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

 UPDATE APRIL 9, 2016

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

Note to Google:

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

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


 ORIGINAL POST:

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

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

Maura Larkins' comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We seem to have unique ethics rules for lawyers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they are almost always right about that.

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

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

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

Maura Larkins' comment:

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

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

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

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

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

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

We seem to have unique ethics rules for lawyers.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And they are almost always right about that.

UCSD doctor concealed six-figure pay from medical device company and used that company's products on his patient; despite state law, UCSD says he did nothing wrong, pays settlement

Dr. William Taylor, UCSD, implanted screws from a company that paid him a six-figure income and in which he owned hundreds of thousands of dollars in stock options

I don't believe that Dr. Taylor intentionally made this woman suffer. I think he was simply blinded by his financial interest. He couldn't believe the screws he had implanted (and heavily invested in) could be causing harm. He had hundreds of thousands of reasons not to believe it.

This does not explain, however, why Dr. Taylor kept his financial interests secret. I'll take a stab at explaining that. Perhaps he had confidence in his own ability not to be influenced by his large income from the medical device company and by the possibility that his investment in the company would pay off grandly if the screws proved to be successful in treating patients. He kept his financial dealings with the company secret because he didn't trust others to have confidence in him.

And why doesn't UCSD crack down on its doctors who violate law and university policy in this manner? Perhaps because the doctors who are tasked with enforcing the rules are getting just as much money from outside companies as Dr. Anderson is.

Dr. William Taylor got his medical degree from UCLA, whose medical school seems have particular problems with conflicts of interest.

"It took longer to uncover some critical details that Dr. William Taylor, the surgeon, had not told the retired special education teacher or the university: He owned stock options worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in the company selling the spinal devices and had also collected six-figure annual fees from the same firm, the lawsuit said. Disclosure of such corporate payments is required by state law and university policy.

"A lawyer for UCSD said Taylor did nothing wrong and denied that any patients were harmed. But the university last year paid Kitrosser $1.75 million to settle the case."

UC system struggles with professors' outside earnings
Failing to report compensation from other sources leads to concerns about conflicts.
BY MELODY PETERSEN
OC Register
May 25, 2014

Doctors eventually solved the mystery of why Brenda Kitrosser suffered from unrelenting pain after her back surgery at a University of California hospital in San Diego.

A UCSD surgeon had implanted experimental screws and other hardware into her back, promising this would relieve her pain. Instead the devices pressed on her nerves endlessly, according to a lawsuit she filed later.

It took longer to uncover some critical details that Dr. William Taylor, the surgeon, had not told the retired special education teacher or the university: He owned stock options worth hundreds of thousands of dollars in the company selling the spinal devices and had also collected six-figure annual fees from the same firm, the lawsuit said.

Disclosure of such corporate payments is required by state law and university policy.

A lawyer for UCSD said Taylor did nothing wrong and denied that any patients were harmed. But the university last year paid Kitrosser $1.75 million to settle the case.

The controversy over Taylor’s undisclosed compensation is not an isolated case. The University of California has repeatedly failed to discipline medical professors who did not disclose payments from drugmakers and medical companies.

Last month, after UCLA paid $10 million to settle a lawsuit that centered on undisclosed corporate compensation, the non-profit group Consumer Watchdog called on state Attorney General Kamala Harris to investigate how widespread the unreported payments have become...

See more HERE.

San Ysidro Schools trustee steps down after all; judge may not have known about section 1770 when ruling that Yolanda Hernandez could stay in office after conviction

Government Code Section 1770 states, “An office becomes vacant” when an elected official is convicted of “any offense involving a violation of his or her official duties.”

Hernandez pleaded guilty to omitting information about gifts from contractors on state disclosure forms, signed under penalty of perjury.

Dan Shinoff, attorney for the San Ysidro and Sweetwater schools, said, "...but you can’t just ignore the judge’s ruling."

San Ysidro trustee steps down after all
By Allison Sampite-Montecalvo
and Ashly McGlone
SDUT
April 30, 2014

San Ysidro schools trustee Yolanda Hernandez stepped down Wednesday evening, a day after her sentencing in the ongoing corruption probe at three South County school districts.

At her sentencing on Tuesday in Chula Vista, Hernandez received community service and probation, but Judge Ana Espana allowed her to stay in office.

On Wednesday, U-T Watchdog raised questions with district officials, attorneys and legal experts across the state — many of whom did not see how Hernandez could remain in office. Confusion ensued, along with meetings among school officials and lawyers.

State law mandates that an elective office be vacated when the official is convicted of any violation involving his or her duties.

The U-T posted a story online about the law, and more than 90 percent of readers in an unscientific online poll said Hernandez should not be in office. Board president Jason Wells then informed the Watchdog that Hernandez, 65, would resign.

“She decided to do what was best for the district and herself, which was to resign,” Wells said. “We are very grateful for her 20 years of service and this was the right move at this time. This is the latest step in a long process that this board has gone through to positively change the climate in the San Ysidro School District.”

Hernandez was one of 15 elected officials and contractors indicted in 2012 in a probe by District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis of pay-to-play allegations at three school districts. She is the 10th defendant sentenced, but the first who seemed poised to remain in office after her case concluded.

