled and publicly scorned because he had told about one of the attacks.

Sandusky, a retired Penn State football defensive coordinator, was convicted in June on 45 counts of child molestation in a case that riveted national attention on child sexual abuse. Sentencing is set for October 9.

McQueary testified that he saw Sandusky raping a boy in a football locker room in 2001. He told jurors he then told head coach Joe Paterno, Athletic Director Tim Curley and university Vice President Gary Schultz about the incident.

The assault was never reported to police or child welfare officials. McQueary testified about it before a grand jury and Schultz and Curley were charged with perjury and failure to report suspected abuse.

McQueary, a former Penn State quarterback, was placed on administrative leave shortly after Sandusky, Curley and Schultz were charged in November 2011. He later lost his $140,000-a-year job as receivers coach.

McQueary is seeking at least $4 million in damages for alleged defamation arising from then-President Graham Spanier's public support of Schultz and Curley after the charges against them were announced.

He is asking for at least $4 million for misrepresentation because Schultz, who headed the university police, and Curley alle

gedly told him that appropriate action would be taken over the locker room incident. The former coach alleges he lost his job because he cooperated with law enforcement and will be a witness in Curley and Schultz's trial. He is in part seeking reinstatement to his job or payment of lost wages...

Penn State is facing lawsuits from at least three of Sandusky's victims. It said last month it wanted to try to settle suits by the end of the year...

Would you spend 2 and a half years in jail to earn $104 million? The IRS hopes so

Whistle-Blower Awarded $104 Million by I.R.S.
By DAVID KOCIENIEWSKI
New York Times
September 11, 2012

Sometimes, crime does pay.

Bradley Birkenfeld, a former banker at UBS, recently completed a 2.5-year prison sentence for conspiring with a wealthy California developer to evade United States income taxes.

But Mr. Birkenfeld, 47, has a lot to show for his time and effort: The Internal Revenue Service acknowledged Tuesday that information he provided was so helpful he would receive a $104 million whistle-blower award for revealing the secrets of the Swiss banking system.

Divulging the schemes that UBS used to encourage American citizens to dodge their taxes, Mr. Birkenfeld led to an investigation that has greatly diminished Switzerland’s status as a secret haven for American tax cheats and allowed the United States Treasury to recover billions in unpaid taxes.

In addition to the $780 million that the Swiss bank paid in 2008 to avoid criminal prosecution, the bank turned over account information regarding 4,700 American clients.

The unprecedented disclosure of Swiss banking information — which caused a fierce political debate in Switzerland before ultimately winning approval from the country’s parliament — set off such a panic among wealthy Americans that more than 14,000 of them joined a tax amnesty program. I.R.S. officials say the amnesty has helped them recover more than $5 billion in unpaid taxes.

Mr. Birkenfeld’s award, the largest ever paid by the I.R.S., is also a milestone for the agency’s whistle-blower program, which offers informants rewards of up to 30 percent of any fines and unpaid taxes recouped by the government. The program was revamped in 2006, offering higher rewards and more incentives for citizens to report tax dodges, in an effort to help recover more of the estimated $100 billion a year in underpaid taxes. But the program has been dogged by bureaucratic delays and institutional resistance within the I.R.S., causing some members of Congress to publicly complain that it was being undermined.

While Mr. Birkenfeld’s $104 million award is far less than the billions he sought, its sheer size — which amounts to more than $4,600 for every hour he spent in prison — could spur a surge in new whistle-blower complaints...

Tony Robbins event ends in 'wails of pain' as attendees walk on hot coals

UPDATE: THE SCIENCE OF WALKING ON COALS
(SEE ORIGINAL STORY AT BOTTOM OF POST)

Burning Question: Why Do People Walk Across Hot Coals? By Piper Weiss Yahoo News July 23, 2012 In 1986, motivational speaker Tony Robbins explained his fire walking ritual to a captivated audience: "People have gotten first, second and third degree burns . . . Some have had skin grafts and three people have died...None of them attended my seminar." As of Thursday, that's no longer true. During a four-day seminar in San Jose, California entitled "Unleash the Power Within," 21 participants in Robbins' famed "fire walk experience" suffered injuries, including second and third degree burns. ...But physicist Bernard Leikind, who tried Robbins' fire walk years ago, has a different theory of why walking across burning coals is often less dangerous than it seems.

