Ten years ago I was amazed at the knee-jerk cover-up that occurred at my school, Castle Park Elementary in Chula Vista, regarding crimes committed by teachers. Ironically, my principal made a note of the fact that a district administrator didn't want reports written down. Of course, many things do get written down, and when that happens, the documents are often concealed.
The fact that Carlsbad schools claimed to have little or no record of complaints about Raymond Firth is not surprising. Vista Unified didn't appear to know much about David Irving Hatch, either. In fact, SDCOE-JPA enthusiastically supports concealment of what goes on in schools.
CARLSBAD: Parents of molested schoolgirls want policy changes
June 24, 2012
By TERI FIGUEROA
NCT
When a North County jury last week awarded $4.5 million to two young girls molested in the classroom by their Carlsbad elementary school teacher, the girls' mothers said they had wanted something more than money ---- they wanted policy changes.
The parents said they wanted Carlsbad Unified School District officials to monitor teachers better, document parental complaints better and notify parents when charges are filed accusing a teacher of criminal wrongdoing in the classroom.
"I really wanted the public to know how Carlsbad handled this and covered it up," said the mother of one of the victims. "It was never about the money for me."
...After Firth was sent to prison, the parents of the two victims ---- at least three girls have come forward ---- sued the district on behalf of their daughters. During the month-long trial, jurors heard testimony from parents who said that they had complained about catching Firth in potentially inappropriate interactions with young female students, including holding hands, placing them on their lap and being alone with them in the classroom.
According to David Ring, the Los Angeles-based attorney who represented the two girls during the civil trial, Firth said school officials had talked to him about such matters about eight separate times.
But the school had little to no substantial documentation of parental complaints, Ring said.
"We can't make them change the policy," Ring said, "but the public can."
Jurors found the school district was negligent in supervising Firth, and found it was 40 percent responsible for what happened to the children...
"The point of the lawsuit was policy change," the mother of the other victim said.
Whether or how such changes were made remains hazy. In an interview last week, school board President Kelli Moors declined to say whether the case prompted specific policy changes.
But Moors said that "every time any incident happens, we do use them as training opportunities. ... When incidents happen, we use that to reexamine things."
"I know that in the wake of this incident, all of our administrators have undergone thorough training," Moors said. "For some it was a refresher, for others it was new. We have been diligent about making sure that we learn from this and making sure administration learns from this."
In October 2007, a young girl disclosed that her teacher, Raymond Firth, had groped her. Police were notified and administrators pulled Firth from the classroom.
Parents were not told about the allegations, nor were they told when ---- after a year of investigation by police ---- prosecutors charged the teacher with lewd and lascivious acts with children...
Showing posts with label . Shinoff (Daniel Shinoff). Show all posts
Showing posts with label . Shinoff (Daniel Shinoff). Show all posts
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Thursday, June 14, 2012
It's not our fault, say Carlsbad Schools and Allen Stanford in separate cases
UPDATE: YES, IT IS YOUR FAULT, SAY JURORS TO SCHOOL DISTRICT.
Jurors Award Molestation Victims $4.5M
Molester Responsible For 60%, School District 40% Of Award
Channel 10 News
June 19, 2012
San Diego County jurors have awarded two girls $4.5 million because they were molested by their Carlsbad elementary school teacher. The North County Times says jurors also ruled unanimously Monday that the Carlsbad Unified School District was negligent for failing to supervise the teacher...
In his 2010 criminal trial, 41-year-old Raymond Firth pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual battery and one of false imprisonment. He spent 22 months in prison and was released in March. He did not attend the civil trial. He will be responsible for 60 percent of the award, the school district for 40 percent.
An attorney for the district says he doesn't know if they will appeal.
Nobody seems to be watching as predators cavort in our schools and in our financial system.
Let's start with our schools. Even if schools wanted to lay off the bad teachers and keep the good teachers, they couldn't do it. Principals rarely observe teachers. Principals tend to form political alliances with the teachers who control the most powerful cliques. Given the worthless evaluation system in place now, laying off by seniority makes just as much sense as having principals choose who gets laid off. We need observations of teachers--done by professional evaluators.
Then there's our financial system. The SEC wasn't even enforcing the rules that were already on the books when Bernie Madoff stole his fortune. We need more regulation, but what good will it do unless we have good watchdogs?
This morning we have stories of two defendants, Carlsbad Unified School District and Ponzi artist Allen Stanford, who both say it wasn't their fault that innocent victims were harmed.
It's not the school's fault, says Dan Shinoff. "So why is the school district here? The school district is here because it has deep pockets. This is about money," says school attorney [Dan] Shinoff. But I notice there is an ad for a local Lutheran school next to the story. Obviously, some people are drawing the conclusion that the school wasn't as vigilant as it should have been.
Closing Arguments Begin In Case Against School District
June 13, 2012
Channel 10 News
CARLSBAD, Calif.
Closing statements began Wednesday in a civil lawsuit against the Carlsbad Unified School District over a former teacher sent to prison for sexually abusing two students.
The parents of two girls are suing the district for an undisclosed amount in connection with the 2010 sexual battery conviction of 39-year-old Raymond Firth, a former teacher at Pacific Rim Elementary School. The parents say the district failed to protect their children from Firth, who was a teacher at the school for seven years.
Firth pleaded guilty in 2010 to molesting three little female students he was entrusted to teach. The 41-year-old was sentenced to 3-and-a-half years in prison but was released in March after serving just 22 months.
In court Wednesday, Firth was called a "monster" and a "master manipulator." The victims' attorney, David Ring, told jurors how the sexual abuse has devastated their lives.
"She has post-traumatic stress disorder from the molestation," Ring said of one of the girls.
Ring stressed how the psychological effects will haunt the girls, now teens, forever. "This is their one chance to come to court so the verdict you render is not just for now it's for the rest of their lives," Ring told the court.
Dan Shinoff, who represents the school district, reminded jurors it was Firth who sexually abused his students and the district should not be held liable for the ex-teacher's deviant behavior.
Shinoff said, "He is an animal, the worst of animals."