Her departure could have implications for two Sweetwater Union High School District board members who pleaded guilty last week and are to be sentenced in June. Neither expected to leave office, and Espana issued a finding that they were authorized to keep their board seats.

“The court came to that conclusion after reviewing the statute pertaining to this particular offense,” Espana said in court, without citing a statute.

Government Code Section 1770 states, “An office becomes vacant” when an elected official is convicted of “any offense involving a violation of his or her official duties.”

Hernandez pleaded guilty to omitting information about gifts from contractors on state disclosure forms, signed under penalty of perjury.

U-T Watchdog discussed the code section with several legal experts on Wednesday — including the San Ysidro district’s lawyer — and they all thought the law was clear:

Michael Colantuono, a municipal attorney who was named Public Lawyer of the Year in 2010 by the California Bar Association: “I do not read that statute to give the court any discretion. It provides that they lose their office upon conviction of a felony or upon a misdemeanor of their official duties.”

Dan Shinoff, attorney for the San Ysidro and Sweetwater schools: “My reading of 1770 is that if you are convicted of a felony or found guilty of wrongdoing relative to your duties in office, that your seat becomes vacant. I don’t think that’s complicated, but you can’t just ignore the judge’s ruling.”

[Maura Larkins' comment: Dan Shinoff, who has represented the San Ysidro School District for many years, has a history of insisting that judges who rule in his favor be obeyed even when he knows perfectly well that a ruling is a violation of law.

For example, Judge Judith Hayes ruled in December 2009 that I could never in my life mention Dan Shinoff's name (even to talk to a lawyer to defend me from the defamation lawsuit filed against me by Dan Shinoff's firm, Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz). This is clearly an egregious and brazen violation of the First Amendment, but Shinoff's law firm argued that Judge Hayes was within her rights to ignore the Constitution.

The Court of Appeal ruled against Judge Hayes and Shinoff.
If Mr. Shinoff truly didn't know that the injunction was unconstitutional, I'm wondering how good his legal advice is. The First Amendment is a pretty simple concept, after all. If Mr. Shinoff did know, yet continued to try to enforce the illegal injunction, then I'm wondering if he has the ethics we expect from a lawyer who is paid to represent public entities.]

Robert Fellmeth, founder and director of the University of San Diego’s Center for Public Interest Law: “It’s not a discretionary statute at all. You are ‘vacant.’ You’re gone.”

One issue may be that no attorneys involved in the case brought the right code section to the judge’s attention.

Fellmeth said if he was still a deputy District Attorney in the courtroom, “I would be sure to raise the issue before the court and insist upon the vacancy... The court did not seem to know anything about 1770 at all.”

For most of the day, Hernandez was not planning to leave office. Her defense attorney, Michael Crowley, said she planned to serve out her term, which would have ended in November.

“Ms. Hernandez pleaded guilty to the lowest misdemeanor available and the DA stated that at the sentencing hearing,” Crowley said. “She will not be running again, but there is no law precluding her from finishing out her term, which will be the culmination of two decades of service.”

District officials were scrambling most of the day to find a course of action.

“We haven’t received any information from the DA’s office with regard to (Hernandez) having to resign or received anything from them in writing regarding any plea,” said George Cameron, interim superintendent. “What we want to do is get access to the court’s decision and we’ll have it reviewed by our legal counsel.”

With Hernandez out of office, attention will now turn to Sweetwater.

Two members of the Sweetwater school board, Arlie Ricasa and Pearl Quiñones, already left office as a result of their convictions. Both pleaded guilty to accepting gifts above state limits, and Quiñones admitted to a conspiracy as well.

Two more school board members, Cartmill and Lopez, pleaded guilty last week to accepting gifts above state limits. Neither expected to leave office, and the judge found they could stay. Cartmill’s term is up in November, and Lopez is in office until 2016.

As with Hernandez, there was no discussion at their hearing of Government Code Section 1770 and its requirement that they leave office. Now that the code section is better known, it may come up at their sentencing. “The court has the discretion to make sentencing decisions, and we will provide our input at the hearing,” District Attorney’s spokeswoman Tanya Sierra said. Jill Galvez, parent of a Sweetwater student, said Lopez and Cartmill should simply resign. “In my opinion, the county board should ask for the resignation of these two board members and they should appoint four interim board members until we have our elections here in Chula Vista,” she said. “Both these board members violated public trust and they should step down from office. I’m shocked the judge didn’t ask them to.” Sharon Floyd, a former 35-year teacher in Chula Vista, agreed. “I think those two folks should resign immediately,” she said. “If my vote counts, they need to go. Now.” Not everyone feels that way. Chula Vista resident and parent Maty Adato said Lopez should remain in office. “I believe that Ms. Lopez is the only one that asks for accountability,” she said. “I don’t think Ms. Lopez should have to resign. She is the only one doing her job.” By the way, it was Talkwalker that alerted me to this story. I have become disappointed with Google alerts. Talkwalker gives me quick alerts on the words I ask them to look for, while Google alerts is often silent on important stories.

Susan Luzzaro refuses to apologize for lapses in journalistic ethics; reveals that her daughter is on the CVE bargaining team

San Diego Reader reporter Susan Luzzaro seems to
have turned her back on journalistic ethics

See all posts re Common Core in SDER blog.

