Tim Crews wins in California Court of Appeal; trial court may not punish him for filing suit to get public records from school district

The California School Boards Association (CSBA) supported Willows School District's use of taxpayer dollars to sue a citizen for demanding transparency.

See previous post on this story HERE.

Victory for publisher Tim Crews and CPRA in Appeals Court decision
First Amendment Coalition
July 19, 2013


Tim Crews, Editor & Publisher Willows Valley Mirror

A state Court of Appeal has ruled that small-town California newspaper publisher Tim Crews does not have to pay legal fees to a school board he sued over his public records request. The unanimous decision (read the Court of Appeal's decision) represents a crucial victory for government transparency and a welcome success for the First Amendment Coalition, which was instrumental in organizing and underwriting Crews’ successful defense.

“The appeals court’s decision makes clear that, in deciding whether to go to court to contest an agency’s denial of your request for public records, you will not have to fear a crushing penalty,” said Peter Scheer, FAC’s executive director. “If the court had decided differently, no journalist or ordinary citizen would ever again file suit to enforce the PRA, for fear of being bankrupted by a court order to pay a penalty of tens of thousands of dollars.”

Scheer added: “That would have been a disaster, not just for Tim Crews of course, but for government transparency in general.”

The case grows out of a public records request filed by Crews, publisher of the Sacramento Valley Mirror in Glenn County, an agricultural community in Northern California. The request sought emails of the superintendent for the Willows Unified School District. Crews was investigating whether the district was using school resources to influence a political campaign (a line of inquiry that ultimately did not pan out).

The school district began delivering copies of the emails the day after Crews filed suit. It also withheld several thousand emails on various grounds. A Superior Court judge ruled in the district’s favor after reviewing the withheld emails. The court not only dismissed Crews’ PRA suit, but then took the highly unusual step of ruling that Crews’ case was frivolous and on that basis ordering him to pay the district’s legal fees--an amount that was ultimately set at $56,000.

The Appeals Court, while agreeing with the dismissal of Crews’ PRA suit, squarely rejected both the finding that the case was frivolous and the resulting order to pay the district’s legal fees.

The Court emphasized that a fee award is a form of “punishment [that] should be used most sparingly to deter only the most egregious conduct.” Failing to prevail in a PRA lawsuit, by itself, is never enough to justify a fee award. The Court said a suit could be found “frivolous” only if filed in bad faith--for example, “to harass” an agency rather than to obtain information--or if the suit’s legal basis is so implausible that “any reasonable attorney would agree” it is “totally without merit.”

Under the appeals court’s interpretation of the PRA, a plaintiff and her lawyer, when deciding to sue to gain access to records, don’t have to be confident that they will prevail. Even if they expect to lose, they can file a suit without fearing a crushing penalty in the form of an award of legal fees.

The court said: “Counsel and their clients have a right to present issues that are arguably correct, even if it is extremely unlikely that they will win.”

FAC became involved in Crews’ defense after he was ordered to pay the district’s legal fees. FAC helped Crews in lining up legal representation--his attorney for the appeal was Karl Olson (of Ram, Olson, Cereghino & Kopczynski in San Francisco). Also for the appeal, FAC took the lead in organizing amicus brief support for Crews. Two amicus briefs were filed, one brief on behalf of media companies (prepared by Duffy Carolan and her colleagues at Davis Wright Tremaine) and another on behalf of pro-access government officials (prepared by Terry Francke of Californians Aware).

“For us, Tim’s case was absolutely make or break,” said Scheer. “The only means of enforcing the PRA is through civil suits that challenge agencies’ withholding of requested records,” he said. “If Tim’s penalty had been affirmed, that would have been the end of PRA enforcement.”

The cost of Crews’ representation was substantially underwritten by FAC’s Rebele Legal Fund, a special fund for open-government litigation named for FAC Board member Roland (“Reb”) Rebele, the founding (and biggest) contributor to the fund. (Other major contributions were made by Raymond Pryke, Susan McClatchy and Allen McCombs, among others.)

The Rebele Legal Fund provides funding support for important open-government and first amendment cases in which, for a variety of reasons, pro bono (i.e., free) legal representation may not be available. Normally the fund is for cases in which FAC, by action of its Board of Directors, has decided to participate as a party.


Judge Byrd dismisses GCBE actions v. Mirror
By Tim Crews
Sacramento Valley Mirror
March 3, 2007

Willows—A decidedly grumpy Superior Court Judge Don Byrd yesterday dismissed the counter actions against this newspaper. In the complex aftermath of the Sacramento lawsuit against the Glenn County Office of Education, the Glenn County Board of Education refused to join in a settlement, a victory for the newspaper — and for access to public information.

The board, a somnambulating beast awakened when Arturo Barrera took office as the new Glenn County Schools Superintendent, tried to drag to unresolved matters. They mumbled about “enforcing a temporary restraining order” when none was issued. (One of the several judges involved, Judge Golden said that GCOE attorneys needed to describe the behavior they wanted prevented. And that would all boil down to prior restraint.) The board seemed to want the MIRROR punished for revealing embarrassing things about GCOE, misspending, destruction of records and the like.

In the end Judge Byrd told the new GCOE attorneys that if GCOE wanted an injunction, they’d have to file it. And that way lies a great peril: Prior restraint.

The board seemed crestfallen.

MIRROR attorney Paul Boylan observes, "I have been working with the California Public Records Act for years advising public agencies on how to respond to requests for public records. When I agreed to represent the MIRROR, I really believed that I could negotiate an agreement where the MIRROR received the information it asked for and the GCOE privacy and confidentiality interests could be met. That is the way 99.9 percent of public records disputes are resolved. But not this one. After six months of the nastiest litigation I have ever been part of, I still don't understand why the GCOE fought so hard to keep these records secret. Why pay four different law firms so much money to keep so little secret? It just doesn't make any sense.

"This should have been an uncomplicated, straight forward court proceeding. The court was going to decide a very simple question:

Did the GCOE reasons for keeping documents secret outweigh the public's interest in that same information and the public's right to know? If yes, then the GCOE would have won. If no, then the MIRROR would have won. Simple. But the case got complicated when the GCOE attorneys — the ones hired to handle all of the MIRROR's requests — gave the MIRROR huge amounts of student and personnel information that the MIRROR didn't ask for.

“How on earth did such an incredible mistake happen? These were the experts hired to stop exactly the sort of thing that they ended up doing. It makes no sense. But then the case got even more complicated when the GCOE tried to get that information back — as if that was even possible — and wanted the court to order the MIRROR not to report on the information the GCOE attorneys gave the MIRROR.

“They knew or should have known that the MIRROR would not cooperate with any attempt to compromise its First Amendment rights to get the news and report the news," Mr. Boylan points out. Last year, then-Superintendent Joni Samples appointed a Sacramento attorney as a public records chief, and an expensive one at that. Mark Ellis released a disc to the MIRROR that continued seven years with of special education e-mails.

The e-mails were supposed to have been swept clean of confidential information. They weren’t. We later learned that the attorneys couldn’t f figure out how to open them. So they were tossed in a box with spending records.

And even later GCOE lawyers were supposed to have gone back and produced “clean” versions for us.

They never did.

The MIRROR reported that instead of protecting confidential information, the lawyer had negligently released it.

And then we did a story on the failure of special education management to report suspected child abuse, a story with fictionalized names and the special education children protected, Mr. Ellis sought to have us punished. For his error.

We had earlier turned over the discs, in a stipulated agreement we entered into most reluctantly. We did not agree to turn over our hard drives.

Friday, Judge Byrd scolded both sides and complained about the complex litigation but congratulated both sides for an agreement. With Mr. Ellis appearing by telephone, Judge Byrd reviewed matters, noted that Mr. Ellis had filed for a TRO and “I denied that request.” He asked what GCBE wanted and Donald Anthony Velez Jr ., of Miller Brown & Dannis suggested that the information be eliminated from the MIRROR’s computers, perhaps by the appointment of a “tech savvy” referee.

Judge Byrd waved that off, grumbled a bit more and said he was returning the cart load of records and discs to GCOE.

The Mirror obtained the information legally. We retain it.

Mr. Boylan notes, "We tried to end this nonsense - this huge waste of time and money. The MIRROR offered to settle many times. It didn't do any good. But then Superintendent Barrera fired his attorneys and negotiated an agreement that gave the MIRROR the records the MIRROR asked for in exchange for dismissing the Brown Act and the public records claims against the GCOE and the Board. We thought it was over. The issue of those confidential records - the ones the GCOE's attorney's gave to the MIRROR - was still out there. And no one seemed to know what to do about it.

"Judge Byrd solved that problem. He is an excellent judge. He did for the parties what the parties could not do for themselves — he ended the case by dismissing the actions against the MIRROR. I am grateful."

Why am I talking about "Orange is the New Black" on an education blog? Because it's so reminiscent of the teacher's lounge

The Netflix series "Orange is the New Black" could share plot ideas with a series about the teacher's lounge and the school district office. Sometimes it's all about whether or not you get caught and whether your lawyer is being paid from a school district budget.

This sounds just like the schools I taught at:

"When Piper goes through her first day — meeting her bunkmates, going to the cafeteria — every step is tricky. If she befriends the wrong person or says the wrong thing (which she does, a lot), the consequences can be severe."