Shinoff also questioned why the victims' parents weren't going after the former teacher for compensatory damages.
"So why is the school district here? The school district is here because it has deep pockets. This is about money," said Shinoff.
Firth did have to testify, but he did so by video.
Closing arguments resume Thursday.
And who does Stanford blame for the damage to innocent victims? The prosecutors who charged him!
Stanford blames U.S. for destroying his business
U.S. urges 230 years prison for Allen Stanford
Jun 14, 2012
(Reuters)
Allen Stanford, facing sentencing for running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, on Thursday blamed the U.S. government for ruining his business and said he never intended to defraud anyone.
"They destroyed it and turned it to nothing," Stanford said in federal court in Houston, where he was found fuilty last March of fraud and conspiracy. "Stanford was a real brick-and-mortar global financial empire."
Stanford spoke haltingly and appeared to struggle to control emotion at the sentencing hearing. Prosecutors have asked for a sentence of 230 years, arguing in court papers that Stanford's crime was "one of the most egregious frauds in history." His attorneys have asked for a sentence of about 3 years, or the same amount of time Stanford has been in federal custody.
Jurors Award Molestation Victims $4.5M
Molester Responsible For 60%, School District 40% Of Award
Channel 10 News
June 19, 2012
San Diego County jurors have awarded two girls $4.5 million because they were molested by their Carlsbad elementary school teacher. The North County Times says jurors also ruled unanimously Monday that the Carlsbad Unified School District was negligent for failing to supervise the teacher...
In his 2010 criminal trial, 41-year-old Raymond Firth pleaded guilty to two counts of sexual battery and one of false imprisonment. He spent 22 months in prison and was released in March. He did not attend the civil trial. He will be responsible for 60 percent of the award, the school district for 40 percent.
An attorney for the district says he doesn't know if they will appeal.
Nobody seems to be watching as predators cavort in our schools and in our financial system.
Let's start with our schools. Even if schools wanted to lay off the bad teachers and keep the good teachers, they couldn't do it. Principals rarely observe teachers. Principals tend to form political alliances with the teachers who control the most powerful cliques. Given the worthless evaluation system in place now, laying off by seniority makes just as much sense as having principals choose who gets laid off. We need observations of teachers--done by professional evaluators.
Then there's our financial system. The SEC wasn't even enforcing the rules that were already on the books when Bernie Madoff stole his fortune. We need more regulation, but what good will it do unless we have good watchdogs?
This morning we have stories of two defendants, Carlsbad Unified School District and Ponzi artist Allen Stanford, who both say it wasn't their fault that innocent victims were harmed.
It's not the school's fault, says Dan Shinoff. "So why is the school district here? The school district is here because it has deep pockets. This is about money," says school attorney [Dan] Shinoff. But I notice there is an ad for a local Lutheran school next to the story. Obviously, some people are drawing the conclusion that the school wasn't as vigilant as it should have been.
Closing Arguments Begin In Case Against School District
June 13, 2012
Channel 10 News
CARLSBAD, Calif.
Closing statements began Wednesday in a civil lawsuit against the Carlsbad Unified School District over a former teacher sent to prison for sexually abusing two students.
The parents of two girls are suing the district for an undisclosed amount in connection with the 2010 sexual battery conviction of 39-year-old Raymond Firth, a former teacher at Pacific Rim Elementary School. The parents say the district failed to protect their children from Firth, who was a teacher at the school for seven years.
Firth pleaded guilty in 2010 to molesting three little female students he was entrusted to teach. The 41-year-old was sentenced to 3-and-a-half years in prison but was released in March after serving just 22 months.
In court Wednesday, Firth was called a "monster" and a "master manipulator." The victims' attorney, David Ring, told jurors how the sexual abuse has devastated their lives.
"She has post-traumatic stress disorder from the molestation," Ring said of one of the girls.
Ring stressed how the psychological effects will haunt the girls, now teens, forever. "This is their one chance to come to court so the verdict you render is not just for now it's for the rest of their lives," Ring told the court.
Dan Shinoff, who represents the school district, reminded jurors it was Firth who sexually abused his students and the district should not be held liable for the ex-teacher's deviant behavior.
Shinoff said, "He is an animal, the worst of animals."
Shinoff also questioned why the victims' parents weren't going after the former teacher for compensatory damages.
"So why is the school district here? The school district is here because it has deep pockets. This is about money," said Shinoff.
Firth did have to testify, but he did so by video.
Closing arguments resume Thursday.
And who does Stanford blame for the damage to innocent victims? The prosecutors who charged him!
Stanford blames U.S. for destroying his business
U.S. urges 230 years prison for Allen Stanford
Jun 14, 2012
(Reuters)
Allen Stanford, facing sentencing for running a $7 billion Ponzi scheme, on Thursday blamed the U.S. government for ruining his business and said he never intended to defraud anyone.
"They destroyed it and turned it to nothing," Stanford said in federal court in Houston, where he was found fuilty last March of fraud and conspiracy. "Stanford was a real brick-and-mortar global financial empire."
Stanford spoke haltingly and appeared to struggle to control emotion at the sentencing hearing. Prosecutors have asked for a sentence of 230 years, arguing in court papers that Stanford's crime was "one of the most egregious frauds in history." His attorneys have asked for a sentence of about 3 years, or the same amount of time Stanford has been in federal custody.
Wednesday, June 13, 2012
Politics makes strange bedfellows: Scott Peters is sharing the office of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
Click on image to enlarge. The other day I happened across the information that former San Diego City Councilman and current candidate for Brian Bilbray's seat in Congress (50th District) has an office in the upstairs suite of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz in Liberty Station.
I'm trying to figure out how Scott Peters got together with Stutz law firm. Is it possible that there were no offices available among more moderate law firms? Or is Peters a personal friend of someone in the office?
Stutz has proudly presented itself as a "conservative" firm since the days it was Stutz Gallagher Artiano Shinoff & Holtz--an era which ended abruptly in 2004 when Robert Gallagher decided he'd rather work for Higgs, Fletcher and Mack than stay in the firm he founded.