When I called out San Diego Reader reporter Susan Luzzaro on April 15, 2014 for her biased reporting about Common Core testing in Chula Vista Elementary School District, I thought I knew exactly how much she had compromised her journalistic ethics. It turns out, I didn't know the half of it.

I was shocked to read the following in an April 19, 2014 article by Ms. Luzzaro:

"...Chula Vista Elementary’s public relations officer, Anthony Millican, followed up by intimating it was unethical for me, as an author, not to have disclosed in the April 10 testing article that my daughter is a member of the Chula Vista Educator’s bargaining team. Millican also stated in an April 18 email, “You should have got our side of the issue in the first place”...(emphasis added).

Say what??? Susan Luzzaro's daughter is a member of the CVE (Chula Vista Educators) bargaining team?!?

I had no idea! What is going on, Susan Luzzaro??? How could you have concealed that information from your readers when you were attacking CVESD?

(I checked the latest "bargaining update" on the CVESD website, and found that Vanessa Luzzaro-Braito, who seems to have suddenly changed her name to Vanessa Braito, is listed as a member of the CVE team. I'm going to make a wild guess that the reason for the name change is to conceal the fact that she is Susan Luzzaro's daughter. While I'm at it, I think I'll make another wild guess: I bet Vanessa Luzzaro-Braito does not like Common Core. Do I have any takers on that bet?)

NO APOLOGY

I notice that Susan Luzzaro expresses no remorse about her ethical lapse. Instead, she seems to be offended that Mr. Millican would "intimate" that her behavior was unethical. Ms. Luzzaro seems to believe that it's okay for her to behave as she does, but it's not okay for others to talk about it.

If she really believes that there's nothing wrong with her actions, then why is she upset that people are discussing them?

Ms. Luzzaro's attitude, and certainly the attitude of the San Diego Reader, seems to be expressed in the contemptuous headline of Susan's latest story: "Hey, Chula Vista Elementary School District, test this".

NO EFFORT TO CORRECT BIAS IN APRIL 10, 2014 ARTICLE

Ms. Luzzzaro has made no effort as of April 22, 2014 to balance the reporting in her April 10, 2014 story, "Standardized tests shunned by South Bay parents." After reading the story, one might be forgiven for believing that ALL parents at CVESD oppose the testing. Ms. Luzzaro does not appear to have made any effort to talk to parents who approve of Common Core and the associated testing.

WHY IS THE TEACHERS UNION ATTACKING COMMON CORE?

Susan Luzzaro is clearly trying to shift responsibility away from teachers who are having problems teaching basic concepts as required by Common Core. These teachers want to go back to methods that rely largely on rote memorization. See "Teachers who don't know how to teach are complaining about Common Core in Chula Vista Elementary School District."


Photo published by Reader on April 19, 2014.

Instead of retracting the false implication in her April 10, 2014
story that kids may be held back if they do poorly on a standardized
test, Ms. Luzzaro and the Reader reinforce the false impression with
a photo of a child being hoisted up by her mother, holding a sign that
says, “I am not a test score.” The photo dishonestly implies that the
district will change its treatment of the child based on a test score.
Shame on Susan Luzzaro and the Reader—and the parent who created that sign!

ANOTHER CASE OF COMPROMISED ETHICS AT THE READER?

All this is causing me to wonder if Dorian Hargrove's "mistake" in this story about Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz v. Larkins was really a mistake. In his story about me, Mr. Hargrove said that I had written a statement about Stutz law firm that was, in fact, written by an anonymous commenter on my blog. I let Mr. Hargrove know about the error right away. When I asked him to correct it, he refused to do so, saying, "It happens."

At the San Diego Reader, such happenings are apparently not considered grounds for an apology or retraction.

NOTE #1:

I will be presenting my oral arguments in Stutz v. Larkins in the Court of Appeal on May 16, 2014 at 9 a.m.. I won in August 2011 in this separate appeal in this same case. This bizarre free speech case has dragged on for over six years. Click HERE to see all posts regarding this lawsuit.

NOTE #2:

I have severely criticized CVESD on numerous occasions, but I support Core and the associated testing because it is in the best interest of students.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Take Two 'Normal' People, Add Money To Just One Of Them, and Watch

Players who were given extra money when playing Monopoly attributed their wins to their own skill and personal worthiness. Wealthier subjects stole twice as much candy from babies.

Take Two 'Normal' People, Add Money To Just One Of Them, And Watch What Happens Next (VIDEO)
Brandon Weber
UpWorthy.com

Science can explain a lot of things that I've always wondered about (go, science!). In this case, it explains what I've known for a long time but been unable to quite understand: Why do some folks who have a lot more money than others seem to be less nice and more evil to everyone around them?

At 0:50, someone actually takes candy from babies. No, really. At 3:00, we start to see the science unfold before our eyes. Entire management courses could — and should — be taught with the bit starting at 4:40.