Piper Kerman, the real life Piper Chapman

‘Orange is the New Black’ is the best TV show about prison ever made
By Dylan Matthews
Washington Post
July 17, 2013

After the twin disappointments of House of Cards and Arrested Development‘s fourth season, Netflix has hit it out of the park with Orange is the New Black. I finished binge-watching the first season last night, and for my money it’s one of the best dramas on the air right now, up there with Mad Men, The Americans, and Breaking Bad.

Created by Jenji Kohan of Weeds fame, the show is about Piper Chapman (Taylor Schilling), a yuppie living in New York City with her fiancé (Jason Biggs) and trying to get an artisanal soap business off the ground. However, Chapman used to date an international drug smuggler (Laura Prepon), and transferred cash for her a few times. That past catches up with Piper and she ends up with a 15 month sentence in a federal prison in Litchfield, NY — a prison where Alex, her drug-smuggling ex, is also doing time.

The show’s based on the memoir of Piper Kerman, who really did date a drug smuggler and really did end up in prison for 15 months as a result. So the basic plot isn’t totally unrealistic. But are women’s prisons in general much like Litchfield as portrayed in the show?..

Laughs And Drama Behind Bars With 'Orange Is The New Black'
NPR
July 16, 2013

Netflix's original series Orange Is the New Black has two important TV predecessors. One is HBO's Oz, the 1997 men-in-prison drama from Tom Fontana that paved the way for HBO's The Sopranos. The other is Showtime's Weeds, which in the fourth season put one of its central characters behind bars.

The creator of Weeds, Jenji Kohan, clearly enjoyed the idea of a women's prison as fertile ground for both comedy and drama. With Orange Is the New Black, she goes back behind bars, but in a way that's more ambitious — and ultimately more impressive — than Weeds.

Weeds was played mostly for laughs. Oz was so serious, and so ominous, it was scary. Orange is somewhere in between. Some of it's funny, but some of its scenes and many of its characters stick with you.

The series is based on a memoir by Piper Kerman, whose character in Orange is named Piper Chapman. Each episode contains flashbacks that provide insight into the past of a different character — a structure familiar from Lost, and, before that, from Oz. But while the flashbacks are intriguing, and increasingly surprising, it's the scenes set in the present, as Piper enters the prison system, that really draw you in.

Taylor Schilling, whose only other significant TV role was as Nurse Veronica on NBC's Mercy series four years ago, stars as Piper. She displays more than enough vulnerability to elicit our empathy, even though she is indeed a criminal. (Though in these days when we end up rooting for the likes of Tony Soprano and Walter White, Piper hardly seems in the same league.)

On her first day in prison, Piper meets her assigned counselor, Sam Healy, played by Michael Harney. Fans of Weeds may remember him as that show's Detective Mitch. He looks over her file, curious as to how a well-to-do 32-year-old white woman ended up in jail.

When Piper goes through her first day — meeting her bunkmates, going to the cafeteria — every step is tricky. If she befriends the wrong person or says the wrong thing (which she does, a lot), the consequences can be severe. We, as the audience, are taken along, experiencing the same steep learning curve.

By the third episode, we're as familiar with the nightly head-count routine as Piper is — and by the end of these 13 episodes, we not only know all the characters in this very large, very diverse ensemble comedy-drama, we feel for them, too. And that's quite an achievement.

The cast is so large that singling out only a few for specific praise is tough. But the two biggest names in Orange Is the New Black deserve credit for embodying characters that shatter the memories of their most famous TV roles. Kate Mulgrew, who played Captain Janeway on Star Trek: Voyager, is almost unrecognizable, and absolutely riveting, as Red, the proud Russian inmate who runs the commissary. And Laura Prepon, as Piper's former drug-smuggling lover, obliterates all traces of the sweet Midwestern teen she played on That '70s Show...

But when I watched all of the first season of Orange Is the New Black, I wasn't just binge-viewing. I was binge-reviewing. And my verdict, after all that, is that Netflix has indeed done it again. After House of Cards and Arrested Development, Orange Is the New Black is the outlet's third triumph this year.

Smith graduate Piper Kerman was bored with her middle class life — so she joined a group of bohemian artists-turned-drug smugglers. After traveling to exotic resorts and smuggling a suitcase packed with drug money from Chicago to Brussels, she broke free from the drug trade and found a new life, normal jobs and a blooming romance.

But 10 years later, federal officers knocked on her door. Kerman pleaded guilty to drug smuggling and money laundering and went on to serve time in a federal women's prison in Danbury, Conn.

In her memoir, Orange Is The New Black: My Year In A Women's Prison, Kerman recounts a year in which she learned to clean her cell with maxipads, to wire a light fixture, and to make prison cheesecake — all while finding camaraderie with women from all walks of life.

Fraud widespread among public employees in New Jersey free lunch program; some school board members also cheated

One unnamed school board member in Pleasantville, a city of nearly 21,000 people near the New Jersey shore, allegedly underreported her household income by about $59,000 each year. When confronted by Boxer's office, she said she didn't include her own salary because "she herself was not the person receiving the free student lunch," the report said. She also allegedly said that her income "is none of their damn business," according to the report.

Fraud widespread in New Jersey free lunch program: state official
Reuters
By Hilary Russ
Jan. 18, 2013

(Reuters) - New Jersey will refer 109 names to criminal investigators after a probe allegedly found pervasive fraud in the federal free and low-cost lunch program in the state's schools, a state official said on Wednesday.

The alleged fraudsters are all public employees, their spouses or members of their households, accused of lying about their income so that their children would qualify for federally subsidized reduced-price lunches, according to New Jersey Comptroller Matthew Boxer.

Six of the names, which were not released, are elected school board officials. The 109 people underreported their household income by more than $13 million altogether over the three years of records and 15 school districts that Boxer's office examined, according to his report.

If the state were to examine the more than 600 additional school districts in New Jersey, hundreds of additional cases could surface, the report said.

One unnamed school board member in Pleasantville, a city of nearly 21,000 people near the New Jersey shore, allegedly underreported her household income by about $59,000 each year. When confronted by Boxer's office, she said she didn't include her own salary because "she herself was not the person receiving the free student lunch," the report said.

She also allegedly said that her income "is none of damn business," according to the report.

The National School Lunch Program itself is partly to blame for the abuse, the report said. That's because the federal program only requires schools to verify 3 percent of the applications of people whose reported incomes are closest to eligibility limits.

School districts are not allowed to verify the remaining 97 percent of applications unless they suspect fraud, Boxer's report said.

New Jersey isn't the only state to find abuse of its school lunch program. A year ago, the inspector general of Chicago, Illinois' schools found 26 cases of current or former employees lying about their income to qualify.

The New Jersey investigation also found several instances of school districts failing to reject applicants who had submitted documents proving they were not eligible.

The U.S. government reimbursed New Jersey's schools for $212 million for the program during the 2011-2012 school year, while the state itself chipped in $5.5 million.

The federal program operates in more than 100,000 schools and residential child care institutions throughout the country. To qualify for free lunches, a family's income must be at 130 percent of the poverty level, or $29,965 for a family of four as of June 30. The program cost $11 billion in fiscal 2011.

(Reporting by Hilary Russ; Editing by Tiziana Barghini and Sofina Mirza-Reid)

Zimmerman verdict: Young black high school boys are not safe--so how do they focus on school?

It's Rare That The Daily Show Slips Out Of Satire And Into Anger. This Is One Of Those Times. (VIDEO)
2013-05-18
Rossalyn Warren
Upworthy

John Oliver Leave it to the "The Daily Show" to capture the absurdity of this injustice that's shaken America.


Zimmerman verdict: A green light for racist vigilantes
This verdict allows every paranoid, sub-intelligent, vigilante with a gun to go on victimizing black youth
By Rich Benjamin
Salon.com
Jul 14, 2013

Just weeks ago, I returned to New York City from Fire Island on a Sunday evening, and decided to stop by my office.

After I let myself into the office, I noticed some Caucasians mingling around. I paid them no mind, since our office often has off-hours visitors who rent the common space.

“Can I help you?” said a middle aged white man, testily.

“No,” I shot back. “But I can I help YOU?”

“What do you mean?”

“I work here,” I said. “This is MY office.”

“Oh,” he said, stepping back slightly. “I saw you and just wanted to make sure things are OK.”

“Thank you, George Zimmerman,” I said.

Weeks later, my sarcastic one-off is more painful to me than I could ever have imagined. George Zimmerman’s acquittal leaves me feeling so nauseous.

This office exchange has been common to me my whole life. A testy “Can I help you?” doubles as a passive-aggressive demand for me to justify my presence even where I belong. Thankfully, I have never encountered an armed white person on the other end of that presumption.

Trayvon Martin paid for that common presumption with his life.

Zimmerman’s stooges and apologists claim that his deadly encounter had nothing do with race. And that his trial and acquittal have nothing to do with race. His defenders effectively portrayed him as a hapless Samaritan who got in over his head. Meanwhile, they tarred Trayvon as a menace who failed to properly justify his existence.

These presumptions colored every moment of the Police Department’s botched initial reaction and the trial.

How does an armed adult defy the policy, chase down a youth, kill him, and then turn around and call it self defense?