In 1997 Mr. Shinoff proclaimed his political leanings in a letter (see image) offering legal services to Grossmont Unified High School District. Bizarrely, even Grossmont board member Priscilla Schreiber, the noted homophobe, managed to find herself on the outside when board member Ron Nehring (yes, that Ron Nehring), and then Superintendent Terry Ryan, took the district to the farthest reaches of right-wing politics. Board member Schreiber actually hired her own lawyers, Currier and Hudson, while Ryan was represented by Stutz law firm.
I know Scott Peters is not the most progressive Democrat, but I don't see him as the Ron Nehring/Terry Ryan type. So how did Dan Shinoff and Scott Peters manage to become office mates?
Sunday, June 10, 2012
FALLBROOK: Ex-tech director says school district officials ordered her to destroy emails
The North County Times story is extremely different from the Union Tribune version of this story. (Both versions can be seen below.) The UT author (and, very likely, her boss, Ricky Young) seem to have relied entirely on school district lawyer Dan Shinoff for their story. Interestingly, the Union-Tribune has kept silent on the story of the defamation suit against this blogger by Dan Shinoff's law firm, which is set for trial on September 7, 2012. Ironically, given the discussion in the article below about the hacking of Fallbrook's emails, my "Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz" page (and countless other pages in my web site) have been hacked again and again over the past several years.
FALLBROOK: Ex-tech director says school district officials ordered her to destroy emails
By GARY WARTH
nctimes.com
June 10, 2012
The former director of educational technology for the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District has filed a $972,000 civil lawsuit against the district, alleging she was wrongfully fired after being falsely accused of snooping through emails.
The suit, filed May 31 by Encinitas resident Elaine Allyn, includes allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wasteful spending. She also claims that a district investigation into a teacher suspected of videotaping students was hampered because an administrator had ordered emails deleted, inadvertently destroying possible evidence.
Besides the $972,000 cited in the lawsuit, Allyn's attorney Susan Curran said her client also will be seeking lost past and future income, lost benefits, attorney fees and punitive damages.
Dennis Bixler, assistant superintendent of human resources, said the school board meet in closed session last month to discuss the claim Allyn had filed as a prerequisite to the lawsuit. Trustees rejected part of the claim and sent other parts back without action because they were untimely, meaning they had happened too far in the past, he said.
[Maura Larkins comment: This is exactly what the district has been instructed to do, by San Diego County Office of Education, with ALL CLAIMS.]
In the complaint, Allyn said she had been a district employee for 18 years and was earning about $109,000 a year when she was fired in May.
According to the lawsuit, Allyn had been subjected to six years of harassment from Ray Proctor, associate superintendent of business services at the district, who had become vindictive after learning she had complained that he made an inappropriate comment about her in a Cabinet meeting in 2005.
...According to the lawsuit, Proctor had said Allyn must have "slept with the vendor" to get the district its good cellphone contract.
Allyn said in the lawsuit that the human resources department ignored her complaint about Proctor, but her accusation was leaked to him. For the next six years, according to the suit, he was overly critical of her, giving her smaller budgets than her male counterparts and denying her staff assistance.
Also in the lawsuit, Proctor is said to have asked Allyn in early August 2011 to wipe out or cleanse the district's entire electronic data imaging from its archive system and to wipe out all emails that were in the trash bin of the active system.
The district hired Candy Singh as the new superintendent last August. According to the complaint, Singh also requested Allyn delete old imaging and emails, and Allyn said she again refused because it was a violation of state and federal laws.
At Singh's and Proctor's insistence, however, Allyn later hired a consultant to help dismantle the archive system, according to the lawsuit.
Last January, the lawsuit continues, Allyn was asked to assist in the investigation against a teacher suspected of videotaping students. Allyn said she scanned the video camera and found nothing incriminating, but was unable to provide a backlog of the teacher's emails, as requested by private investigator Bob Price, because there were few to read since Proctor and Singh had order a change to the archive system.
According to the lawsuit, Proctor asked Allyn for an administrative password to access additional log files on the computer system.
After she complied, Allyn said she was called in to Proctor's office and accused of illegally accessing and reading employee emails.
Allyn said the accusation was unfounded, as employee emails are not considered private and district policy gives her the right and ability to access emails and electronic files without prior notice or consent.
Bixler, however, said that while the emails are not considered private, and supervisors have the right to look into the emails of subordinates, Allyn was looking into the emails of her supervisors.
[All school emails are public records, arent' they?]
According to the lawsuit, Allyn said she was accused of looking into Singh's emails because she knew about complaints against the superintendent, including how $30,000 had been spent on new office furniture and remodeling. Allyn said in the suit that she knew of the complaints about the spending because people in the district were talking about them, not because she snooped in emails.
But according to a district notice outlining existing causes to discipline Allyn, which Bixler signed April 12 and provided to the North County Times, the investigator hired by the district found other indications that Allyn was looking into the superintendent's and other administrators' emails.
In her lawsuit, Allyn denied ever looking into the superintendent's emails.
[Maura Larkins comment: Both the elementary and high school districts in Fallbrook buy their liability insurance through SDCOE-JPA. Daniel Shinoff is the SDCOE-JPA lawyer who usually represents the district when it is sued.]
Fallbrook schools in fight over alleged email hacks
By Ashly McGlone
June 12, 2012 at 12:01 a.m.
The former technology director is suing the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District for nearly $1 million, alleging she was wrongfully terminated for erasing emails from the district’s email system. She claims she was told to do so, but the district accuses her of hacking.
Elaine Allyn of Encinitas claims the superintendent and assistant superintendent of business services directed her to dismantle the district’s email archive in August, permanently erasing emails in trash folders systemwide.
She also claims she was asked to change district computers so they would retain emails for one week — down from three years.
Her lawsuit says she told the superintendent the move would violate state and federal laws governing public agency records retention, and she was ultimately directed to keep undeleted emails for no more than one year, and deleted emails for no more than one week.
Allyn was fired May 7. The district claims she repeatedly hacked into administrator emails to snoop on her superiors for several months, and initiated unauthorized email deletions in “an attempt to evade detection of her deceitful activities” and destroy evidence of her email access.