See also:
Severe and unequal school discipline preceded the killing of innocent bystander Christopher Lane
Why the Wealthy Favor Harsh Punishment — for Criminals and Errant Schoolchildren
Higher social class predicts increased unethical behavior
PNAS, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
(Study from UC Berkeley and University of Toronto) Nov. 8, 2011

Southwestern College board member resigns in protest of secrecy regarding financial information

I've been wondering why school board members ALWAYS accept the corruption in schools, and simply join the club when they get elected. I thought that perhaps the idea of standing up for ethics, the rule of law and the public good had gone out of fashion. But Bill Stewart has proved me wrong.

Several officials have been charged with crimes related to relationships with contractors and Proposition R expenditures, including board member Yolanda Salcido.

How to solve the problem? Recall Yolanda Salcido and replace her with Bill Stewart. And if that doesn't give enough votes for transparency about finances, recall any other board members who are opposing it and replace them with people who believe in transparency.



Bill Stewart served as a Southwestern trustee for four months, December 2012 to March 2013.

Southwestern College trustee resigns in protest
By Susan Luzzaro
San Diego Reader
March 2, 2013

The latest at Southwestern College is the sudden resignation of trustee William Stewart, who gave an exclusive interview to the student newspaper, the Sun, on March 1. He told news editor Thomas Baker that he was quitting in protest; he said he is frustrated with the district’s lack of transparency and lack of shared governance.

Stewart, who is a realtor and a professor of philosophy at San Diego City College, was elected in November 2012 and began serving in December; his campaign rhetoric was optimistic. He told the Sun in October, “I think I bring to the board a very student-centric perspective because the questions are: how are the students being served? Is our budget best focused on meeting the needs of our students?”

Barely four months later, in his letter of resignation addressed to the faculty and staff of Southwestern, Stewart wrote:

“I hoped to bring a level of board oversight that was unprecedented in this district…to provide you, the stake holders, with a true sense of assurance that the numbers with which you were provided were real and reliable. I wanted to provide you with a board member that with certainty could tell you that income projections were reflective of most likely case scenarios, and not worst case scenarios, which can lead to significant underestimations in projected funding.

“I wanted to provide you with assurance that the information on our college expenses provided accurate information on real time savings, and did not look artificially inflated due to positions that were on the books but were not filled. In my judgment, such accurate numbers should not be withheld from anyone and certainly should not be withheld from the scrutiny of the board. Such real numbers should be used as the proper framework by which to plan the future and to work with its employees and their bargaining units. It is my opinion that Southwestern has a precious resource in its employees, not dangerous adversaries.”

Last week, faculty members protested to the board that incorrect data was being used to drive the education plan — which in turn is driving the Proposition R facilities plan.

Prior to Stewart’s resignation, a special board meeting — which many fear will pertain to pink slips — was called for March 4.

Southwestern articulation officer Veronica Burton commented on Stewart’s resignation and on the state of the campus:

...“We have all worked so hard to make positive change and this is a huge setback. We are once again making news because of questionable practices at Southwestern. This further perpetuates the atmosphere of lack of transparency and trust...”

Read more.

The San Diego Bar Association cares about ethics!

The San Diego Bar Association is involved in The Center for Ethics in Science & Technology. That's a good thing, right?
The Center for Ethics in Science & Technology was founded in 2003 by Michael Kalichman, UC San Diego, with initial support from Peter Ellsworth of the Legler Benbough Foundation.

Dr. Kalichman initially formed an informal executive committee, consisting of himself, Larry Hinman (USD), and Sara Burke (SDSTC), with Andrea Paik as the senior coordinator. Shortly thereafter an initial Steering Committee was formed, which included the members of the executive committee plus Peter Ellsworth (Legler Benbough Foundation), Christian Crews (Waite Foundation), Chris Todd (President, San Diego Bar Association), and Mark Trotter (Parker Foundation)...

Christopher W. Todd
Center for Ethics founder and former Bar Association president
Chris emphasizes business, real estate, insurance/bad faith, professional malpractice, and injury disputes in his trial practice. He has tried and arbitrated over 80 lawsuits to verdict or judgment. He is a recognized leader, and served as president of the 7,500-member San Diego County Bar Association in 2003. He is closely connected to the local business community and is an active member of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.

David Higgins, Ph.D.
Executive Committee
Logistics and Education

Higgins has a professional background in biotechnology research, project management, and business development. He has held positions at Invitrogen, Chiron, Idun Pharmaceuticals and most recently he was Executive VP for Business Development and Head of US Operations for BioMedica, Inc., a UK-based gene therapy company. Higgins has served as Adjunct Associate Professor of Biology at SDSU and as an Instructor in the biotech technician training program at SD City College. Higgins has volunteered for various community-oriented organizations including Positive Prevention, Rolling Readers, SD Museum of Natural History, the North Park Community Association, and Water Station. He served as foreman of the 2006/2007 San Diego County Grand Jury. Currently he is a Scientific Advisor for iDiverse, a SD biotech company, serves on the steering committee of the MLK All People's Breakfast, and is the President of the Board of Directors of the ACLU of San Diego and Imperial Counties. Higgins earned his Ph.D. in molecular biology and genetics from the University of Rochester followed by a postdoctoral fellowship at the National Cancer Institute.