Defense from what? A fleeing kid? Was Trayvon Martin seen for his humanity? Or as a “fucking punk”? Are black men seen for our humanity or as three-fifths of a fucking punk? This verdict will have devastating consequences. It is an implicit green light for every paranoid, sub-intelligent, vigilante racist to go on victimizing black youth.

Trayvon Martin is dead for no reason other than being black.

Why do Zimmerman and some Americans feel entitled to police black and brown people like vigilantes?

Why did the Sanford Police Department test a dead boy’s body for drugs in “standard operating procedure,” yet failed to test a live man’s body for alcohol or drugs? Why did the Sanford Police Department fail so miserably during the critical immediate hours after arriving on the scene?...

Will sequestering permanently damage 5% of poor children by depriving them of Head Start?

"This was not the way sequestration was meant to go. The reductions were designed to be so painful -- to both defense and nondefense discretionary programs -- that Republicans and Democrats would flock to the negotiating table to find a compromise. Instead, the effects of sequestration have been uneven, with small pockets of intense upheaval rather than widespread but mild disruptions."

The Sequester's Devastating Impact on America's Poor
It's fashionable in political circles to say the mandatory budgets cuts haven't been the predicted disaster. Cuts to programs like Head Start suggest otherwise.
Nancy Cook
Jul 13 2013
The Atlantic

The federal government's across-the-board sequestration cuts, which began taking effect in March, may seem like an overhyped piece of political theater--that is, unless you're an unemployed adult living in Michigan. There, roughly 82,000 people, like Kristina Feldotte of Saginaw, have watched their federal unemployment checks dwindle by 10.7 percent since late March. That's as much as a $150 per month from payments that, at most, clock in at $1,440.

"It flabbergasts me that our government can't get its crap together," says Feldotte, 47, a mother of four and a laid-off public-school teacher. "With the air-traffic controllers, Congress fixed that right away because it affected the planes going in and out of Washington. But they're not doing anything that benefits the people."

That's especially true of poor people since Congress and the White House failed to reach a deal to undo the cuts in March. Air-traffic controllers and meat inspectors, represented by powerful unions and lobbyists, got reprieves. Agencies such as the Justice and Homeland Security departments found wiggle room in their budgets to stave off furloughs. But programs outside of D.C. for low-income or distressed people -- such as Head Start, Meals on Wheels, or federal unemployment benefits -- have suffered as the cuts kicked in, leading to cancellations, fewer meals, smaller checks, and staff layoffs.

"The impacts of the sequester have been hard to document, but it really is a diminution of services," says Sharon Parrott, vice president for budget policy and economic opportunity at the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Take the Meals on Wheels program in Contra Costa County, California, which, like the national program, has had to cut 5.1 percent of its budget. After losing $89,000 in federal funding over a six-month period, the program had to scale back the number of meals it serves from 1,500 to 1,300 a day. This puts its director in the unenviable position of having to choose which low-income or lonely 80-year-olds are less deserving of a meal delivery. "We're only adding new clients in the direst circumstances -- like they will die or be institutionalized if we don't get to them," says Paul Kraintz, director of the county's nutrition program.

The Head Start program in Rockland County, N.Y., had to make similarly tough choices. It managed to keep open its summer program for the youngest children, ages 1 to 3, but had to cancel the summer sessions for 3-to-5-year-olds and lay off 12 staff members to save roughly $240,000, says Ouida Foster Toutebon, executive director of Head Start Rockland. Like the national program, it will lose about 5 percent of its budget -- in this case, $414,925 -- by the end of the fiscal year, September 30. "The parents were upset, because they needed to make other arrangements," Toutebon says.

This was not the way sequestration was meant to go. The reductions were designed to be so painful -- to both defense and nondefense discretionary programs -- that Republicans and Democrats would flock to the negotiating table to find a compromise. Instead, the effects of sequestration have been uneven, with small pockets of intense upheaval rather than widespread but mild disruptions...

The World Is Getting More Corrupt, and These Are the 5 Worst Offenders

In the article below, notice that lawyers aren't on the Top Five in the world list of those considered guilty of corruption.

But perhaps lawyers should be counted as part of the judiciary. After all, who becomes a judge? A lawyer! And who bribes the corrupt judges? My guess is that it's usually a lawyer. 42% of respondents in United States felt that judiciary was corrupt/extremely corrupt. 15% of Americans reported paying a bribe to the judiciary.

I had little personal experience with court corruption until my current case before San Diego Judge Judith Hayes, who was forced out of the criminal courts in San Diego Superior Court. I do not know that she received a bribe in my case, but I know that she declared things to be true that were absolutely false. I cringe to think of what she must have done to people accused in criminal court. I have heard for decades that verdicts could be bought in some courtrooms in San Diego, but I was still shocked when I heard Judge Hayes' deliberately false statements.

I also have some evidence that the selection of a judge for a given case is not always random in San Diego Superior Court. The Administrative Office of the Courts is in charge of this. (See all my posts about the AOC here.)

To put judicial corruption into perspective, I should point out that 34% of respondents in United States felt that education systems were corrupt/extremely corrupt, with 11% reporting having paid a bribe to education services.

43% of respondents in United States felt that medical and health services were corrupt/extremely corrupt.



The World Is Getting More Corrupt, and These Are the 5 Worst Offenders
By SANTIAGO WILLS
ABC News
July 10, 2013

On Tuesday, Berlin-based watchdog Transparency International released its Global Corruption Barometer 2013, a worldwide survey of 114,000 people that analyzes bribery and corruption in 107 countries.

The report found that corruption and bribery are prevalent across both developed and underdeveloped nations: More than 50 percent of respondents in the world said corruption had worsened in recent years, and 27 percent admitted to paying bribes in order to access public services and institutions.

Few respondents see an easy way out of this growing problem. The majority of people don’t believe in their government’s capabilities to fight corruption. Nearly 88 percent think that their leaders are doing a poor job at it, and most blame public institutions as the main corruption sources.

Here are five of the world’s most corrupt institutions, according to the survey:

1) The Police

For years now, many people in rural areas of countries like Mexico and Venezuela have learned an important lesson: If you have a problem with the law, avoid the police, because you might end up with even more problems.

In Mexico, cartels pay municipal police $100 million every month, and more than 93 percent of drivers think traffic policemen are corrupt. (One solution to that problem: female police officers.) In Venezuela, the interior minister excoriated his entire force last month.

Those are some of the most extreme cases, but they reflect a general worldwide distrust of cops. Across the globe, police received 3.7 rating on a 1 to 5 scale, where 1 means ‘not at all corrupt’ and 5 means ‘extremely corrupt’.

2) Judges

Few forms of corruption can hurt a country more than judicial corruption. The rule of law tends to disappear when people don’t trust the justice system. If you don’t think a judge can help you, there is a greater chance you will take justice in your own hands or allow those who wronged you to escape with impunity.

There are 20 countries where people think the judiciary is the most corrupt institution. In these countries, 30 percent of the survey’s respondents admitted that they had a paid bribe in order to help their cases.

3) Public Officials and Civil Servants

Government employees in charge of land, registry, health, and education have a privileged position controlling access to certain grants or assistance. They can easily ask for bribes.

This sort of corruption has mostly affected countries like Afghanistan, Cambodia, Iraq, Liberia, Sierra Leone, Venezuela, Mexico, and Colombia –- countries where agrarian and civil conflicts have divided the population and enabled governments to centralize power in big bureaucracies.

On average, public officials received a 3.6 for corruption on the 1-to-5 scale.

4) Political Parties

Citizens of Argentina, Greece, Colombia, the United States, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Israel, Vanuatu, Uruguay, and Jamaica share one belief: They think political parties are their country’s most corrupt institutions. In total, 51 countries around the world expressed contempt for political parties in the survey.

More than half of respondents think that their countries are run by big interests looking out for themselves “entirely” or to a “large extent.” It’s no surprise, then, that protesters in countries like Turkey, Egypt, Chile, Spain, and Brazil have used political corruption as a rallying cry.

In the U.S., 76 percent of respondents said that political parties were affected by corruption. In Greece, the number is currently at 90 percent.

5) The Citizenry

One of the largest problems when dealing with public corruption is the people themselves. According to the report, 27 percent of respondents said that they had paid a bribe in the past 12 months. As Transparency International and other NGOs have repeatedly stated, this ultimately sustains and encourages corruption.

The same goes for citizens' failures to report incidents of corruption. The study found that 21 percent of the people surveyed are not willing to report these incidents, and there are 16 countries where a majority of respondents would prefer to remain silent, for fear of reprisals and lack of faith in their governments.

How are schools owned by the public able to keep their actions and records secret? UConn and Wesbster Bank demonstrate one strategy

How are schools owned by the public able to keep their actions and records secret? First, hire contractors to do jobs that should be done by school districts so the resulting records will not be public. School attorney Dan Shinoff advised this tactic for school investigations on page 4 of his "Bully Booklet". Stutz law firm is a private firm that contracts with school districts. Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz clients in San Ysidro made news with a remarkably efficient method of hiding school district records from the public and the courts: shredding and burning them.

One of the "investigations" done by Dan Shinoff for Chula Vista Elementary School District resulted in a set of 87 documents, half of which have been kept secret. When Mr. Shinoff failed to produce the documents for his own lawsuit for defamation against this blogger, Judge Judith Hayes allowed him to get away with it.