District officials say Allyn’s actions were discovered in February when she was asked to retrieve the emails of a teacher under investigation by the district in a separate matter. (According to Allyn’s lawsuit, the teacher was accused of improperly videotaping students.)
When she could provide only limited documentation to an investigator looking into the allegations against the teacher, Allyn was placed under investigation and on a leave of absence.
Allyn maintains she accessed her boss’s emails solely to troubleshoot problems with their accounts and was following the boss’s orders, not acting on her own. Allyn claims in the lawsuit she was targeted for reporting sexual harassment by an administrator.
“I have never hacked,” Allyn said in an interview. “They have trumped up these charges, what has been my job for 18 years now and make it seem like I am untrustworthy, and hacking is appalling to me when I have tried to do my job with the utmost integrity and trustworthiness.”
Dennis Bixler, assistant superintendent of human resources, said the district stands by the charges against Allyn and her termination.
“The termination of Ms. Allyn was a just termination based on numerous acts of wrongdoing and violations of policies, procedures and laws. We look forward to being vindicated in time when this case is addressed in court,” Bixler said.
Attorney Dan Shinoff will represent the district. Allyn, whose final salary totaled $109,077 a year, retained attorney Susan Curran, of Encinitas-based Curran & Curran Law, to represent her.
The district has 30 days to respond to the lawsuit.
FALLBROOK: Ex-tech director says school district officials ordered her to destroy emails
By GARY WARTH
nctimes.com
June 10, 2012
The former director of educational technology for the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District has filed a $972,000 civil lawsuit against the district, alleging she was wrongfully fired after being falsely accused of snooping through emails.
The suit, filed May 31 by Encinitas resident Elaine Allyn, includes allegations of discrimination, harassment, retaliation and wasteful spending. She also claims that a district investigation into a teacher suspected of videotaping students was hampered because an administrator had ordered emails deleted, inadvertently destroying possible evidence.
Besides the $972,000 cited in the lawsuit, Allyn's attorney Susan Curran said her client also will be seeking lost past and future income, lost benefits, attorney fees and punitive damages.
Dennis Bixler, assistant superintendent of human resources, said the school board meet in closed session last month to discuss the claim Allyn had filed as a prerequisite to the lawsuit. Trustees rejected part of the claim and sent other parts back without action because they were untimely, meaning they had happened too far in the past, he said.
[Maura Larkins comment: This is exactly what the district has been instructed to do, by San Diego County Office of Education, with ALL CLAIMS.]
In the complaint, Allyn said she had been a district employee for 18 years and was earning about $109,000 a year when she was fired in May.
According to the lawsuit, Allyn had been subjected to six years of harassment from Ray Proctor, associate superintendent of business services at the district, who had become vindictive after learning she had complained that he made an inappropriate comment about her in a Cabinet meeting in 2005.
...According to the lawsuit, Proctor had said Allyn must have "slept with the vendor" to get the district its good cellphone contract.
Allyn said in the lawsuit that the human resources department ignored her complaint about Proctor, but her accusation was leaked to him. For the next six years, according to the suit, he was overly critical of her, giving her smaller budgets than her male counterparts and denying her staff assistance.
Also in the lawsuit, Proctor is said to have asked Allyn in early August 2011 to wipe out or cleanse the district's entire electronic data imaging from its archive system and to wipe out all emails that were in the trash bin of the active system.
The district hired Candy Singh as the new superintendent last August. According to the complaint, Singh also requested Allyn delete old imaging and emails, and Allyn said she again refused because it was a violation of state and federal laws.
At Singh's and Proctor's insistence, however, Allyn later hired a consultant to help dismantle the archive system, according to the lawsuit.
Last January, the lawsuit continues, Allyn was asked to assist in the investigation against a teacher suspected of videotaping students. Allyn said she scanned the video camera and found nothing incriminating, but was unable to provide a backlog of the teacher's emails, as requested by private investigator Bob Price, because there were few to read since Proctor and Singh had order a change to the archive system.
According to the lawsuit, Proctor asked Allyn for an administrative password to access additional log files on the computer system.
After she complied, Allyn said she was called in to Proctor's office and accused of illegally accessing and reading employee emails.
Allyn said the accusation was unfounded, as employee emails are not considered private and district policy gives her the right and ability to access emails and electronic files without prior notice or consent.
Bixler, however, said that while the emails are not considered private, and supervisors have the right to look into the emails of subordinates, Allyn was looking into the emails of her supervisors.
[All school emails are public records, arent' they?]
According to the lawsuit, Allyn said she was accused of looking into Singh's emails because she knew about complaints against the superintendent, including how $30,000 had been spent on new office furniture and remodeling. Allyn said in the suit that she knew of the complaints about the spending because people in the district were talking about them, not because she snooped in emails.
But according to a district notice outlining existing causes to discipline Allyn, which Bixler signed April 12 and provided to the North County Times, the investigator hired by the district found other indications that Allyn was looking into the superintendent's and other administrators' emails.
In her lawsuit, Allyn denied ever looking into the superintendent's emails.
[Maura Larkins comment: Both the elementary and high school districts in Fallbrook buy their liability insurance through SDCOE-JPA. Daniel Shinoff is the SDCOE-JPA lawyer who usually represents the district when it is sued.]
Fallbrook schools in fight over alleged email hacks
By Ashly McGlone
June 12, 2012 at 12:01 a.m.
The former technology director is suing the Fallbrook Union Elementary School District for nearly $1 million, alleging she was wrongfully terminated for erasing emails from the district’s email system. She claims she was told to do so, but the district accuses her of hacking.
Elaine Allyn of Encinitas claims the superintendent and assistant superintendent of business services directed her to dismantle the district’s email archive in August, permanently erasing emails in trash folders systemwide.
She also claims she was asked to change district computers so they would retain emails for one week — down from three years.
Her lawsuit says she told the superintendent the move would violate state and federal laws governing public agency records retention, and she was ultimately directed to keep undeleted emails for no more than one year, and deleted emails for no more than one week.