Gloria Penner
* Board of Advisors

...Gloria Penner is the host of KPBS Radio’s weekly "Editors Roundtable" and "San Diego Week." She was the host of the first hour of KPBS Radio's "These Days" from 1995 to 1999, and the host of KPBS TV's "Full Focus" from 2003 to 2007. Gloria started her radio career in San Francisco in the 1950s as an associate producer on a program called Housewives Protective League. Her first job in television came after a move to Washington, D.C. where she was associate producer of the Washington segment of the "Today Show." After a stint in Hawaii and a return to Washington, D.C., she relocated to San Diego and took a few years off for family life. She joined KPBS Television in 1969 as director of community relations...

Her awards include 7 Emmys, 5 Golden Mikes, 2 Gracies from the American Federation of Women in Radio and Television, The San Diego Press Club’s Harold Keen Award for excellence in journalism, the John Swett Award from the California Teachers Association, and many honors from the Society for Professional Journalists and the San Diego Bar Association. ...Gloria earned her bachelor’s degree from Brooklyn College. She did graduate work in English at New York University and earned her Master’s Degree in English from Syracuse University. She is married to Bill Snyder, a retired manufacturer, with whom she lives in La Jolla. She has two grown sons and two grandchildren.

Law Firm Selected General Counsel to City of San Diego Ethics Commission

Nov 29, 2010
Law Firm Selected General Counsel to City of San Diego Ethics Commission
SAN DIEGO, CA
Marketwire

[WXYZ law firm--which prefers to remain anonymous in these pages] is pleased to announce it has been selected to provide General Counsel services to the City of San Diego Ethics Commission. Beginning January 1, 2011, Associate [CCC] will serve as General Counsel and Partners [AAA] and [BBB] will serve as Associate General Counsel.

[CCC] is a member of the firm's Municipal Law and Government Relations Group and has more than 19 years' experience as a policy advisor to various City of San Diego elected officials, including Mayor Maureen O'Connor, Councilmember Harry Mathis and Council President Scott Peters. In past roles, [CCC] has advised elected officials on the promulgation of regulations related to elections and ballot propositions, open meeting requirements, governmental ethics, major land code updates and project approvals, as well as implementation of bond-financed municipal infrastructure projects.

"We are proud to have been selected to be the Ethics Commission's General Counsel," said Managing Partner [YYY], "and consider meaningful ethical standards in public service to be an important tool in maintaining public confidence in government. Our selection underscores the firm's solid reputation advising public entities."

The San Diego Ethics Commission was established in 2001 and is charged with monitoring, administering, and enforcing the City of San Diego's governmental ethics laws related to elections, lobbying and conflicts of interest. The Ethics Commission also advises and educates city officials and regulated members of the public regarding governmental ethics laws, conducts investigations, audits disclosure statements, and proposes governmental ethics law reforms. The Commission was previously served by in-house counsel...


Current Commissioners of San Diego Ethics Commission:
W. Lee Biddle
Faye Detsky-Weil
Clyde Fuller
Hon. William J. Howatt, Jr.
John C. O’Neill
Larry S. Westfall
Bud Wetzler

Ethics Commission Fights Back Against New Campaign Rules

I am so impressed with the new San Diego City Ethics Commission. Ever since Gil Cabrera left, the commission has started to go after actual corruption and abuse instead of mistakes.

Ethics Commission Fights Back Against New Campaign Rules
Liam Dillon
May 24, 2010
Voice of San Diego

The city of San Diego's Ethics Commission released an opinion today that could curtail how political parties can donate to next month's City Council primaries.

Political parties can contribute unlimited amounts to council campaigns for the June 8 primary by taking advantage of a window in the city's campaign finance rules. The local Republican Party, whose lawsuit spurred changes to city campaign laws, has announced it would give $20,000 to Lorie Zapf, a candidate in District 6 running to replace termed-out Democrat Donna Frye.

But the Ethics Commission is requiring political parties to conform to the city's $500 individual contribution limits. In other words, if the Republican Party donates $20,000 to Zapf, then it would need to identify 40 people who gave $500 to the party.

These rules, Ethics Commission Executive Director Stacey Fulhorst said, are to prevent parties from acting as a "pass through" from donors to candidates.

Local Republican Party Chairman Tony Krvaric, who committed to making the Zapf donation, said he hadn't see the commission's opinion and needed to consult his attorneys before commenting on how it might affect the donation.

"At this point I'm unsure," Krvaric said. "But we're committed to our support for Lorie Zapf."

Virginia panel finds a presumption that administrators would never willfully violate the law

I certainly agree with this finding by a panel of investigators in Virginia. It applies to schools all across the country:

"...[T]here is "an unreasonable presumption" by some central administrators that principals would never willfully violate law or policy, and 'they are hesitant to adequately investigate possible wrongdoing, even in the face of documentary evidence that negates the presumption."

Report: School faculty told to cheat, whistle-blower rebuked
By Amy Jeter, Harry Minium, Steven G. Vegh
The Virginian-Pilot
March 9, 2010
NORFOLK

A middle school principal coerced teachers into fabricating students' work to help win state accreditation, then lied to get a teacher fired who refused to cheat and who reported testing problems to the division and the state, according to an investigatory report.