UConn recently proved the efficacy of the hiring-private-contractors method:

UConn-Webster Bank Sponsorship Deal Will Remain Secret
by Jacqueline Wattles
CT News Junkie
Jul 9, 2013

After an eight-month battle, The Associated Press dropped its Freedom of Information request for the contract detailing the University of Connecticut’s new relationship with Webster Bank.

Despite attempts to the contrary, the complaint was dropped “with prejudice,” which means it’s unlikely the contract will ever see the light of day unless the legislature changes the law.

The AP and its attorney attempted to drop the case “without prejudice” — which would have left the case open for future appeals — after an initial hearing revealed the case was “far more factually complex than orginially anticipated.”

But the AP’s request wasn’t granted and on June 12 the Freedom of Information Commission dropped the case “with prejudice,” which closed the case indefinitely.

With the case in limbo, the financial terms of Webster’s relationship with UConn will remain secret, including any information detailing the benefits Webster is receiving from the deal.

Webster Bank signage and an ATM already are visible on campus, and the company’s logo is being included in sports posters and advertisements. The deal replaces a previous contract UConn had with People’s Bank.

However, the Webster contract is unique in that it was between Webster and IMG College, a company UConn contracted with in 2008 to take over the school’s sports marketing. This means the document lays out an agreement between the two private companies, even though it was done on UConn’s behalf. IMG College pays UConn more than $8 million a year to handle its sports marketing and promotion and up to $15 million in royalties. Click here and here to read that contract.

Webster has since announced it is now the “Official Bank of UConn,” and plans to open a branch on campus.

A press release from the university announced that its relationship with Webster “spans all UConn constituencies including more than 200,000 alumni, 28,000 students, and all sports.”

Pat Eaton-Robb, an Associated Press reporter, filed the complaint with the Freedom of Information Commission after UConn failed to provide him with the document when he requested it back in August 2012.

According to an Oct. 17, 2012, letter written to Eaton-Robb by Rachel Krinsky Rudnick, assistant director of compliance and privacy at UConn, the university withheld the contract because the signees were private entities, and she denied that the school retained a final copy of the contract.

“In honor of our business partners who oppose the document’s release . . . because it contains proprietary information, UConn is taking the position, as is our right under the Connecticut Freedom of Information Act, that it is inappropriate for us to release the document at this time,” the letter reads.

A hearing was held by FOIC Commissioner Matthew Streeter on March 5, 2013, where Eaton-Robb represented the AP, Assistant Attorney General Holly Bray represented UConn, and Steven D. Ecker — an attorney of Cowdery, Ecker & Murphy, LLC — represented Webster and IMG as “intervening” parties. A final decision was set to be considered June 12, 2013.

In the withdrawal letter, AP attorney Karen Kaiser said the organization intended “to serve new, and considerably broader, FOI requests” and sought to drop the current claim because in “light of unforeseen developments, we believe that the factual record created at the hearing on March 5, 2013, does not provide a sufficient basis for the FOIC to make an informed decision in this appeal.”

Connecticut’s FOI laws require the release of “any recorded data or information relating to the conduct of the public’s business prepared, owned, used, received or retained by a public agency,” unless it is in the best interest of the public not to release the information.

Mike Enright, the university’s athletic department spokesman, said the department receives FOI requests daily and most of them are fulfilled immediately. However, the department decided to deny the request because it “saw it as being in the best interest of the University,” according to Enright.

Asked why it was in the best interest of the university, Enright refused to comment for this article.

Ecker, the attorney for IMG and Webster, concluded in February that the public interest “clearly favors nondisclosure” because disclosing information regarding the agreement between IMG and Webster would “negatively affect UConn’s ability to generate maximum revenue” from corporate sponsorships.

Ecker argued that if the university is unable to ensure confidentiality to its sponsors, prospective sponsors would be “sorely tempted” to contract with private universities instead.

Ecker also argued that the document detailed “trade secrets” of the university, as well as the private companies, which are exempt from disclosure under state FOI law. Ecker’s argument is backed by a 2011 state Supreme Court ruling, which ruled against former state Rep. Jonathan Pelto’s argument that public institutions cannot retain “trade secrets.”

Because UConn is not a signee, IMG College must have been performing a “governmental function” in order to subject the contract to disclosure under FOI law.

The statutory definition of a governmental function is “the administration or management of a program of a public agency, which program has been authorized by law.”

According to a post-hearing brief filed by Ecker on April 19, 2013, the defendants argued that IMG College does not perform a “governmental function” because sports marketing is not a task that is either authorized by law or required of the government.

A bill proposed in February 2013 by state Sen. Martin Looney, S.B. 204, would have required the release of the document, but it never made it to the floor.

The bill would have amended the state’s FOI law to “require that any contract relating to a public institution of higher education becoming a marketing partner with an entity that is a party to such contract, whether or not such institution of higher education is a party to such contract, be subject to disclosure.”

Looney said he proposed the bill because he feared the contract would set a dangerous precedent, and the school would begin using private entities to contract on its behalf in areas beyond athletic marketing.

But, according to Looney, shortly after the bill was filed, university officials met with him and assured him they did not intend to use the practice in any other areas, so he backed off.

Asked if he thought the current deal UConn has with Webster Bank went beyond an athletic marketing deal, Looney said it was a concern.

“I’ll be watching,” he said in a phone interview last month. “It may be something we need to look into next session.”

FOIC Executive Director Colleen Murphy issued a statement in support of the bill, saying it “would close an unfortunate loophole” that shields such documents from public view.

“Currently, nothing requires that the terms of these contracts be disclosed to the public,” Murphy’s statement reads. “Although the contracts directly impact a public organization and were made on the public’s behalf, they are beyond the reach of the FOI Act.”

Ecker and Bray both pointed to Murphy’s statement as evidence that legislative action would be required to force the document’s release.

Kaiser, the AP’s attorney, argued that “based on my review of the available facts, it certainly appears that the University of Connecticut . . . has effectively outsourced an important government function to IMG.”

“The public has a legitimate interest in how IMG is performing that function for one of the leading public universities in the nation,” Kaiser’s April 19, 2013, letter reads.

But Kaiser’s involvement received pushback from the defense attorneys because Kaiser was a latecomer to the case.



“When our reporter filed this appeal, the case seemed straightforward and uncomplicated (which is why the reporter appeared personally before the FOIC),” Kaiser explained in a letter to the FOIC.

Kaiser’s absence from the case before the March 5 meeting was a fact Bray and Ecker pointed out in their successful effort to argue the AP’s withdrawal attempt was an unfair last-ditch effort to keep the case from being closed.

Ecker wrote to the FOI Commissioner on April 22, 2013, to oppose Kaiser’s involvement, insisting she was not permitted to practice law in Connecticut.

“The AP surely could have hired Connecticut counsel to appear on its behalf at the hearing on March 5, 2013 — as IMG and Webster Bank did. It is far too late in the day for the AP to attempt to ‘appear’ now and ask for a do-over because it does not like the record the reporter created,” Ecker’s letter reads.

The AP hired Connecticut counsel shortly after Kaiser filed the initial withdrawal letter. Initially, it was Daniel J. Klau of McElroy, Deutsch, Mulvaney & Carpenter, LLP. Klau wrote to the FOI Commission reiterating AP’s decision to withdraw on April 23. But Klau soon learned he couldn’t represent the AP because his firm had a conflict.

“My firm has a conflict, as it represents Webster Bank,” Klau’s letter reads. “Accordingly, it was improper for me to send the letter and I hereby withdraw both my appearance and the letter.”

On April 25, 2013, Cameron Stracher of Levine, Sullivan, Koch, & Schulz, LLP, sent another withdrawal letter on the AP’s behalf. In the letter, Stracher insists the AP sent the letter late in the process because “of the time it took to assess the issues and reach a decision on the proper course of action.”

Ecker and Bray both argued the attorneys representing IMG, Webster, and UConn “have done a great deal of work, at no small expense, and they are entitled to a ruling on the merits or a termination of this case with prejudice.”

The FOIC agreed and dropped the case with prejudice.

Union v. union: Rumblings of Discontent in NEA's Georgia Affiliate

Rumblings of Discontent in NEA's Georgia Affiliate
Stephen Sawchuck
Edweek.org
July 04, 2013

I got to the Representative Assembly a bit early this morning to avoid the coffee line and was promptly handed a bunch of yellow fliers from some staff from the Georgia Association of Educators.

"Fair Play!" it reads. "While the [Georgia Staff Organization] staff fights every day to insure fairness and professionalism for GAE members, the GAE Executive Director said not for his staff."

Apparently, GAE management and its unionized staff organization cannot reach a new contract after about a year of bargaining. Sticking points, the staff organization says, include salary, insurance, and seniority.

It's a good reminder that each NEA affiliate's staff is unionized, putting its executives in a shoe-on-the-other-foot position when renegotiating staff benefits and perquisites. Whether you view this as a shining example of the principles of unionism at work or merely ironic probably depends on where you stand politically. But it's in any case historically led to a few odd instances of the union picketing the Union. (NEA National narrowly avoided a similar situation during a period of reorganization last year.)