..."You're walking on things with poor thermal conductivity and poor heat capacity," he says in a Scientific American video. "Even though the coals are at a high temperature, they don't have as much energy as you might think and aren't good at putting it into your foot."

According to Leikand, you don't need confidence or a heightened mental acuity to fire walk successfully, you just need science and a little bit of luck. "Throughout the course of the walk, energy moves from embers to feet, then the walkers' blood carries some away," Leikand tells Yahoo! Shine. "If the energy carried away doesn't equal the energy moving in, then the tissue's temperature will increase... The degree of a burn arises from a combination of temperature and time...If they make it to the end before any damage occurs, the fire walk was successful."

As to why so many weren't successful, Leiklind speculates: "Some people may have walked slowly. Some people may have stepped out of the path of earlier walkers into deeper, hotter coals. Some people may have jammed embers between their toes. The organizers may have built their ember beds differently than they had before, perhaps on a different surface. Gusts of wind might have increased the rate of combustion. It's really hard to say." He does believe other participants who suffered less severe burns may not have even reported injuries. "They just would have headed for home and visited their physicians or the emergency room later."...



Walking on hot coals is not something I can imagine myself doing, but I think I understand how people do it. (Oprah succeeded!) The feat is accomplished, I believe, through concentration, confidence and relaxation. I suspect that those who succeed are able to maintain a steady transfer of weight, keeping a fast, even rhythm and steady pressure of their feet on the coals. If you don't believe it will work, it won't. Maybe it's also a bit like the old English legal test for truth in which a hot coal was placed on the tongue of an accused person to find out if he was innocent or guilty. Theoretically, an innocent person would be relaxed (hmmmm--not necessarily!) and would have a normal, wet tongue, but a stressed, guilty person would have a dry tongue. The innocent would not be burned.

Twenty-one people in California tried walking on coals, and wound up the unhappy victims of old-fashioned peer pressure.

Did twenty-one people suddenly forget all they had learned from Tony Robbins about mind-over-matter control of their bodies? Yes, I think they lost faith (and concentration!) when they heard other people screaming.

So why didn't they back off and say, "I think I'll pass this time. Maybe another time."

That's where the peer pressure came in. It seems that herd instinct took over when mind control was lost.

People stayed in line, kept walking, and ended up miserable. Let's not laugh at them. Normal people do exactly this every day. (We suffer economically, but we don't even institute banking regulations, much less put some bankers in jail. It's business as usual.)

And why didn't somebody step in and stop the catastrophe at the Tony Robbins seminar? Because our normal, everyday culture tells us not to question authority, to keep a low profile, to keep quiet. Lately we've had a lot of books calling this "girl culture", but boys are taught the same thing, just not to the same degree.

Whistle-blowers are too often ignored, and too often punished. If one of the supervisors had stopped the event, would he or she have been fired? If one of the participants had tried to stop it, would he have been thrown out?


Tony Robbins event ends in 'wails of pain' as attendees walk on hot coals
Over 20 people treated for burns after multi-day motivational event encourages attendees to take a leap of faith on coals
Matt Williams in New York
guardian.co.uk
21 July 2012

Burnt soles rather than cleansed souls awaited attendees at motivational speaker Tony Robbins's latest life coaching seminar, with 21 people needing treatment after a painful walk across coals.

During a four-day gathering in California entitled Unleash the Power Within, the famed lifestyle guru encouraged participants to take a leap of faith and test their luck on the red-hot surface.

Emergency services were called to deal with the fall-out, as many in the group suffered second- and third-degree burns. Three needed hospital treatment, the San Jose Mercury News reported.

"I heard wails of pain, screams of agony" one witness told the newspaper.

"First one person, then a couple minutes later another one, and there was just a line of people walking on that fire. It was just bizarre, man," Jonathan Correll, 25, said.

The injured fire walkers were among thousands who attended the Robbins event. As part of the multi-day seminar, a crowd were led to a park where 12 lanes of hot coals had been laid out.

A brochure for the Unleash the Power Within event suggests that once you overcome the fear of walking on coals of between "1,200 and 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit" you can "conquer the other fires of your life with ease".

A spokesman for the San Jose fire department told the San Jose Mercury News that it does not recommend that people undertake the endeavour.

Robbins has used fire-walking throughout his career as a motivational speaker and life coach.

In a statement, the Robbins Research International told the newspaper: "We have been safely providing this experience for more than three decades, and always under the supervision of medical personnel … We continue to work with local fire and emergency personnel to ensure this event is always done in the safest way possible."