In addition, the school division's top administrators refused to demand that Lafayette-Winona Middle School Principal Cassandra Goodwyn comply with state testing standards and dismissed the whistle-blower's evidence that he refused to bend testing rules...

The panel

The members were Assistant City Attorney Derek Mungo; Leigh Butler, director of teacher education services at Old Dominion University; and Dennis Moore, senior coordinator of pupil personnel services for Norfolk schools.

Lafayette-Winona principal is faulted

A panel of investigators found Lafayette-Winona Middle School Principal Cassandra Goodwyn improperly selected students for alternative testing, removed students’ work if it appeared it would fail, ignored staff recommendations to correct policies and severely disciplined a whistle-blowing teacher.

Reached late Tuesday, Goodwyn denied any wrongdoing and said she has evidence to prove it.

Executive director is faulted

The report found that the division’s executive director for middle schools, Cathy Lassiter, stood by while the whistle-blower was unfairly disciplined. The report states: “She failed to fulfill the prescribed duties” of her position and and to uphold the division’s core values...



Understanding the Education Debacle
Karen Horwitz
May 14, 2010

In your article you said: "'According to the report, the panel found there is "an unreasonable presumption" by some central administrators that principals would never willfully violate law or policy, and 'they are hesitant to adequately investigate possible wrongdoing, even in the face of documentary evidence that negates the presumption.'" I can tell you why this unreasonable presumption takes place all over this nation. Organized crime is rampant in our schools and part of its organization is successfully keeping it away from the press so it can go on with no scrutiny. What they are labeling unreasonable is in effect a cover up I can document all over this nation and until the public gets what is being covered up, nothing does make sense. I wrote a book all about this organized crime in education called White Chalk Crime: The REAL Reason Schools Fail. All the answers are there. Check out WhiteChalkCrime.com and EndTeacherAbuse.org and you will learn just how teacher abuse, which you described in your article, underpins this organized crime. I have organized whistle blowing teachers so they can finally be heard above the propaganda. They are the people who have been disappeared by this system of White Chalk Crime, and they are eagerly awaiting an opportunity to testify or merely speak to reporters. However, somehow these truths are evaporated by the system that holds so much power and extends to the corporate controlled press.

With so many people mesmerized by the free market theory, those who want our schools to self destruct so they can privatize them are in the lead. However, had they done their homework on free market philosophy they would know better than to trust a system that abandons regulations. If people would just read Naomi Klein's book Shock Doctrine they would get it. But people talk about education rather than self educate and this is why those really trying to solve the problem of our schools are lost and subject to the power of those determined to privatize the schools. Granted government can be and is corrupt. But it is the only balance to corruption in business and anyone who thinks that greed does not take over has been asleep these past years.

What we need is good government, not less government, yet our people are being manipulated by free marketers totally unaware what that means. Ruining our schools killed two birds with one stone: made people too uneducated to figure out where they were being led and opened up the opportunity to privatize them. We cannot solve this problem without looking at the big picture or that the destruction of the public school system is a definite part of the free market agenda. So while we agonize about issues from bullying to cheating to drop outs, the free market people are laughing all the way to the bank, literally...

The San Diego Ethics Commission finally investigates real corruption: Nancy Graham's business partners and the CCDC

My wish has come true: the San Diego ethics commission is finally acting on real corruption.

Graham's Ethics Commission Case Advances
by Rob Davis
Voice of San Diego
May 12, 2010

Nancy Graham, the former Centre City Development Corp. president who resigned nearly two years ago, is due before the San Diego Ethics Commission this week and next.

The commission has alleged that Graham broke city laws by improperly making decisions in office that benefited her business associates. It has proposed a maximum $170,000 fine against Graham. While at CCDC, Graham sat in on negotiations about a downtown hotel with Lennar Corp., her former business partner. She hadn't disclosed the more than $3 million in income she received from a business deal with the company.

Graham, who has since pleaded no contest to a failure to disclose her economic interests while president, has a hearing on a narrow set of issues Thursday before the commission.

Her attorney, Paul Pfingst, is contesting the commission's jurisdiction in the case and arguing that the 34 counts filed against her should be condensed to one. He argues that her many meetings with Lennar -- each charged as separate counts -- constitute one event, not many.

The commission argues that Pfingst's questions about jurisdiction amount to a "hypertechnical distinction" in the law. In a legal brief, its attorney, Alison Adema, dismissed Pfingst's argument for condensing the charges as "absurd," and noted that Graham's involvement in the hotel project over a two-year period constituted multiple violations of city law. The law, she wrote, is designed to punish all efforts to improperly influence municipal decisions -- not just the first.

That will be heard at 5:30 p.m. Thursday.

Graham is also due before the commission for an administrative hearing next Thursday, May 20, at 9 a.m. That hearing will allow both sides to present and argue

Tourre emails show agony, ecstasy of being a banker

Tourre emails show agony, ecstasy of being a banker
By Alistair Barr, MarketWatch
April 26, 2010

Fabrice Tourre comes across as an arrogant investment banker in the Securities and Exchange Commission lawsuit against him and his employer Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

But personal emails released by Goldman /quotes/comstock/13*!gs/quotes/nls/gs (GS 151.93, -5.47, -3.48%) this weekend show Tourre struggling with "ethical questions" as he sold complex mortgage-related securities that he worried were suspect.