Allyn was fired May 7. The district claims she repeatedly hacked into administrator emails to snoop on her superiors for several months, and initiated unauthorized email deletions in “an attempt to evade detection of her deceitful activities” and destroy evidence of her email access.
District officials say Allyn’s actions were discovered in February when she was asked to retrieve the emails of a teacher under investigation by the district in a separate matter. (According to Allyn’s lawsuit, the teacher was accused of improperly videotaping students.)
When she could provide only limited documentation to an investigator looking into the allegations against the teacher, Allyn was placed under investigation and on a leave of absence.
Allyn maintains she accessed her boss’s emails solely to troubleshoot problems with their accounts and was following the boss’s orders, not acting on her own. Allyn claims in the lawsuit she was targeted for reporting sexual harassment by an administrator.
“I have never hacked,” Allyn said in an interview. “They have trumped up these charges, what has been my job for 18 years now and make it seem like I am untrustworthy, and hacking is appalling to me when I have tried to do my job with the utmost integrity and trustworthiness.”
Dennis Bixler, assistant superintendent of human resources, said the district stands by the charges against Allyn and her termination.
“The termination of Ms. Allyn was a just termination based on numerous acts of wrongdoing and violations of policies, procedures and laws. We look forward to being vindicated in time when this case is addressed in court,” Bixler said.
Attorney Dan Shinoff will represent the district. Allyn, whose final salary totaled $109,077 a year, retained attorney Susan Curran, of Encinitas-based Curran & Curran Law, to represent her.
The district has 30 days to respond to the lawsuit.
Friday, June 1, 2012
D.A. won't charge accused Capistrano Unified coaches
D.A. won't charge accused coaches
By SCOTT MARTINDALE AND DAN ALBANO
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
May 31, 2012
A group of former Capistrano Unified high school coaches accused of taking part in an elaborate kickback scheme involving a sports equipment company will not face criminal charges, authorities announced Wednesday.
The Orange County District Attorney's Office said it would not file charges against the Capistrano Unified coaches who did business with Lapes Athletic Team Sales in Laguna Hills, including three who were fired from their full-time teaching jobs in February.
Former San Clemente High head football coach Eric Patton talks to his team during practice in 2010. Patton, a 12-year veteran of the program had been working as head coach until he was put on leave in August 2011. Patton was fired in February by Capistrano Unified trustees from his job as a full-time English teacher at the school.
"Based on the evidence submitted to us, we did not feel there was sufficient evidence to prove a criminal case," D.A. spokeswoman Farrah Emami said. "We need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred."
Capistrano coaches and teachers Charles "Chi Chi" Biehn, Brent Melbon and Eric Patton were terminated after the school district accused them of stealing tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money.
Four other coaches and teachers – Ken Goldstone, Jeff Veeder, Joe Wood and Ken Workman – were formally reprimanded after being put on leave from their coaching duties.
Patton, the former head football coach at San Clemente, said he was pleased by the District Attorney's decision.
"We have maintained our innocence all along," he said. "I'm just very gratified that the Orange County Sheriff's Department and District Attorney have issued this (statement). It exonerates the coaches and validates our position."
Patton also said he hopes the decision will help restore his reputation.
"I would love to ask (Capistrano Superintendent) Dr. (Joe) Farley what door I walk through to get my good name and reputation back," he said.
Biehn, the former football coach at Capistrano Valley, added: "Obviously, if I'm not going to jail, it's great news."
An eight-month Capistrano Unified investigation concluded that the coaches maintained personal spending accounts with now-defunct Lapes Athletic, allowing the coaches to convert district funds into personal credits that they could spend as they saw fit, without district oversight.
A Register investigation last year found much of the taxpayer money appeared to have been spent on athletic programs, but the district concluded thousands of dollars went to buy personal gear for the coaches, a violation of district policy.
In the coaches' termination reports, Capistrano Unified indicated at least nine state and federal laws had been violated.
Capistrano attorney Daniel Shinoff said the D.A.'s decision not to file charges was unrelated to and had no bearing on the district's disciplinary decisions.
"The D.A. is looking at a burden of proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt, so they are looking at it from a very different perspective," Shinoff said. "What we're looking at was whether there was violation of school district policy and whether the violations of those policies rose to a level that someone should be subjected to termination."
After the district completed its internal investigation last year, the Orange County Sheriff's Department launched a probe. The sheriff's findings, which were never made public, were turned over to the D.A.'s office about a month ago.
In deciding not to file criminal charges, D.A. investigators cited "a lack of sufficient evidence to show criminal intent or a diversion of funds for personal use."
Emami declined to elaborate on that statement or to confirm which coaches were investigated. But she said the D.A. would reopen the case if additional evidence or information were to come forward. "I'm innocent," Patton said. "Due process is about proof, and this is part of the due process." Patton and Biehn both confirmed that they have appealed their terminations. Patton said he believes the D.A.'s decision will help them succeed in their appeals.
"I realize there is another process involved here but it is based on the same evidence and the same facts," Patton said. "I just hope this whole thing can be over for everybody who is facing further hearings."
Neighboring Saddleback Valley Unified is conducting an internal investigation into its employees' involvement with Lapes Athletic. That investigation, which has spanned about a year, is ongoing, said spokeswoman Tammy Blakely.
Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, meanwhile, disciplined one athletic department employee in the Lapes Athletic matter, while Irvine Unified completed an investigation but determined no wrongdoing on the part of its employees.
By SCOTT MARTINDALE AND DAN ALBANO
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
May 31, 2012
A group of former Capistrano Unified high school coaches accused of taking part in an elaborate kickback scheme involving a sports equipment company will not face criminal charges, authorities announced Wednesday.
The Orange County District Attorney's Office said it would not file charges against the Capistrano Unified coaches who did business with Lapes Athletic Team Sales in Laguna Hills, including three who were fired from their full-time teaching jobs in February.
Former San Clemente High head football coach Eric Patton talks to his team during practice in 2010. Patton, a 12-year veteran of the program had been working as head coach until he was put on leave in August 2011. Patton was fired in February by Capistrano Unified trustees from his job as a full-time English teacher at the school.