Bill for SDSU v. David Ohton whistle-blower case: $1.87 million

See more San Diego school cases.

Bill for SDSU whistle-blower case: $1.87 million
Attorney for ousted football strength coach says he offered to settle for no money
San Diego Union-Tribune
By Brent Schrotenboer
February 14, 2011

Gordon & Rees Law Firm
* 2004: $200,741.66
* 2005: $236,898.46
* 2006: $65,386.80
* 2007: $129,501.57
* 2008: $182,409.90
* 2009: $73,577.35
* 2010: $23,294.03
* Total: $911,809.77

Kirby Noonan Lance & Hoge Law Firm
* 2010: $293,530.50
* 2011: $55,887.24
* Total: $350,417.74

Seltzer Caplan McMahon Vitek Law Firm
* 2004: $231,577.51
* 2005: $233,922.32
* 2006: $176.31
* Total: $465,676.14

Horvitz & Levy Law Firm
* 2010: $123,415.86

Vendors such as court reporters
* 2004: $14,773.87
* 2005: $4,208.75
* 2006: $996.60
* Total: $19,979.22

Source: CSU billing summary

The California State University System rang up $1.87 million in legal bills to fight a whistle-blower lawsuit filed by a former San Diego State football strength coach in 2004.

The system last month decided to end the case by agreeing to pay the coach, David Ohton, a $2.7 million settlement. That means the total cost of the case for the CSU was $4.57 million — an expense that comes amid state budget cuts and dwindling resources for state colleges...

Ohton’s attorney said he initially offered to settle the case for an apology and restoration of his coaching assignment — and no money — and was told no.

Marlene Jones, in-house counsel for the university system, said $1.35 million of the $4.57 million will be paid from a self-insured “risk pool,” which comes from taxpayer money. The rest, she said, would be paid by insurance. She said the legal department is frugal and cautious about expenses after hiring outside firms.

Some still questioned how the case was handled.

“They spent $1.9 million to defend it and ended up worse off than they were in the beginning,” said Dale Larabee, an attorney who followed the case but was not involved in it. “Especially when it’s taxpayer money, you would think they would use a little bit more rational sense to resolve this rather than turning it into a matter of principle.”

Four outside firms were used for the case, one of which — Gordon & Rees — billed the university $911,810 from 2004 to 2010.

Ohton filed suit in 2004, claiming he was removed as football strength coach in 2003 after assisting with a CSU audit that found mismanagement in SDSU’s athletic department. He was given lower-profile assignments, but never fired, and he will leave SDSU employment as part of the settlement.

The audit led to the ouster of Athletic Director Rick Bay and three other athletics employees. Ohton said he was illegally retaliated against and ostracized by head football coach Tom Craft.

Ohton filed suit under the California Whistle-blower Protection Act. Jones, who started overseeing the case in 2007, said that it dragged on largely because of the relative lack of legal precedent under that law...


Lawyer linked to SDSU case
He represented a potential friendly witness to strength coach
February 24, 2011

The Watchdog on Feb. 15 printed a story adding up the tab to defend San Diego State University against whistle-blower claims by former football strength coach David Ohton.

The story quoted Dale Larabee as “an attorney who followed the case but was not involved in it,” and he criticized the university’s handling of the case.

Attorneys for the university took issue with that wording.

Although Larabee didn’t work for either side in the case, and his name wasn’t in the public case file, attorneys for SDSU consider him “involved” because Larabee was the attorney for a potential witness subpoenaed by the university. The witness never testified. University attorneys saw the potential witness as friendly to Ohton, especially since Ohton said in a deposition that the potential witness, Courtney Bale, was godmother to his son.

Bale had won her own settlement from the university in 2009, for $150,000. Ohton won $2.7 million.

Who was the anonymous Senator Who Placed "Secret Hold"?

Darrell Issa's opposition to his own bill is making it harder to expose waste and corruption. NPR talked on January 9, 2011 about the most egregious case of whistle-blower abuse (Saris).


Whistleblower update
January 07, 2011
On the Media

On December 22nd, in the face of overwhelming bipartisan support, the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act was killed at the last minute when a mystery Senator placed what’s called an anonymous hold on the bill. Tom Devine, of the Government Accountability Project, talks to us about the killing of the bill, and what you, the listener, can do about it.