The SEC charged Goldman with securities fraud on April 16, alleging the investment bank didn't tell investors in a collateralized debt obligation that hedge fund firm Paulson & Co. helped structure the deal and was betting against it. Goldman and Paulson have denied wrongdoing. Read about the charges.

The SEC also charged Tourre, an executive director in Structured Products Group Trading, with securities fraud, alleging he was mainly responsible for the CDO, known as ABACUS 2007-AC1. Pamela Chepiga, an attorney for Tourre, declined to comment.

In the suit, the SEC quoted a January 2007 email that Tourre sent to a friend.

"More and more leverage in the system, The whole building is about to collapse anytime now...Only potential survivor, the fabulous Fab[rice Tourre]...

Gil Cabrera and Marty Emerald: which one is sneakier?

See all Gil Cabrera posts.

From where I sit, Gil Cabrera and Marty Emerald look like twins. They are politicians careful not to rile the wrong people. But lately I've been feeling that Gil Cabrera is the twin who's hiding more. It's pretty clear what Marty's agenda is. She's a mainstream Democrat, defending the little guy to the extent acceptable to the powers that be. But what's up with Cabrera? What exactly is his agenda?

Why does he just go after small, technical violations of ethics laws, and steer clear of addressing true, deep corruption in our government and legal system?

SEC staff surfed porn sites during crisis buildup: inspector

April 23, 2010
SEC staff surfed porn sites during crisis buildup: inspector
By Ronald D. Orol
MarketWatch

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- As the 2008 financial crisis was developing, top Securities and Exchange Commission employees and contractors were using government computers on official time to view pornography, according to an SEC inspector general.

The SEC's inspector general found that 33 employees or contractors violated commission rules and policies by viewing porn, according to a memo obtained Friday by MarketWatch. The investigation was requested by Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa.

The memo reported incidents by year:

*

2010: 3 so far
*

2009: 10
*

2008: 16
*

2007: 2
*

2006: 1
*

2005: 1

The 33 employees cited in the memo represent less than 1% of the SEC's approximately 4,000 employees. Of those employees, 17 were senior officials whose salaries ranged from $100,000 to $222,000, according to the memo. It isn't clear if the employees discussed in the memo were involved in oversight matters related to the financial crisis.

According to the memo, a regional office supervisory staff accountant admitted he frequently viewed pornography at work on his SEC computer for about a year and accessed pornography on his SEC-issued laptop computer while on official government travel.

Another regional office supervisory staff accountant admitted that he used an SEC assigned computer to access Websites containing pornography and other sexually explicit material during work hours fairly frequently, sometimes twice a day, according to the memo.

Another regional office staff accountant received 16,000 access denials for Internet websites classified by the SEC's Internet filter as "Sex" or "porn" in a one-month period. "In addition, the hard drive of this employee's SEC laptop contained numerous sexually suggestive and inappropriate images," the memo said.

A senior attorney at the SEC's headquarters in Washington admitted accessing Internet port so frequently that, according to the memo, on some days, he spent eight hours accessing Internet porn.

"In fact, this attorney downloaded so much pornography to his government computer that he exhausted the available space on the computer hard drive and downloaded pornography to CDs or DVDs that he accumulated in boxes in his office," the memo said.

Rep. Darrell Issa , R-Calif., the Ranking Member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, said he was disturbed by the findings.

"It is nothing short of disturbing that high-ranking officials within the SEC were spending more time looking at pornography than taking action to help stave off the events that brought our nation's economy to the brink of collapse," he said in a statement. "This stunning report should make everyone question the wisdom of moving forward with plans to give regulators like the SEC even more widespread authority. Inexplicably, rather than exercise its existing regulatory enforcement authority, SEC officials were preoccupied with other distractions."

Ronald D. Orol is a MarketWatch reporter, based in Washington.

Obama to Wall Street: ‘Join Us, Instead of Fighting Us’; Steve Schwartzman doesn't get it

This related story seems an apt introduction to Obama's words:

Wall Street's know-it-alls can't tell right from wrong
By Steven Pearlstein
Washington Post
April 23, 2010

I know you'll all be comforted, as I was Wednesday, by the public vote of confidence from Steve Schwartzman, chief executive of private equity giant Blackstone Group, when he said that his firm would continue to do business with Goldman Sachs and that he's never had a shred of doubt about the investment bank's ethical character.

So let me get this straight. Goldman Sachs is now relying on the character reference of a Wall Street sharpie who notoriously snookered investors into buying non-controlling shares of a private equity firm at the very moment when a credit-induced takeover bubble was about to burst...



Obama to Wall Street: ‘Join Us, Instead of Fighting Us’
Ruth Fremson/The New York Times
By PETER BAKER
April 22, 2010

President Obama challenged some of the nation’s most influential bankers on Thursday to call off their “battalions of financial industry lobbyists” and embrace a new regulatory structure meant to avert another economic crisis.

Speaking in the bankers’ backyard, at the Cooper Union in Manhattan, Mr. Obama castigated a “failure of responsibility” by Wall Street for having led to the financial crisis of 2008, and he pressed his case for what he called “a common-sense, reasonable, non-ideological” system of tighter regulation to prevent any recurrence. He took issue with the claim that his proposal would institutionalize the idea of future bailouts of huge banks.