And that isn't all the beef out of Georgia. According to the list of upcoming New Business Items, one apparently submitted by retirees wants the NEA to appoint an independent investigator "to correct all the injustices and disenfranchisement incurred to GAE-Retired in Georgia."

(As I publish this, NEA President Dennis Van Roekel is ruling the Georgia NBI Out of Order, saying the issues must be handled through the union's constitution and bylaws).

Activist who chalked anti-bank slogans on San Diego sidewalks found not guilty on all charges

What was City Attorney Jan Goldsmith thinking?

Acquitted on all 13 counts of vandalism, jury says Jeff Olson should be free
A review of the plea-deal offers deputy city attorney Hazard said were fair
Dorian Hargrove
San Diego Reader
July 1, 2013

With each of the 13 "not guilty" verdicts, defense attorney Tom Tosdal grabbed Jeff Olson's shoulder in a sign of support and relief. On Monday, jurors rejected all 13-counts of vandalism charges filed against Olson for scribbling anti-Bank of America messages in water soluble chalk.

It was a good day for Olson and Tosdal and for free-speech supporters across the country.

Not so much so for San Diego's City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, his office, and for Superior Court Judge Howard Shore.

After the verdicts were read, Judge Shore explained the reasoning behind his decision to bar Tosdal from using first amendment rights as a defense as well as for placing a gag order on the defendant prohibiting him from speaking to the media.

"The media set the tone in this case by talking about a potential 13-year sentence. It had a tendency to infuriate the public instead of informing it. Anyone in the system, the lawyers and anyone involved, knew that maximum sentence would never be handed out but still it was reported."

Outside the courtroom Paige Hazard, the lead prosecutor on the case, also dismissed media reports and blamed Olson for turning down what she said were fair plea offers.

Hazard's comments were later backed-up by an official statement from the City Attorney's Office which criticized Olson for forcing the City's hand and taking the case to trial.

"As with most graffiti cases, Mr. Olson was offered reduction to an infraction after completing volunteer work service cleaning up graffiti," read the statement. "His refusal resulted in the trial and his successful defense."

Looking at those offers, however, fair is one of the last words that comes to mind.

On May 16, Hazard told Olson the City would drop the case if he agreed to serve 32-hours of community service, attend an 8-hour seminar by the "Corrective Behavior Institute," pay Bank of America $6,299 in restitution for the clean-up, waive all Fourth Amendment rights guarding against search and seizures, and surrender his driver's license for three year period."

Olson refused.

So on June 18, as the June 25 trial date neared, Hazard offered Olson another deal.

Olson would plead guilty to one count of vandalism, agree to serve three-years probation, pay restitution --amount undetermined, spend 24-hours cleaning up graffiti, and surrender his driver's license for 2-years.

"I didn't see how that was fair," said Olson a few hours after the trial. "Why should I have to give up my license for two-years and serve 3-years probation just for exercising my first amendment rights? It's sad to see the City Attorney's Office now laying the blame on me for wasting taxpayer resources. It was their decision to take this to court, not mine."

Olson, able to speak freely without fear of violating Judge Shore's gag order, said the whole thing was never supposed to go this far.

"All I wanted to do was ask that people invest in San Diego, not some big Wall Street bank based in Charlotte, North Carolina. For me, it's the same when it comes to simple things like beer or produce. I choose to keep my money locally. I say that proudly, a Stone Craft beer in hand. I choose to buy my produce at the local farmer's market, not some major supermarket. These are fairly simple choices that can help build a sustainable economy here, in San Diego."

Activist who chalked anti-bank slogans on San Diego sidewalks found not guilty on all charges
ELLIOT SPAGAT
Associated Press
July 1, 2013

SAN DIEGO — A jury on Monday acquitted an activist of vandalism charges for chalking anti-bank slogans on San Diego sidewalks, delivering a swift verdict on a prosecution that the city's own mayor said was "stupid."

Jeff Olson, 40, turned to his attorney, nodded and smiled as verdicts were read on charges that could have sent him to jail for 13 years — one year for each misdemeanor count — and brought a $13,000 fine. He was charged with scrawling messages with water-soluble chalk on city sidewalks outside Bank of America branches from April to August 2012, including "Shame on B of A," ''No thanks, big banks," and a drawing of an octopus reaching for dollar bills.

The San Diego Superior Court jury deliberated five hours after a four-day trial that pitted Mayor Bob Filner against City Attorney Jan Goldsmith, who prosecuted the case. Jail time is highly unusual for graffiti convictions, which typically result in fines or community service.

Filner called it a "nonsense prosecution" that responded to complaints from Bank of America.

"It's washable chalk, it's political slogans," Filner said last week. "We're not even responding to the public's complaint ... I think it's a stupid case. It's costing us money."

The city attorney's office said it offered to reduce the charges to an infraction if Olson agreed to perform community service by cleaning up graffiti but he refused. The office said it respected the verdict, which it said was referred by the police department.

"Graffiti remains vandalism in the state of California," the city attorney's office said. "Under the law, there is no First Amendment right to deface property, even if the writing is easily removed, whether the message is aimed at banks or any other person or group. We are, however, sympathetic to the strong public reaction to this case and the jury's message."

Olson, who was inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement, said he was relieved by the outcome and that the prosecution brought more attention to his views than he ever imagined possible.

"I couldn't have done better if I rented an airplane with a banner and put billboards up all over town," he said.

Still, he isn't planning on more sidewalk scrawls.

"I going to think of a more creative way to get my message across," he said.

The prosecution was the latest tiff between San Diego's mayor and elected city attorney. Earlier this year, the mayor was a witness at a trial on behalf of an animal-rights activist for seals who was prosecuted for removing a flag at a beach that was declared open to the public. After the testimony, activist Bryan Pease pleaded guilty to misdemeanor trespassing.

Filner, who last month used his veto power to cut $500,000 from the city attorney's budget, crashed a Goldsmith news conference in February amid a dispute over how to spend money to promote tourism. Filner accused the city attorney of "unethical and unprofessional conduct," saying he was giving legal advice through news media.

We must hate our children

We must hate our children
We crush them with debt to go to college -- and today, rates are actually set to double. Are we out of our minds?
By Joan Walsh
Salon.com
Jul 1, 2013

Next time you’re watching a college graduation, as you look out over the sea of caps and gowns, make sure you notice the ball and chain most graduates are wearing as they march onstage to receive their diplomas. That’s student loan debt, which at over $1 trillion tops credit card debt in the U.S. today. The average burden is $28,000, but add in their credit cards and they’re graduating with an average of $35,000 in debt. It’s no wonder that people who’ve paid off their student loan debt are 36 percent more likely to own homes than those who haven’t, according to new research by the One Wisconsin Now Institute and Progress Now.

What kind of society sends its young people from higher education into adulthood this way? I’m aware I’m only talking about those lucky enough to go to college, when roughly one-third of high school graduates don’t – but if this is the way we treat our relatively lucky kids, the rest of them don’t have a prayer. For many, the school to prison pipeline functions much more efficiently than the school to college one; California is one of at least 10 states that now spends more on prison than education (all education, not just higher education). According to the Federal Reserve Bank, two-thirds of college graduates leave with some debt, and 37 million Americans are repaying a student loan right now.

Unbelievably, interest rates on federally subsidized loans are doubling today, from 3.4 to 6.8 percent. As Congress bickers over alternatives, even Democrats are backing “market-based” plans that aren’t as bad as GOP ideas, but aren’t good either. I hope they can find a way to lower interest rates, but the real scandal isn’t the rate hike. The real scandal is that we take for granted that young people must go into debt – at whatever interest rate – to pay for college.

Of course, the truly lucky kids – those blessed wealthy members of the Lucky Sperm Club – sail through higher education without debt. But today, even upper-middle-class kids are having to take out loans, as the average annual cost of a four-year public university soars above $22,000, while private schools are over $50,000. Who the hell thinks this is a good idea?

* * *

I used to find it endearing when President Obama talked about how he and Michelle finally paid off their student loans after he was elected to the Senate. But in a way, the president’s folksy anecdote helped normalize what should be outrageous: that we expect young people to go deep in debt, well into middle age, to get a good education. Of course, the Obamas’ story should come with an asterisk, since much of their debt was built up paying for Harvard Law School, and clearly, that paid off for them. The assumption that students should borrow money to pay for an undergraduate degree, and that the only debate is over how high their interest rate should be, is seriously crazy.

As David Dayen explained in this great Salon piece, we shouldn’t even call them student “loans,” because you can’t refinance them, and you can’t get out from under them by declaring bankruptcy. It’s more like indenture. There’s no statute of limitation on collecting student loans, and lenders can garnish wages, tax refunds and even Social Security checks. Back in 2007, now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren asked: “Why should students who are trying to finance an education be treated more harshly than someone … who racked up tens of thousands of dollars gambling?” Nothing’s changed, although Warren is part of a limited number of people in Congress who are trying.

In the survey of 61,700 student loan holders recently completed by One Wisconsin Now and Progress Now, students with bachelor’s degrees took an average of 19 years to pay off their loans, at an average cost of $117,000. Their average monthly payment was $499. And this isn’t a brand-new problem: Of the $1 trillion in student debt, 60 percent is owed by people over 30.