On The Media & GAP Work to Identify Senator Who Placed "Secret Hold"
by Dylan Blaylock
January 08, 2011
The Whistleblogger

...the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act (WPEA) -- a critical reform that would have provided real, solid protections to federal employees who wish to speak out about wrongdoing, corruption, and fraud that they witness -- was killed by an anonymous "secret hold" by a lone senator on the final day of the last session of Congress. This action came just a few weeks after the Senate passed a stronger version of the legislation by unanimous consent -- making this action particularly underhanded.

Senators are in the middle of debating rule changes to specifically end this type of cowardly action. In the meantime, however, GAP is working in conjunction with the NPR show On The Media to identify which senator placed this hold. This will bring needed public attention to the issue -- with the hopes of passing this crucial legislation as soon as possible.

Whistle-Blower in 'Kafkaesque Nightmare' After Push for GI Safety

Whistle-Blower in 'Kafkaesque Nightmare' After Push for GI Safety
Sharon Weinberger
AOL News
May 24, 2010

Several years ago, Franz Gayl began began pushing the Marine Corps to field urgently needed protective equipment to troops in Iraq. He thought he was just doing his job.

Instead, Gayl, a civilian scientist employed by the Marine Corps, says he has been stripped of his professional responsibilities, denied educational opportunities typically available to federal workers and subjected to a criminal probe he says was instigated as part of the professional retaliation against him.

Franz Gayl / AP
Franz Gayl is pictured in 2006, when he was a civilian science adviser in Iraq.
Tom Devine, the legal director of the nonprofit Government Accountability Project, a Washington-based organization that represents federal whistle-blowers, including Gayl, says that despite legislation that is supposed to prevent retaliation, in reality, people like Gayl face a "Kafkaesque nightmare."

At the center of Gayl's original complaint was what he saw as the mishandling of the Mine Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicle, a replacement for thin-skinned Humvees that proved dangerously vulnerable to improvised explosive devices, or IEDs. In the early days of the Iraq war, those homemade bombers quickly became the leading killer of U.S. and coalition forces.

An urgent call for the MRAPs was signed off on in February 2005, around the time when deaths from the roadside bombs were spiking. But it took more than 16 months for the Marine Corps to actually begin the process of buying and fielding the new equipment.

When the Marine Corps officials in charge of buying equipment didn't seem to be acting fast enough, Gayl made his case for better equipment through reports.

Gayl's complaints reached Capitol Hill staffers, eventually leading to congressional inquiries and an inspector general investigation of the matter. In 2007, he filed for formal whistle-blower protection.

Since that time, Gayl said, he has faced reprisals. He said he has been removed from dealing with critical technology matters, like MRAPs, and that there was an investigation into information he provided to Congress. Gayl has held on to his job, but his work situation has gone from bad to worse, he says.

Most recently, the Marine Corps denied him what would normally be a routine request -- permission to attend a prestigious graduate studies program. He was also stripped of his formal responsibilities as the Marine Corps science and technology adviser, the job he was hired to do in 2002, after retiring from active duty with the service...

Does Whistleblower Law Protect Workers?

Forum Asks: Does Whistleblower Law Protect Workers?
by Mike Hall
AFL-CIO Blog
May 7, 2010

What happens to a private-sector worker who blows the whistle on unethical, discriminatory, unsafe and even sometimes downright illegal actions in the workplace? Federal law is supposed to protect the worker from retaliation. But is that law protecting workers from demotions, dismissals, transfers, pay cuts and other management backlashes?

David Michaels, head of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the agency in charge of enforcing the Whistleblower Protection Program...

Some recent whistleblower cases have grabbed headlines. But are they the rule or the exception?

* Last month, OSHA ordered New Jersey Transit to pay more than $500,000 for retaliating against a worker who reported a work-related illness.
* In March, OSHA ordered Tennessee Commerce Bank in Nashville, Tenn., to pay more than $1 million and reinstate a former corporate officer who raised concerns about internal controls.
* In December, U.S. Marshals seized a vehicle from the president of Brocon Petroleum in Freehold, N.Y. to satisfy a consent judgment in favor of a worker who triggered an inspection and suffered retaliation.

Michaels will address the way the law is being enforced, problems and strategies for improving worker protections. This is the second of a series of PftPI forums. April’s inaugural forum explored patient care issues.

PftPI, formed last year, brings together 19 national and global organizations around a common focus: defending professional integrity against external pressures in the interests of the public. The organizations include eight professional associations; 10 national unions; and the DPE, which collectively represent millions of professionals in disciplines from the sciences and engineering to human services.