“That may make for a good sound bite, but it’s not factually accurate,” Mr. Obama said. “It is not true. In fact, the system as it stands is what led to a series of massive, costly taxpayer bailouts...

The Marty Emerald ethics hearing

See all posts about Gil Cabrera, chairman of San Diego Ethics committee.

A Different Report on the Emerald Ethics Hearing
Apr 12, 2010
THERESA QUIROZ
Voice of San Diego

On Thursday, April 8, the San Diego Ethics Commission held a televised meeting to hear an appeal by Councilwoman Emerald of the amount of the penalty assessed against her for two errors made during her campaign. There was no argument that the errors occurred. It was simply a question of how much the penalty should have been.

I watched the event (and it most definitely was an event; the city should have sold tickets!), but what I saw was not what appeared in our local print news.

Perhaps this is a perfect occasion to lament the loss of our unbiased print media, but let's leave that for another time. I want to give you my view of what actually happened at the hearing.

I give credit to Commissioner Valdez for handling a very difficult situation. He didn't do it as well as I would have liked, but his hands were somewhat tied.

First, he invited the Ethics Commission attorney to introduce her evidence. She needed to prove that the errors made by the Emerald campaign were so awful that they had to levy the largest fine possible for the infraction. She called both Ms. Emerald and her treasurer to the stand. She then closed her case...

The evidence did show that the treasurer contacted the commission as soon as she realized there could be a problem, that this was an isolated incident and that the Campaign Committee fully cooperated with Ethics Commission staff. (You can find the relevant Municipal Code regarding penalties here, under section 26.0438).

The code does not allow for penalties to be assessed if the commission thinks that there might have been negligence, if they can make innuendo as to the intention to deceive or if the executive director dislikes the candidate -- as she seemed to make an effort to show by her actions at the hearing. There needs to be proof...

The Ethics Commission did not attempt with its witness testimony to put any evidence into the record to prove that this was the most grievous error a campaign could make and therefore deserved the highest possible fine. It was that arrogance, that belief that they needed to make no effort to prove their case, that was the most striking action of the day to me.

So, despite that there had been no evidence given which would have allowed for a penalty, the hearing continued.

Mr. Ottillie was invited to call his witnesses. Immediately, the objections began.

Ms. Fulhorst, the Executive Director of the Ethics Commission had no place objecting -- that was for her attorney to do. And yet, she disrupted any attempt by Mr. Ottillie to put forward his evidence. She objected, sighed loudly into the microphone, tutted and tsked all the way through. Several times, when it appeared the witness might say something she didn't want to come out, she jumped in and actually testified before the witness could. But most of all, she objected to the waste of time it was for Mr. Ottillie to put forward any evidence. It was as if she believed that the outcome of the hearing was a predetermined thing, and the hearing was just a complete waste of her precious time.

I think we can all agree that a lot of the questions asked by Mr. Ottillie seemed somewhat pointless, but he has the right to put forward evidence of his client's innocence and to do so without the constant harassment of the person responsible for the assessment in the first place...

Lehman Insider's Letter Warned About Violating Code of Ethics

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gil Cabrera on San Diego's Ethics Commission

"I have marveled at the silly things people have done in an effort to gain an imaginary advantage over a political opponent...In my experience, the folks who claim the commission staff was heavy handed are the ones who obfuscated and delayed the staff's investigative efforts at every stage necessitating more aggressive actions...Unfortunately, some people under investigation take shots at the commission publicly knowing that we cannot respond because of limits on our ability to comment on ongoing investigations."
--Gil Cabrera

Looking at 2010: Gil Cabrera's Ethics
Scott Lewis
Voice of San Diego
January 7, 2010 3:20 pm

Gil Cabrera was considered the provocateur on the city of San Diego's Ethics Commission -- the one who pushed hardest, it seemed, in favor of things like lobbyist fundraising disclosure and campaign finance restrictions.

Among other laws, the Ethics Commission enforces the complex rules embodied in the city's Election Campaign Control Ordinance. For instance, candidates for City Council are not allowed to raise money for their campaigns until exactly one year before their Election Day.

The rules, and the fines the commission has exacted enforcing them, have infuriated local politicians (and, worse, their lawyers). The commission's funding, structure and leadership has been attacked.

Cabrera, a lawyer himself, was the commission's chairman and he served in that position quite well, I thought. But -- in a type of civic insult -- the mayor refused to reappoint him.

Now, Cabrera and other members of the commission are named in a lawsuit filed by a former City Council candidate, Phil Thalheimer. He is hoping to overturn many of the city's election laws.

I thought you might be interested in some reflections from Cabrera. I was.

What lessons do you take away from your time on the Ethics Commission?

Running for office is hard and the pressures associated with it and governing can lead to mistakes in judgment. I have marveled at the silly things people have done in an effort to gain an imaginary advantage over a political opponent. On a broader level, I have seen the inefficiency and disorganization within the city bureaucracy first hand. It seems things are often, if not usually, done with little pre-planning, that the departments are not usually pulling their oars at the same time and direction and that the private sector usually out negotiates the city...