It wasn’t always this way. The postwar American economic boom had at its heart an intentional, comprehensive program of making higher education much more accessible. In 1946, 2 million Americans attended college or university, representing only one in eight college-age students; by 1970, there were 8 million undergraduates, one in three in that age group. And the balance of enrollment shifted to public institutions: In the ’40s, more college students attended private colleges; by 1970 three-quarters were enrolled in public ones. Graduate enrollment spiked, thanks to expanded research funding, from 120,000 in 1946 to 900,000 in 1970.

States competed to expand their public university systems – and many were free, or close to it. The stellar University of California system was tuition free (though there were fees) until Ronald Reagan became governor in 1967; so was the City University of New York system for a long time. CUNY was from the start an “experiment,” in the words of co-founder Horace Webster, in “whether the children of the people, the children of the whole people, can be educated.” It was a contentious experiment, with its admission and tuition policies shifting back and forth over many years, but the egalitarianism at its heart, and through much of its history, can’t be denied. And that was true of most public university systems. Late in the game, when I graduated from the University of Wisconsin in 1980, I was still paying less than $400 a semester. Now it’s amost 15 times that, at $5,500 a semester; the annual cost to an in-state student (including room, board, books and other fees) is $24,000.

Aaron Bady and Mike Konczal ran down the California history in a piece about “the slow death of public higher education” last year. With the U.C. system’s bipartisan 1960 master plan:

The doors of the University of California were thrown open, tuition-free, for the top 12.5 percent of high school graduates. The top 33.3 percent could find a place in one of the California State Universities, which were also tuition-free. Everyone else, if they so chose, could go to one of the many California Community Colleges, which were open not only to high school graduates but also to qualifying non-traditional students. Perhaps most important, community college graduates had the opportunity to transfer to one of the UCs or CSUs to finish their bachelor’s degree, if their grades were above a certain point. In theory and to a significant extent in practice, anyone from anywhere in California could, if they worked hard enough, get a bachelor’s degree from one of the best universities in the country (and, therefore, in the world), almost free of charge. The pronounced social and economic mobility of the postwar period would have been unthinkable without institutions of mass higher education, like this one, provided at public expense.

I got angry about this all over again having dinner with a friend who’s a little older than me. He finished at the very bottom of his high school class – and wound up at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, which as late as the ’60s had “open enrollment,” and cost $80 a semester. College unlocked something high school didn’t; he thrived and transferred to Columbia University and eventually got a Ph.D. That isn’t happening for anyone today, unless their wealthy parents can buy them into a private university.

Meanwhile, public universities are spending on new buildings, but they’re sharply hiking tuition as well as either cutting or just maintaining enrollment. (University of Wisconsin in-state tuition has doubled in just the last decade.) The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) found that the share of young people enrolled in U.C. or California State University campuses dropped 20 percent in the five years between 2007 and 2012. “You can go into any community and talk to somebody whose son or daughter either can’t get in or can’t finish [college] because they can’t get this or that course,” David Wolf, co-founder of the Campaign for College Opportunity, told California Watch. “Meanwhile, they go on campus and there’s all that fresh cement. That’s embarrassing, and it’s wrong.”

In the 1980s, at the flagship U.C.-Berkeley, more than half of all applicants were accepted; this year it was closer to 20 percent, as 67,000 applicants vied for 14,000 acceptances to the incoming freshman class (of 4,200 students, unchanged in the last 10 years). Meanwhile, both public and private aid has shifted from “need-based aid,” which tends to go to lower-income kids, to “merit-based aid,” which is tied to income but less directly. Not surprisingly, at Ivy League schools and the “public Ivies” (which includes the U.C. and U.W. flagship schools), 80 percent of students admitted come from the top income quartile of American families; only 2 percent come from the bottom quartile.

Astonishingly, in 2008, older people born in California were a third more likely to have college degrees than younger native Californians, according to PPIC; elsewhere around the country, the difference was only 1/16th (30.9 percent versus 29.0 percent) – but still: young American adults are less likely than older Americans to have attended college. This has to be the first generation for whom that’s true. We’re putting the history of American progress in reverse.

* * *

With student debt so pervasive and crushing, of course it matters that Congress do something to keep interest rates from rising. The House GOP is gloating that (in a bizarre role switch) they’ve passed a plan, and the Senate hasn’t. The House GOP plan would send students out into a maze of “market-based” adjustable rate loans. Why should someone at age 18 have to navigate a thicket of variable rate loans, where their interest rate could double over time? But even the compromise Obama plan, which would let students lock in a rate once they decided on a loan, has no cap on interest rates.

A growing number of voices, including the Fed, are pointing to the way this debt burden is a drag not just on the borrowers but the wider economy. That One Wisconsin Now survey found that student debt reduces average aggregate car purchasing by $6.4 billion a year. Young people are leaving school with the kind of debt that was once only incurred by the purchase of a first home; not surprisingly, it’s depressing home buying too.

That practical economic argument is important, but almost no one is making the larger economic argument, that expanded access to higher education is good for everyone, period. There are proposals to reform the student loan system to make it more like a standard loan agreement and less like indenture. The Obama administration has expanded opportunities to have debt reduced for those in education or other public interest careers, which is great. But when we talk about doing big things again, when we dream about infrastructure, why are none of our major leaders advocating for new campuses for our state universities and colleges?

A Washington Post piece on the interest-rate impasse noted that Obama and Mitt Romney both called for Congress to stop the rate hike last summer, and it happened. “But student-loan policy has drawn less attention this year now that the presidential election is over.” Indeed. We should stop mouthing platitudes about how “children are our future.” From preschool to post-graduate education, we are proving the opposite is true.

Jurupa School District continues its bizarre antics

Report: U.S. teacher training an "industry of mediocrity"

Report: U.S. teacher training an "industry of mediocrity"
AP
June 18, 2013

The nation's teacher-training programs do not adequately prepare would-be educators for the classroom, even as they produce almost triple the number of graduates needed, according to a survey of more than 1,000 programs released Tuesday.

The National Council on Teacher Quality review is a scathing assessment of colleges' education programs and their admission standards, training and value. The report, which drew immediate criticism, was designed to be provocative and urges leaders at teacher-training programs to rethink what skills would-be educators need to be taught to thrive in the classrooms of today and tomorrow.

"Through an exhaustive and unprecedented examination of how these schools operate, the review finds they have become an industry of mediocrity, churning out first-year teachers with classroom management skills and content knowledge inadequate to thrive in classrooms" with an ever-increasing diversity of ethnic and socioeconomic students, the report's authors wrote.

"A vast majority of teacher preparation programs do not give aspiring teachers adequate return on their investment of time and tuition dollars," the report said.

The report was likely to drive debate about which students are prepared to be teachers in the coming decades and how they are prepared. Once a teacher settles into a classroom, it's tough to remove him or her involuntarily and opportunities for wholesale retraining are difficult — if nearly impossible — to find.

The answer, the council and its allies argue, is to make it more difficult for students to get into teacher preparation programs in the first place. And once there, they should be taught the most effective methods to help students.

"There's plenty of research out there that shows that teacher quality is the single most important factor," said Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, a supporter of the organization's work.

Democrat Markell said: "We have to attract the best candidates" possible.

To accomplish that goal, Markell earlier this year signed into law a measure making admission to education programs more difficult in his state. Potential teachers must either post a 3.0 grade point average or demonstrate "mastery" results on a standardized test such as the ACT or SAT before they're even admitted to a program.

It's an idea the council has applauded and suggests other states should consider to limit the number of candidates entering teacher training programs.

"You just have to have a pulse and you can get into some of these education schools," said Michael Petrilli, a vice president at the conservative-leaning Fordham Institute and a former official in the Department of Education's Office of Innovation and Improvement. "If policymakers took this report seriously, they'd be shutting down hundreds of programs."

Some 239,000 teachers are trained each year and 98,000 are hired — meaning too many students are admitted and only a fraction find work.

Among the council's other findings:

— Only a quarter of education programs limit admission to students in the top half of their high school class. The remaining three quarters of programs allow students who fared poorly in high school to train as teachers...

Her lawyer says Simi Valley, CA teacher has mental illness

Malia Brooks, Calif. elementary school teacher, had sexual relationship with student under 14, police say
By Crimesider Staff
CBS News
June 13, 2013 (CBS) SIMI VALLEY, Calif. - Malia Brooks, a 32-year-old elementary school teacher in Simi Valley, Calif., is accused of having a sexual relationship with a student under the age of 14, police say, according to CBS Los Angeles.

Brooks, who is being held on $2 million bail, pleaded not guilty Wednesday to charges of lewd acts upon a child, oral copulation of a person under 14 years of age and three counts of genital penetration by a foreign object, the station reports.

It is unclear exactly how old the male student is.

The sixth grade teacher at Garden Grove Elementary School reportedly turned herself into authorities Tuesday.

Allegations of an inappropriate relationship between Brooks and a male student first surfaced on Feb. 22, police reportedly said. Officials allege the relationship took place over a four-month period beginning in late 2012.

At the time, letters were reportedly sent home to parents alerting them that a police investigation was underway. Brooks was not identified at the time because charges had not been filed.

Brooks, who was initially put on leave while the investigation took place, resigned from the district on June 5. She had been employed with the Simi Valley Unified School District since 2004.