Lehman Insider's Letter Warned About Violating Code of Ethics

It seems that most people will guard their bosses dirty secrets until their boss starts to turn against them.


MARCH 19, 2010
Lehman Insider's Letter Warned About Violating Code of Ethics
Top Executives Told Firm Misled Investors on Assets; Problems in Mumbai
Wall Street Journal
By MICHAEL CORKERY

Matthew Lee, a Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. senior vice president, warned in a May 2008 letter that he believed "senior management" may have violated Lehman's internal code of ethics by misleading investors and regulators about the true value of the firm's assets.

Mr. Lee addressed his letter to then-Chief Financial Officer Erin Callan and Chief Risk Officer Chris O'Meara, among others, only days before he was ousted from the firm. Portions of the letter were excerpted in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court examiner's report on Lehman released last week. A full version of the letter was reviewed Friday by The Wall Street Journal. Ms. Callan didn't return a phone call seeking comment.

Mr. Lee's complaints echo those of many investors and analysts at the time, who questioned whether Lehman was delaying write-downs to avoid potentially crippling losses. Mr. Lee, a 14-year veteran who headed the firm's global balance-sheet and legal-entity accounting, said Lehman had "tens of billions of dollars of unsubstantiated balances, which may or may not be 'bad,' or non-performing assets."

"I believe the manner in which the Firm is reporting [certain] assets is potentially misleading to the public and various governmental agencies," Mr. Lee wrote.

On Friday, Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.) asked the Justice Department to investigate alleged accounting manipulations that took place at Lehman and that were detailed in the 2,200-page examiner's report.

In the May 18, 2008, letter, Mr. Lee specifically criticized the accounting controls in Lehman's Mumbai office. "There is a very real possibility of a potential misstatement of material facts being efficiently distributed by that office," Mr. Lee wrote.

At the time, one India investment was drawing scrutiny from Lehman critics, including David Einhorn of hedge fund Greenlight Capital Inc. Mr. Einhorn questioned why the Wall Street firm had written up the value of a power plant there, known as KSK Energy Ventures, during the first quarter of 2008. In a speech to investors on May 21, Mr. Einhorn, who was betting that Lehman's stock would decline, said the firm had booked a $400 million to $600 million gain in the first quarter by writing up the value of KSK Energy...

Mr. Lee's lawyer, Erwin Shustak, of San Diego, said his client had complained orally for several months to his boss, Martin Kelly, Lehman's former global financial controller, about many of the same issues he raised "formally" in his letter. Mr. Kelly declined to comment, through a Barclays PLC spokesman, where he now works. According to the examiner's report, Mr. Kelly had raised concerns to top executives about the firm's accounting tactic, known as "Repo 105," which temporarily moved billions of dollars off its balance sheet, according to the examiner's report. The Lehman bankruptcy estate declined to comment...

Long Island Congressional Candidate Cited for Giving Up JPMorgan Whistleblower

George Demos (dark hair, third from right) made a lot of friends by tipping off JPMorgan about a whistle-blower who was talking to the SEC. It may safely be assumed that none of the folks in the photo above are very concerned about the integrity of investigations into bank fraud.

Long Island Congressional Candidate Cited for Giving Up JPMorgan Whistleblower
01/28/10
Politics Daily


George Demos is a Republican Congressional candidate from Eastern Long Island whose Web site bears the slogan "Fighting for Freedom," and touts his service as an enforcement lawyer in the New York office of the Securities and Exchange Commission. A bio says that he "handled some of the SEC's most significant investigations," including that of Ponzi scheme artist Bernard Madoff, and "worked tirelessly on the cases that never made the headlines."

But one case that never made headlines was his own: Demos' campaign Web site and public statements omit any reference to a report last March of the SEC's Inspector General (IG), which found he had improperly disclosed protected, nonpublic information about a whistleblower to the counsel for that whistleblower's employer, a major Wall Street bank, JPMorgan Chase. The IG's charges of misconduct grew out of an SEC probe that began in 2003 of JPMorgan and other big financial institutions suspected of illegal market practices.

California Dept. of Education protected fraud, retaliated against whisteblower

Whistleblower Sues State Over School Fraud
Operators Of Language Schools Stole Millions, Man Says
KCRA.com
December 14, 2007

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- Auditors found that some locally run language schools were fleecing the State Department of Education out of tens of millions of dollars.