"Based on the evidence submitted to us, we did not feel there was sufficient evidence to prove a criminal case," D.A. spokeswoman Farrah Emami said. "We need to be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a crime occurred."
Capistrano coaches and teachers Charles "Chi Chi" Biehn, Brent Melbon and Eric Patton were terminated after the school district accused them of stealing tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayer money.
Four other coaches and teachers – Ken Goldstone, Jeff Veeder, Joe Wood and Ken Workman – were formally reprimanded after being put on leave from their coaching duties.
Patton, the former head football coach at San Clemente, said he was pleased by the District Attorney's decision.
"We have maintained our innocence all along," he said. "I'm just very gratified that the Orange County Sheriff's Department and District Attorney have issued this (statement). It exonerates the coaches and validates our position."
Patton also said he hopes the decision will help restore his reputation.
"I would love to ask (Capistrano Superintendent) Dr. (Joe) Farley what door I walk through to get my good name and reputation back," he said.
Biehn, the former football coach at Capistrano Valley, added: "Obviously, if I'm not going to jail, it's great news."
An eight-month Capistrano Unified investigation concluded that the coaches maintained personal spending accounts with now-defunct Lapes Athletic, allowing the coaches to convert district funds into personal credits that they could spend as they saw fit, without district oversight.
A Register investigation last year found much of the taxpayer money appeared to have been spent on athletic programs, but the district concluded thousands of dollars went to buy personal gear for the coaches, a violation of district policy.
In the coaches' termination reports, Capistrano Unified indicated at least nine state and federal laws had been violated.
Capistrano attorney Daniel Shinoff said the D.A.'s decision not to file charges was unrelated to and had no bearing on the district's disciplinary decisions.
"The D.A. is looking at a burden of proof that is beyond a reasonable doubt, so they are looking at it from a very different perspective," Shinoff said. "What we're looking at was whether there was violation of school district policy and whether the violations of those policies rose to a level that someone should be subjected to termination."
After the district completed its internal investigation last year, the Orange County Sheriff's Department launched a probe. The sheriff's findings, which were never made public, were turned over to the D.A.'s office about a month ago.
In deciding not to file criminal charges, D.A. investigators cited "a lack of sufficient evidence to show criminal intent or a diversion of funds for personal use."
Emami declined to elaborate on that statement or to confirm which coaches were investigated. But she said the D.A. would reopen the case if additional evidence or information were to come forward. "I'm innocent," Patton said. "Due process is about proof, and this is part of the due process." Patton and Biehn both confirmed that they have appealed their terminations. Patton said he believes the D.A.'s decision will help them succeed in their appeals.
"I realize there is another process involved here but it is based on the same evidence and the same facts," Patton said. "I just hope this whole thing can be over for everybody who is facing further hearings."
Neighboring Saddleback Valley Unified is conducting an internal investigation into its employees' involvement with Lapes Athletic. That investigation, which has spanned about a year, is ongoing, said spokeswoman Tammy Blakely.
Saddleback College in Mission Viejo, meanwhile, disciplined one athletic department employee in the Lapes Athletic matter, while Irvine Unified completed an investigation but determined no wrongdoing on the part of its employees.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
From the teacher defamation files: Poway school district settles psychologist's defamation complaint
It seems that school districts have problems with psychologists who evaluate children who need special education. Often districts want to save money by evading state laws. In the B.J. Freeman case, Stutz law firm conducted a lawsuit on behalf of Vista Unified School District against a psychologist who insisted that a child qualified for special education. The psychologist did not back down, and Dan Shinoff was forced to drop the suit.
I suspect this case concerns the opposite situation: the psychologist did exactly as the school district wished. I suspect that he intentionally wrote evaluations in which children who qualified for special education were found not to need it. This, of course, made the teachers angry. But since he had done what the district asked, the district paid him off. Here's the story of an administrator, Mary Anne Weegar, who insisted that her school district obey the law. All three school districts involved in the above cases have Daniel Shinoff as their lawyer.
Poway school district settles psychologist's defamation complaint
By Eleanor Yang
SDUT
June 20, 2001
The Poway Unified School District has agreed to pay $50,000 to a school psychologist who filed complaints against the district alleging slander, defamation, retaliation and violations of state laws.
Robert Gregory Nunn, who has worked for the district since 1999, will resign June 30 as part of the settlement agreement. Nunn worked full time at mt. Carmel High School and made special education assessments at several elementary schools.
The district denied a Union-Tribune request for records pertaining to Nunn's complaints, stating they were made orally and that there were no documents to release...
I suspect this case concerns the opposite situation: the psychologist did exactly as the school district wished. I suspect that he intentionally wrote evaluations in which children who qualified for special education were found not to need it. This, of course, made the teachers angry. But since he had done what the district asked, the district paid him off. Here's the story of an administrator, Mary Anne Weegar, who insisted that her school district obey the law. All three school districts involved in the above cases have Daniel Shinoff as their lawyer.
Poway school district settles psychologist's defamation complaint
By Eleanor Yang
SDUT
June 20, 2001
The Poway Unified School District has agreed to pay $50,000 to a school psychologist who filed complaints against the district alleging slander, defamation, retaliation and violations of state laws.
Robert Gregory Nunn, who has worked for the district since 1999, will resign June 30 as part of the settlement agreement. Nunn worked full time at mt. Carmel High School and made special education assessments at several elementary schools.
The district denied a Union-Tribune request for records pertaining to Nunn's complaints, stating they were made orally and that there were no documents to release...
San Ysidro school bonds placed on watch
San Ysidro school bonds placed on watch
The issue is a lawsuit that wasn't disclosed to potential investors
Jeff McDonald
May 25, 2012
A New York bond-rating agency on Friday warned that it may lower its A and A-plus grades for $132 million worth of bond offerings from the San Ysidro School District, saying analysts were not told about a breach-of-contract lawsuit against the South Bay district.
The district’s bond counsel says there was no need to disclose the lawsuit to potential investors because property taxes are a stable revenue source.