Brooks' attorney, Ron Bamieh, says his client suffers from a mental illness, the station reports.

Although there are reportedly no indications that Brooks had any other victims, police are asking anyone with information regarding the allegations to contact the Detective Unit at (805) 583-6248.

Young, black and buried in debt: How for-profit colleges prey on African-American ambition

Young, black and buried in debt: How for-profit colleges prey on African-American ambition
Useless degrees are now too-good-to-be-true tickets to the American Dream -- targeted at those who can't afford it
By Kai Wright
Salon.com
Jun 9, 2013

There are a few dictums that have enjoyed pride of place in black American families alongside “Honor your parents” and “Do unto others” since at least Emancipation. One of them is this: The road to freedom passes through the schoolhouse doors.

After all, it was illegal even to teach an enslaved person to read in many states; under Jim Crow, literacy tests were used for decades to deny black voters their rights. So no surprise that from Reconstruction to the first black president, the consensus has been clear. The key to “winning the future,” in one of President Obama’s favorite phrases, is to get educated. “There is no surer path to success in the middle class than a good education,” the president declared in his much-discussed speech on the roots of gun violence in black Chicago.

Rarely has that message resounded so much as now, with nearly one in seven black workers still jobless. Those who’ve found work have moved out of the manufacturing and public sectors, where good jobs were once available without a higher ed degree, and into the low-wage service sector, to which the uncredentialed are now relegated. So while it has become fashionable lately to speculate about middle-class kids abandoning elite colleges for adventures in entrepreneurship, an entirely different trend has been unfolding in black America — people are going back to school in droves.

It’s true at all levels of education. Yes, black college enrollment shot up by nearly 35 percent between 2003 and 2009, nearly twice the rate at which white enrollment increased. But we’re getting all manner of schooling as we seek either an advantage in or refuge from the collapsed job market. As I’ve reported on the twin housing and unemployment crises in black neighborhoods in recent years, I’ve heard the same refrain from struggling strivers up and down the educational ladder: “I’m getting my papers, maybe that’ll help.” GEDs, associates degrees, trade licenses, certifications, you name it, we’re getting it. Hell, I even went and got certified in selling wine; journalism’s a shrinking trade, after all.

But this headlong rush of black Americans to get schooled has also led too many down a depressingly familiar path. As with the mortgage market of the pre-crash era, those who are just entering in the higher ed game have found themselves ripe for the con man’s picking. They’ve landed, disproportionately, at for-profit schools, rather than at far less expensive public community colleges, or at public universities. And that means they’ve found themselves loaded with unimaginable debt, with little to show for it, while a small group of financial players have made a great deal of easy money. Sound familiar? Two points if you hear troublesome echoes of the subprime mortgage crisis.

Between 2004 and 2010, black enrollment in for-profit bachelor’s programs grew by a whopping 264 percent, compared to a 24 percent increase in black enrollment in public four-year programs. The two top producers of black baccalaureates in the class of 2011 were University of Phoenix and Ashford University, both for-profits.

These numbers mirror a simultaneous trend in eroding security among ambitious black Americans with shrinking access to middle-class jobs. It’s true that the country’s middle class is collapsing for everyone, but that trend is most profound among African-Americans. In 2008, as black folks flocked into higher ed, the Economic Policy Institute found that 45 percent of African-Americans born into the middle class were living at or near poverty as adults.

For too many, school has greased the downward slide. Nearly every single graduate of a for-profit school — 96 percent, according to a 2008 Department of Education survey — leaves with debt. The industry ate 25 percent of federal student aid in the 2009–2010 school year. That’s debt its students can’t pay. The loan default rate among for-profit college students is more than double that of their peers in both public and nonprofit private schools, because the degrees and certificates the students are earning are trap doors to more poverty, not springboards to prosperity.

There’s been growing, positive attention to this problem, and the Obama administration’s ongoing efforts to rein in the excesses of for-profit schools are arguably among its most progressive policy goals. But few have understood the for-profit education boom as part of the larger economic challenge black America faces today. The black jobs crisis stretches way back to the 2001 recession, from which too many black neighborhoods never recovered. Workers and families have been scrambling ever since, trying to fix themselves such that they fit inside a broken economy. And it is that very effort at self-improvement, that same American spirit of personal re-creation and against-all-odds ambition that has so often led black people into the jaws of the 21st century’s most predatory capitalists. From subprime credit cards through to subprime home loans and now on into subprime education, we’ve reached again and again for the trappings of middle-class life, only to find ourselves slipping further into debt and poverty.

Kiesha Whatley is an example. The 31-year-old mom in Queens, N.Y., has always done hair on the side to help make ends meet, so in 2006 she decided to go for her cosmetology certificate. She was in the city’s welfare-to-work program, but was able to fill her work requirement by going to school. She figured what she needed most was to get a credential — to get legit. So she enrolled at a small, mom-and-pop for-profit in Brooklyn that her cousin had attended years before, but which had since changed ownership. Over what Whatley says was a seven-month program, she racked up more than $7,500 in debt, much of which she thought was actually a grant. She has still not passed the state cosmetology exam and she’s back to doing hair on her own, now with debt she can’t dream of paying back.

The subprime mortgage crisis was fueled by a similar mix of economic desperation, financial illiteracy and aspirational ideology. For a generation, working-class people who hoped to achieve more permanent economic stability were told, loudly and repeatedly, that buying a home would validate them as legitimate participants in American life, not just as people with an asset, but as true neighbors and community members and citizens. Prosperity preachers and presidents alike sung the praises of the “ownership society,” as George W. Bush so often called it, in which “more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property.” Homeownership was understood then — just as higher education is now — as good no matter what. Just don’t read the fine print.

All it took was one devastating downturn for those doors to slam shut, forcing millions of Americans into foreclosure. That still unfolding crisis has been particularly devastating for African-Americans, who have lost more than half of their collective assets after being targeted with subprime mortgage products. The black-white wealth gap is larger today than it’s been since economists began recording it in 1984. And according to a recent analysis from the Alliance for a Just Society, ZIP codes with majority people of color populations saw 60 percent more foreclosures than white neighborhoods and these homeowners lost 69 percent more wealth.

Now, to make matters worse, expensive, nearly useless degrees may be to the bust years what expensive, totally useless refinance loans were to the boom: too-good-to-be-true golden tickets to the American Dream, sold in an unregulated market and targeted at the people for whom that dream is most elusive.

Last year, Garvin Gittens became a literal poster child for why that market is so dangerous. For several months, his face was plastered all over the New York City subway system as part of a city-led campaign to warn would-be students about debt scams. When we met last summer, Gittens laid out for me how he racked up more than $57,000 in public and private debt in pursuit of a two-year associate’s degree in graphic design at the for-profit Katharine Gibbs School, in Midtown Manhattan. Like subprime mortgages, the debt didn’t appear so intimidating at first, but just as balloon payments capsized so many tenuous family finances, a cascading series of loans, a few thousand dollars at a time, eventually caught up with Gittens. In the end, his degree proved as meaningless as it was expensive. When he went to apply for bachelor’s programs, no legitimate college would recognize his credits because the school’s shoddy performance had finally led the state to sanction it.

So Gittens has started over from scratch — but with tens of thousands of dollars in loans hanging over his head. As I listened to him recount his tale, just as he was about to once again begin his freshman year of college, what struck me most was how insistently the 27-year-old was holding on to his goal of getting credentialed. Even without a degree, he’d built a modestly successful graphic design business of his own. He’d landed fancy internships with hip-hop clothing designers and made smart choices like offsetting his design work with more reliable income from printing jobs. Yet a college degree remained such a coveted treasure for him that, even having wasting tens of thousands of dollars and two years of his life, he was prepared to do it all again.

Attorney Mark Bresee says no conflict for school board member Richard Barrera with job at Labor Council

Mark Bresee

The education elite--administrators and union officials and their respective lawyers--are already working together behind closed doors. They often oppose each other in public, but they're united in keeping the voters ignorant of how decisions are made in schools. Mark Bresee speaks from first-hand experience when he says, truthfully, that board member Richard Barrera's new job on the Labor Council isn't really a problem.

If anything, Barrera will probably be more likely to consider the wellbeing of students when deciding what demands he'll support for teachers.

Attorney: No Conflict for Labor Leader Trustee
By Wendy Fry
Jun 7, 2013
NBC 7 San Diego

An attorney for the San Diego school district has weighed-in on the controversy surrounding a trustee taking a job with the Labor Council.

Outside Counsel Mark Bresee says trustee Richard Barrera has no conflict-of-interest serving on both the school board, and as the chief of the Labor Council.

School trustee Barrera was recently elected as the leader of an umbrella organization that represents 135 unions, some of which are present in the San Diego schools.

"We are pretty much defined as a citizen's board," said Barrera about the school board. "So, obviously, people are going to have other jobs. If my compensation at the Labor Council was structured in a way that if a teacher's union gets a raise, then I get a raise, then I would be required to recuse myself but that's just not the case. My compensation has nothing to do with member union benefits."

The attorney, from the Atkinson, Andelson, Loya, Ruud & Romo firm hired by the district to do a legal analysis on the situation, agreed.

Barrera should refrain from participating in decisions on which the Labor Council has advocated a specific position, the lawyer also wrote.