Whistleblowers said top department officials not only looked the other way, but harassed and retaliated against them.

One of the whistleblowers sued the state, which twice appealed and has lost, costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

Efforts to settle the case in Sacramento this week went nowhere, meaning taxpayers may have to foot the bill for a third trial against a former employee who says the state ruined his life.

There are dozens of adult education schools in California teaching recent immigrants to speak English.

They are funded by the state and operated by community-based organizations.

In an investigation that began 12 years ago and is still dragging through the courts today, auditors found widespread fraud involving some schools.

Whistleblower Robert Cervantes said they engaged in flat-out corruption, and yet the public does nothing.

Cervantes, a former high-ranking officer in the Department of Education, said some of the operators of these schools were ripping off millions of taxpayer dollars.

Cervantes said what he and colleagues found the sites of some alleged schools were boarded-up gas stations, empty fields, drug houses and warehouses that were locked. His group found very few facilities that indicated that in fact classes were being conducted.

Cervantes said he and department auditor James Linberg blew the whistle.

Lindberg said if they had stopped it right then, it would have been about $3 million to $4 million.

This tale of intrigue began in the mid-1990s when the state Department of Education directed more than $23 million in federal funding to community-based organizations in California to teach English as a second language to immigrants.

But when Cervantes and Lindberg took a closer look, they found that community-based organizations flat-out told them they didn't have a program. The community-based schools felt totally immune, Cervantes said.

Cervantes said if he had persisted in investigating them and didn't continue funding these operations, they said they would get him. And by getting him, meaning, trying to kill him.

Cervantes said then Superintendent of Education Delaine Eastin and other department supervisors told him it was still his job to get the money out the door. He pointed out to them that this was fraud. They said it didn't matter, then Cervantes indicated he simply wouldn't do that.

Cervantes and Lindberg said the department retaliated, sending them to dead-end jobs where they did nothing for months on end.

The stress took a toll on Lindberg. He suffered two heart attacks.

Lindberg said the first heart attack came shortly after meeting with Eastin when he confronted her with questions such as "Why are you retaliating against me?"

Unable to work, Lindberg sued the department and Eastin. The case went to trial five years ago. A Sacramento jury awarded him a $4.5 million judgement, finding the state and Eastin liable...

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.

Verdict: students win retaliation suit against school administrators

The illegal spending habits of President Priscilla Slade of Texas Southern University were exposed by three students.

Slade was indicted and agreed to pay back part of the almost $5 million she had used for home improvements and clothing.

This is news because most people in power get clean away with their wrongdoing. The person in power destroys the livelihoods and reputations of the whistleblowers, and the public is left believing that the whistleblowers were disgruntled troublemakers who were causing problems for good leaders.

In the Priscilla Slade case, the three students who exposed her wrongdoing were expelled from the school and arrested.

In San Diego, schools that have Dan Shinoff as their lawyer exhibit similar behavior. The list of people who have been fired for exposing wrongdoing is long, including Mary Anne Weegar and Coach James "Ted" Carter. Examples of complainers who were arrested are David Alberts and Claudia Houston (that I know of). But the list of people that Shinoff tried to get arrested is even longer: Lindsey Stewart, Julie Hatoff (during the Victoria Richart scandal at MiraCosta College), and me.

Happily, the Priscilla Slade case ended differently. A federal jury has decided that school officials had retaliated against the three students, William Hudson, Justin Jordan and Oliver Brown. Next week the jury will decide on punitive damages.

Score one for the justice system.

Court Shuts Down WikiLeaks.org Whistleblower Site

Switched.com published the following article about WikiLeaks:

Court Shuts Down Whistleblower Site
Feb 20th 2008

by Tim Stevens

Click HERE for complete article.

"Nobody likes a snitch, but the whistleblower, someone who exposes corruption, is often held in quite high regard. There's a fine line between the two types of tattletales, but most everyone is almost always happy to see shady and illegal back room dealings exposed.


"Everyone, it seems, except the American courts. The U.S. Supreme Court made exposing misdeeds a little more dangerous last year when it ruled that whistleblowing employees had no protection against retaliation from employers. Now, a California District Court judge has ordered the online anonymous whistleblowing site, Wikileaks.org, to shut down...