Still, Fitch Ratings acted in response to questions from The Watchdog, which sought an explanation for why the litigation was not disclosed in a favorable analysis released last week.
“The negative rating watch is based on Fitch learning of a complaint of breach of contract filed against the district, which was not disclosed to Fitch in conjunction with last week’s rating action,” the company said. “Fitch has requested additional information from the district.”
It is not clear how the action will affect the district’s construction plans. Board President Paul Randolph referred questions to Superintendent Manuel Paul, who did not respond to multiple calls and emails starting Thursday morning.
Daniel Shinoff, the district’s lawyer, issued a brief statement Friday saying his clients will comply with Fitch’s request for more information.
“The district has always taken the required measures to ensure full disclosure to ratings agencies, and the district does not believe they have legitimate financial risks to the bond offering out of this lawsuit,” Shinoff said.
The rating agency resisted discussing details about why it placed the bond offerings on a negative-watch status, saying a review of its initial analysis was pending.
“Fitch will take rating action when appropriate, which may result in an affirmation, downgrade or withdrawal,” a statement said.
On May 17, Fitch issued an A-plus rating for up to $101.5 million in general obligation bonds and an A rating for $31.5 million in certificates of participation.
The district was sued last month for nearly $18 million by EcoBusiness Alliance, a company that was retained to install solar energy projects at various San Ysidro campuses.
According to that six-page complaint filed April 5, district officials reneged on the $17.9 million agreement late last year without explaining why. The district contends the company did not perform.
EcoBusiness Alliance filed a claim against the San Ysidro School District in February and followed up with the lawsuit last month.
“Plaintiffs have neither abandoned nor neglected their obligations and responsibilities under terms of the contract and at all times have been ready, willing and able to perform,” the suit states.
According to attorney Warren Diven of the law firm Best Best & Krieger, which served as bond counsel for the district, disclosure of the lawsuit was not required...
The issue is a lawsuit that wasn't disclosed to potential investors
Jeff McDonald
May 25, 2012
A New York bond-rating agency on Friday warned that it may lower its A and A-plus grades for $132 million worth of bond offerings from the San Ysidro School District, saying analysts were not told about a breach-of-contract lawsuit against the South Bay district.
The district’s bond counsel says there was no need to disclose the lawsuit to potential investors because property taxes are a stable revenue source.
Still, Fitch Ratings acted in response to questions from The Watchdog, which sought an explanation for why the litigation was not disclosed in a favorable analysis released last week.
“The negative rating watch is based on Fitch learning of a complaint of breach of contract filed against the district, which was not disclosed to Fitch in conjunction with last week’s rating action,” the company said. “Fitch has requested additional information from the district.”
It is not clear how the action will affect the district’s construction plans. Board President Paul Randolph referred questions to Superintendent Manuel Paul, who did not respond to multiple calls and emails starting Thursday morning.
Daniel Shinoff, the district’s lawyer, issued a brief statement Friday saying his clients will comply with Fitch’s request for more information.
“The district has always taken the required measures to ensure full disclosure to ratings agencies, and the district does not believe they have legitimate financial risks to the bond offering out of this lawsuit,” Shinoff said.
The rating agency resisted discussing details about why it placed the bond offerings on a negative-watch status, saying a review of its initial analysis was pending.
“Fitch will take rating action when appropriate, which may result in an affirmation, downgrade or withdrawal,” a statement said.
On May 17, Fitch issued an A-plus rating for up to $101.5 million in general obligation bonds and an A rating for $31.5 million in certificates of participation.
The district was sued last month for nearly $18 million by EcoBusiness Alliance, a company that was retained to install solar energy projects at various San Ysidro campuses.
According to that six-page complaint filed April 5, district officials reneged on the $17.9 million agreement late last year without explaining why. The district contends the company did not perform.
EcoBusiness Alliance filed a claim against the San Ysidro School District in February and followed up with the lawsuit last month.
“Plaintiffs have neither abandoned nor neglected their obligations and responsibilities under terms of the contract and at all times have been ready, willing and able to perform,” the suit states.
According to attorney Warren Diven of the law firm Best Best & Krieger, which served as bond counsel for the district, disclosure of the lawsuit was not required...
Thursday, May 17, 2012
CARLSBAD: Trial starts for girls suing school in sexual abuse claim
See update HERE. CARLSBAD: Trial starts for girls suing school in sexual abuse claim
By TERI FIGUEROA
tfigueroa@nctimes.com
May 16, 2012
A former teacher convicted of sexual battery against two Carlsbad elementary school girls is out of prison after less than two years, according to state prison officials, but his name does not appear on the state's Megan's Law website.
The teacher, Raymond Lewis Firth, 41, was released from prison on March 3, a state prison official said.
On Monday, jury selection began in a civil trial involving two of Firth's young victims, whose parents are suing Carlsbad Unified School District on their behalf. The suit says that the school district was negligent in monitoring Firth during the seven years he taught at Pacific Rim Elementary School...
By TERI FIGUEROA
tfigueroa@nctimes.com
May 16, 2012
A former teacher convicted of sexual battery against two Carlsbad elementary school girls is out of prison after less than two years, according to state prison officials, but his name does not appear on the state's Megan's Law website.
The teacher, Raymond Lewis Firth, 41, was released from prison on March 3, a state prison official said.
On Monday, jury selection began in a civil trial involving two of Firth's young victims, whose parents are suing Carlsbad Unified School District on their behalf. The suit says that the school district was negligent in monitoring Firth during the seven years he taught at Pacific Rim Elementary School...
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Bad news for SDCOE's Diane Crosier and Rick Rinear from the California Court of Appeals
Rodger Hartnett has won an important decision in the California Court of Appeal regarding his lawsuit against Diance Crosier and Rick Rinear of the San Diego County Office of Education. See the article by law firm Dannis Woliver Kelley about the April 26, 2012 decision.