In the meantime, an assistant to the board said Friday the board office has received more than 100 phone calls from the public expressing a negative opinion of the situation.

Tony Krvaric, chairman for the Republican party, said a robocall is going out to district parents informing them of Barrera's new job and connecting them to the district to complain.

"The board's own legal opinion urged caution when SDEA or CSEA issues are involved," Krvaric said. "What decisions on a school board don't affect the teachers unions, and who is going to pay for the legal analysis on each vote?"

To read the full legal opinon of the district's outside counsel, click here.

Source: http://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/Attorney-No-Conflict-For-Labor-Leader-Trustee-210639971.html#ixzz2VbPQWeX9

Sweetwater scandal: Ed Brand’s claims contradicted

Sweetwater scandal: Ed Brand’s claims contradicted
Did he or didn’t he ask for $40,000?
By Susan Luzzaro
San Diego Reader
June 2, 2013

On May 30, the U-T published the testimony of Sweetwater Union High School superintendent Ed Brand, given to the San Diego County Grand Jury late last year.

In November–December 2012, the grand jury conducted secret hearings to inquire into the alleged corruption of trustees, administrators, and contractors in three South County school districts. Ultimately, 15 trustees, administrators, and contractors were indicted as a result of the proceedings.

Brand told U-T reporter Aaron Burgin on May 30, “If I knew what I know when they asked me to come back [as superintendent of the Sweetwater school district], I wouldn’t have done it.” (Brand's first stint as superintendent spanned 1995–2005; he returned in 2011.)

Brand also complained to Burgin that there was too much contractor influence in the district and that three trustees had asked him to go to the president of Seville Group Inc, Rene Flores, for campaign donations. (Seville Group Inc, or SGI, managed the district’s $644 million Proposition O bond until January 2012.)

The U-T reported: “He [Brand] said that within the first six to eight days of his arrival, [Bertha] Lopez, [Pearl] Quiñones, and John McCann asked him to solicit campaign donations from SGI President Rene Flores and Jaime Ortiz, the company’s bond manager.”


In the grand jury transcripts, deputy district attorney Leon Schorr asked Brand: “Did you ask him [Flores] on behalf of McCann, [Jim] Cartmill, [Arlie] Ricasa, Quiñones, or Lopez for any contributions?” Brand answers: “No. Never.”

But in another volume of the transcripts that have been officially released to the public (Brand’s were not) Flores tells deputy district attorney Schorr:

“I want to say something very quick. Dr. Brand in December asked me to give an additional $20,000 to both John McCann and Jim Cartmill and I didn’t do it right away during December for tax purposes. And so I didn’t do it. So he suspended us [SGI] without any reason…and subsequent to that there’s been evaluations done and we have been cleared — my company has been cleared of any wrongdoing.”

So, it seems there is a contradiction in the sworn statements.

Willful Defiance Suspensions Vary Widely Among San Diego County Districts

Click once to see enlarged image.
Willful Defiance Suspensions In San Diego County School Districts, 2011-12

I agree with the California Assembly. We need to lower the drop out rate because we need kids to grow up to be productive citizens. They won't learn that on the streets.

Willful Defiance Suspensions Vary Widely Among San Diego County Districts
By Kyla Calvert
KPBS
June 3, 2013

In San Diego County, 42 percent of students suspensions in the last school year were for willful defiance. But districts vary widely in how often they used the category.

Students can be suspended in California for 24 types of offenses. They include causing physical harm, bullying and theft. But 48 percent of the state’s suspensions during the 2011-12 school year were willful defiance or disruption.

The state Assembly has passed a bill that would limit the use of willful defiance suspension to middle and high school students and only after a third offense. That bill will now be considered by the Senate.

In San Diego County, 42 percent of students suspensions in the last school year were for willful defiance. But districts vary widely in how often they used the category. It was used to justify between 50 and 55 percent of suspensions in the Carlsbad, Oceanside, Vista Unified and Fallbrook Union High School Districts.

At the other end of the spectrum, Grossmont High School District did not use willful defiance suspensions at all last year and the Chula Vista Elementary School District used the category in only 8 percent of suspensions.

Supporters of the bill to curb these suspensions argue the category is too vague and is used as a catch all for disruptive students. They point to the fact that students suspended even once are more likely to drop out as a reason to look for other discipline methods. Opponents argue that school leaders should be able to decide what works best locally.

LAUSD insurer sues to avoid paying $30 million Miramonte settlement

LAUSD insurer sues to avoid paying $30 million Miramonte settlement
Former teacher Mark Berndt at his 2012 arraignment on charges that he abused students at Miramonte Elementary School.
Los Angeles Times
By Howard Blume
May 31, 2013

An insurance company has sued the Los Angeles Unified School District seeking to avoid paying settlement costs related to alleged child abuse at Miramonte Elementary School.

The action, if successful, could leave the nation's second-largest school system on the hook for an estimated $30 million that it agreed to pay to 58 alleged victims of former teacher Mark Berndt. At least as many claims remained unresolved, with attorneys seeking higher compensation than the settlement provides.

The suit was filed Wednesday in Los Angeles Superior Court by New Jersey-based Everest National Insurance Co.

L.A. Unified also has sought compensation for more than $5 million spent to replace the entire Miramonte staff for half a year after Berndt's arrest in January 2012.

Everest "disputes that there is any coverage under the Everest policies" for the claims by L.A. Unified. "A judicial declaration is necessary and appropriate," according to the suit.

Six other insurers also are named as defendants. All have provided policies to L.A. Unified, the suit claims.

The type of coverage was general liability, and the companies should be responsible for Miramonte costs beyond a "self-insurance" amount, in the district's view. The district's share of the liability should be $3 million or $5 million, said Sean Andrade, an outside counsel representing L.A. Unified.

The likely outcome of the litigation would be a determination of who owes what, said Andrade, adding that all insurers have so far refused to pay Miramonte-related claims.

Everest sued "before the district could sue them for breach of contract or bad faith," Andrade said.

"It's troubling that these insurance companies which were compensated to provide this coverage are now trying to escape responsibility," said district spokesman Sean Rossall. "We’re going to do everything possible to ensure that the carriers honor our policies. We’ve been working diligently to resolve these cases in the best interests of the students while also honoring the district's obligation to preserve resources for all students.”

Berndt, 62, awaits trial on allegations that he spoon-fed his semen to blindfolded students in his classroom as part of a tasting game. He has pleaded not guilty. He remains in custody in lieu of $23 million bail.


Southern California School District Settles Lewd ‘Tasting Games’ Claims
By Christina Hoag and Gillian Flaccus
March 14, 2013
Insurance Journal

The Los Angeles school district will pay millions of dollars to settle claims and lawsuits filed by students and families from an elementary school where a third-grade teacher was accused of spoon-feeding children semen in what he called “tasting games,” lawyers in the cases said Tuesday.

District officials did not reveal the total amount of the settlement, but attorney Raymond Boucher, who represents several Miramonte Elementary School students, said each claimant will receive $470,000.

District General Counsel David Holmquist said the settlement covers 58 of the 191 claims and lawsuits filed by students and parents against the district after the January 2012 arrest of former third-grade teacher Mark Berndt on 23 charges of lewd behavior spanning five years at Miramonte.

A few of the cases involved another Miramonte teacher, Martin Springer, who was charged with lewd acts on a child in a case involving a second-grader that authorities said was fondled in class in 2009.

The accusation surfaced after Berndt’s arrest, Holmquist said.

The 58 people involved in the settlement are all students, he said.

Prosecutors said in Berndt’s “tasting games” he fed students his semen on cookies and by spoon, sometimes blindfolding and photographing them. Berndt, who taught for 32 years at the South Los Angeles school, has pleaded not guilty in the criminal case.

Springer has also pleaded not guilty.

The allegations against Berndt came to light when a drugstore photo technician noticed dozens of odd photos of blindfolded children and reported them to authorities. Investigators said they discovered a plastic spoon in Berndt’s classroom trash bin that was found to contain traces of semen.

Boucher, who represents 13 of the 58 students in the settlement, said proving some of the claims would have been a problem at trial.

Some children did not have photographs of themselves eating the cookies laced with a milky white substance, or of being fed spoonfuls of it, he said.

In addition, there was no way to prove the substance in photos was semen, he added.

Parents also understood that with so many claims, a jury verdict could bankrupt the district, he added.

“We had to do a balancing act and we understood, if you go that second route and you wind up (with the district) in bankruptcy, these clients will never receive compensation for what they’ve been through,” Boucher said.

Frank Perez, an attorney representing eight students, said parents chose to settle rather than put their children through the emotional upheaval of litigation and to put the case behind them.

Other attorneys blasted the settlement amount as paltry and said they would proceed with their cases.

“This is lifelong trauma,” lawyer Brian Claypool said.

Attorney John Manly said the district has not yet explained how the alleged incidents went undetected for so long.

“The district got a great deal today,” he said. “There’s not been a single explanation of who knew what when.”

The case led to a wide-ranging overhaul of how the nation’s second-largest school district handles allegations of sexual abuse after it was revealed that previous complaints about Berndt’s behavior were ignored.

It also shined a light on how slowly state officials act to censure teachers and led to a flurry of allegations of teacher-student sex abuse in the district and in other school systems...