"Last week's ruling from the California judge is in response to a lawsuit by the Julius Baer Group, a Swiss bank that was alleged to be involved in money laundering. The allegations were backed up by documents posted -- illegally, according to the bank -- to Wikileaks. The judge ruled that the Wikileaks.org domain name could no longer be renewed or resolved..."

Whistleblowers treated the same at Chula Vista Elementary School District and City of San Diego

The following story from Voice of San Diego sounds familiar to me. I reported Rick Werlin's wrongdoing to the board and to the superintendent. They put Rick Werlin in charge of the "investigation" which never took place.

Whistleblower Demands
See original article HERE.

Last month, we reported this:


Employees at the city of San Diego still do not have an outlet for anonymously reporting financial misconduct to the City Council's Audit Committee, even though a rule requiring the panel to field the concerns of whistleblowers was put in place seven months ago.

Instead, officials for Mayor Jerry Sanders are still in charge of the hotline. It keeps in place an arrangement in which City Hall's boss oversees the very forum where potentially embarrassing complaints about his administration are registered, while also having the power to fire the thousands of city employees prone to use the hotline.


The idea behind the rule is that the management structure that could be the subject of complaints the hotline collects shouldn't be the one overseeing it.

To that end, Council members Donna Frye (left) and Tony Young authored a memo this week requesting an analysis from the Independent Budget Analyst of two options:


Increase staff positions in the Office of the Independent Budget Analyst, Internal Auditor, or other city department independent from management to administer the whistleblower hotline. This could be a cost neutral action as current hotline staffing could simply be shifted to another department in the city, or:


Creation of an independent entity within the city whose sole responsibilities are to administer the whistleblower hotline, investigate complains and address confirmed violations and unethical behavior.


They've requested an answer within 30 days.


-- ANDREW DONOHUE
Wednesday, January 16 2008

Don't complain. If you do, YOU are likely to be investigated.

Betty Combier of ParentAdvocates.org writes:

"The problems that exist in the NYC school system also stem from the Department of Investigation not doing the work that they are mandated to do. They seldom investigate anything that an 'ordinary' citizen or parent of a public school child, reports, and when a teacher calls to ask for an investigation, if it is a teacher without political credentials, it is the teacher/parent/child who is investigated. They dont like people who call their bluff, either. I accompanied David Pakter to the SCI office when Thomas Comiskey, Deputy Chief Investigator, asked David to come into his office and tell him all about OTHER teachers who had broken the code of silence. Mr. Comiskey came over to me, put his finger in my face, and told me "Not you, we dont want to talk with you."

"The New York City Department of Investigations is located at 80 Maiden Lane in downtown Manhattan, near the South Street Seaport on the lower East Side.

"The following is the DOI mission, as stated on the website:

""The New York City Department of Investigation (“DOI”) is one of the oldest law-enforcement agencies in the country and an international leader in the effort to combat corruption in public institutions. It serves the Mayor and the people of New York City by acting as an independent and nonpartisan watchdog for New York City government.""

The above was found at http://parentadvocates.org/nicecontent/dsp_printable.cfm?articleID=7337#null

Note by Maura Larkins: The NYC DOI's website states: "WHISTLEBLOWERS ARE PROTECTED," but they all say that, right?

Blowing the Whistle on the Powerful and Corrupt

From Parentadvocates.org:

Opening the Door to NYC Education Corruption Part I: Update on Retaliation of All Whistleblowers

The New York City Board of Education is throwing out good teachers who are either over 40 years of age and/or speak out against the corruption they see. Students who question or dispute the system are suspended or failed and thrown out, and parents who ask questions are told they will be arrested if they enter their child's school. this is New York City.

The New York City Board of Education - still the legal name - is continuing to defame anyone who dares to stand up and talk about the corruption and crimes going on inside our city schools. We all now know the routine: you may be a teacher, parent, student, or consultant, and you see students abused by school personnel, or you know of school funds being misappropriated; you cant sleep at night unless you mention it to your supervisor. In fact, you are probably encouraged by the BOE PR to speak out.

This is a trap.

The BOE expects complete silence about everything that occurs within the walls of any of their buildings or outside, and involves any BOE personnel or money.

Retaliation is always swift, unpredictable, incomprehensible, and random. Thus, everyone is kept in a state of constant terror: teachers who correctly fear for their jobs; parents afraid of the police and school personnel harassing or abusing their children; and children who feel the betrayal of trust for those who were supposed to protect them 'in loco parentis'...

by Betsy Combier
http://www.parentadvocates.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=article&articleID=6276