California Court of Appeal Determines Supervisory or Management Employees May Be Held Liable for Retaliation under the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act
Vol. 2012, Client Bulletin No. 12
Dannis Woliver Kelley
May 2, 2012
On April 26, 2012, the Fourth District California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Hartnett v. Crosier (D058914), a case in which a former employee of the San Diego County Office of Education (“SDCOE”) sued several SDCOE employees, alleging that they retaliated against him in violation of the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act (Ed. Code, § 44110 et seq.). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court in part, holding that management employees may be liable for retaliation under the Education Code.
The California Legislature enacted the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act (“Act”) in 2000, so that public school employees, particularly classified school employees and teachers, may “bring forward to their supervisors or management improper activities without having to fear they are endangering their jobs.” Education Code section 44113 prohibits employees from using or attempting to use official authority or influence to interfere with protected disclosures under the Act.
A protected disclosure is a good faith communication that discloses or demonstrates an intention to disclose information that may evidence either an improper governmental activity or a condition threatening health or safety of public employees for purposes of remedying the condition.
The Act’s prohibition on use of official authority or influence to interfere with a protected disclosure includes “promising to confer or conferring any benefit; affecting or threatening to affect any reprisal; or taking, directing others to take, recommending, processing, or approving any personnel action, including but not limited to appointment, promotion, transfer, assignment, performance evaluation, or other disciplinary action.” (Ed. Code, § 44113, subd. (b).) An employee who violates the prohibition may be liable in an action for civil damages brought against the employee by the offended party. ''
Education Code section 44114, subdivisions (b) and (c) provide also that a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a public school employee or applicant for having made a protected disclosure is subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 and imprisonment in jail for up to one year as well as liability for civil damages, including punitive damages for malicious acts.
Rodger Hartnett’s complaint stated that he was a claims coordinator in SDCOE’s risk management department. He alleged that he was discharged in 2007 not for incompetency, insubordination, and dishonesty as contended, but in retaliation by several SDCOE employees for reporting that some SDCOE employees referred legal business to friends and family members in exchange for gifts, gratuities, and discounted personal legal services. He claimed his discharge violated the Act and entitled him to punative damages and attorney fees among other relief.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the individual employee defendants... Hartnett appealed, contending the trial court erred in these determinations.
Decision The Court of Appeal held that management employees who are also supervisory employees with authority over personnel actions are not exempt from liability under the Act...The Court agreed with the Third District Court of Appeal’s conclusion in Conn v. Western Placer Unified School Dist. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1163, that Education Code section 44113 does not exempt management employees from liability for retaliation if the employees were acting as supervisory employees when they committed the allegedly offending acts. In Hartnett, the Court of Appeal reasoned that to exempt management employees exercising supervisory authority in personnel actions would exempt those most likely and able to retaliate against employees making protected disclosures and thwart the Act’s very purpose...
Management employees may be held liable for claims of retaliation under the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act if such employees are acting as supervisory employees with authority over personnel actions when they commit the allegedly offending acts.
California Court of Appeal Determines Supervisory or Management Employees May Be Held Liable for Retaliation under the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act
Vol. 2012, Client Bulletin No. 12
Dannis Woliver Kelley
May 2, 2012
On April 26, 2012, the Fourth District California Court of Appeal issued its decision in Hartnett v. Crosier (D058914), a case in which a former employee of the San Diego County Office of Education (“SDCOE”) sued several SDCOE employees, alleging that they retaliated against him in violation of the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act (Ed. Code, § 44110 et seq.). The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court in part, holding that management employees may be liable for retaliation under the Education Code.
The California Legislature enacted the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act (“Act”) in 2000, so that public school employees, particularly classified school employees and teachers, may “bring forward to their supervisors or management improper activities without having to fear they are endangering their jobs.” Education Code section 44113 prohibits employees from using or attempting to use official authority or influence to interfere with protected disclosures under the Act.
A protected disclosure is a good faith communication that discloses or demonstrates an intention to disclose information that may evidence either an improper governmental activity or a condition threatening health or safety of public employees for purposes of remedying the condition.
The Act’s prohibition on use of official authority or influence to interfere with a protected disclosure includes “promising to confer or conferring any benefit; affecting or threatening to affect any reprisal; or taking, directing others to take, recommending, processing, or approving any personnel action, including but not limited to appointment, promotion, transfer, assignment, performance evaluation, or other disciplinary action.” (Ed. Code, § 44113, subd. (b).) An employee who violates the prohibition may be liable in an action for civil damages brought against the employee by the offended party. ''
Education Code section 44114, subdivisions (b) and (c) provide also that a person who intentionally engages in acts of reprisal, retaliation, threats, coercion, or similar acts against a public school employee or applicant for having made a protected disclosure is subject to a fine not to exceed $10,000 and imprisonment in jail for up to one year as well as liability for civil damages, including punitive damages for malicious acts.
Rodger Hartnett’s complaint stated that he was a claims coordinator in SDCOE’s risk management department. He alleged that he was discharged in 2007 not for incompetency, insubordination, and dishonesty as contended, but in retaliation by several SDCOE employees for reporting that some SDCOE employees referred legal business to friends and family members in exchange for gifts, gratuities, and discounted personal legal services. He claimed his discharge violated the Act and entitled him to punative damages and attorney fees among other relief.
The trial court granted summary judgment for the individual employee defendants... Hartnett appealed, contending the trial court erred in these determinations.
Decision The Court of Appeal held that management employees who are also supervisory employees with authority over personnel actions are not exempt from liability under the Act...The Court agreed with the Third District Court of Appeal’s conclusion in Conn v. Western Placer Unified School Dist. (2010) 186 Cal.App.4th 1163, that Education Code section 44113 does not exempt management employees from liability for retaliation if the employees were acting as supervisory employees when they committed the allegedly offending acts. In Hartnett, the Court of Appeal reasoned that to exempt management employees exercising supervisory authority in personnel actions would exempt those most likely and able to retaliate against employees making protected disclosures and thwart the Act’s very purpose...
Management employees may be held liable for claims of retaliation under the Reporting by School Employees of Improper Governmental Activities Act if such employees are acting as supervisory employees with authority over personnel actions when they commit the allegedly offending acts.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
