| Meeting April 4, 2001 Maura Larkins attended a meeting with Assistant Superintendent Richard Werlin, Chula Vista Educators President Gina Boyd, and CTA Executive Director Tim O'Neill at CVESD on April 4, 2001. The day before this meeting the district and Tim O'Neill had received Maura Larkins' fax, and realized that Maura Larkins had figured out why she had been removed from her classroom. The night before this meeting, the CVESD cabinet had held a meeting and decided to ask Maura Larkins to return to work. But instead of an apology, Richard Werlin and CTA operatives Tim O'Neill and Gina Boyd had something else in mind. |
| April 4, 2001 Return to Work |
What was the plan of
Richard Werlin, Gina Boyd and Tim O'Neill?
1) Maura Larkins was asked to come to a meeting on April 4, 2001.
2) Werlin made sure that no other administrators were present.
3) Werlin let loose with a verbal tirade against Maura Larkins. It
lasted about ten minutes, was extremely unprofessional, and was
totally bereft of any emotional control or common decency. Gina
Boyd warned Maura Larkins ahead of time that Werlin was
frequently verbally abusive.
4) Werlin handed Maura Larkins a letter (below).
This document was an effort to set up a paper trail about what
Werlin had done on February 12, 2001, but clearly, it contains no
mention of the reasons for the Feb. 12, 2001 action, and gives the
wrong date for that action.
The document also speaks of "irrational and unprofessional"
behavior by Maura Larkins on March 27, 2001, but Werlin did not
include any specific allegations about the incident until after he was
sued for libel. If Maura Larkins had behaved in an "irrational and
unprofessional" manner just EIGHT DAYS EARLIER when she was
supposedly being investigated for the possibility that she was going
to kill two teachers, why on earth was she asked to return to work?
Maura Larkins was asked to return to work without any fitness for
duty examination, even though Werlin described her behavior as
well beyond psychotic. Werlin was either lying, or acting with
extreme disregard for the safety of children and adults at Castle
Park Elementary.
Clearly, Werlin was lying about what happened on March 27, 2001
when he took Maura Larkins to a place where there were no
witnesses. On the two occasions when he told his false story under
oath, he committed felonies. It is beyond belief that James Ahler,
Barbara Abeyta, and Terry Olson could have been so deeply
confused and unaware of the testimony and documents presented to
them during Maura Larkins' hearing that they could have believed
Werlin's story. Yet the three of them signed a decision saying
Werlin's confused and contradictory testimony was credible, and
Mrs. Larkins' testimony was not.
The letter below gives no indication that BEFORE the letter was
written, Werlin had been directed to return Maura Larkins to her
classroom. Mr. Werlin falsely told the payroll clerk that Maura
Larkins never went back to work in April 2001. He was clearly
already planning on finding a pretext to remove Maura Larkins again.
Why?
My guess is that he wanted complete, arbitrary power, and did not
want legal niceties or common decency interfering with it. And, of
course, he was covering up a multitude of crimes, as well as
violations of contract and civil law, committed by himself, Robin
Donlan, Michael Carlson, Gina Boyd, Tim O'Neill, and others.
5) After Maura Larkins signed the letter, Werlin asked her to come
back to work.
6) Maura Larkins, who had no concept at that time of the deep
corruption in the school district and at CTA, naively agreed to come
back to work.
Richard Werlin, Gina Boyd and Tim O'Neill?
1) Maura Larkins was asked to come to a meeting on April 4, 2001.
2) Werlin made sure that no other administrators were present.
3) Werlin let loose with a verbal tirade against Maura Larkins. It
lasted about ten minutes, was extremely unprofessional, and was
totally bereft of any emotional control or common decency. Gina
Boyd warned Maura Larkins ahead of time that Werlin was
frequently verbally abusive.
4) Werlin handed Maura Larkins a letter (below).
This document was an effort to set up a paper trail about what
Werlin had done on February 12, 2001, but clearly, it contains no
mention of the reasons for the Feb. 12, 2001 action, and gives the
wrong date for that action.
The document also speaks of "irrational and unprofessional"
behavior by Maura Larkins on March 27, 2001, but Werlin did not
include any specific allegations about the incident until after he was
sued for libel. If Maura Larkins had behaved in an "irrational and
unprofessional" manner just EIGHT DAYS EARLIER when she was
supposedly being investigated for the possibility that she was going
to kill two teachers, why on earth was she asked to return to work?
Maura Larkins was asked to return to work without any fitness for
duty examination, even though Werlin described her behavior as
well beyond psychotic. Werlin was either lying, or acting with
extreme disregard for the safety of children and adults at Castle
Park Elementary.
Clearly, Werlin was lying about what happened on March 27, 2001
when he took Maura Larkins to a place where there were no
witnesses. On the two occasions when he told his false story under
oath, he committed felonies. It is beyond belief that James Ahler,
Barbara Abeyta, and Terry Olson could have been so deeply
confused and unaware of the testimony and documents presented to
them during Maura Larkins' hearing that they could have believed
Werlin's story. Yet the three of them signed a decision saying
Werlin's confused and contradictory testimony was credible, and
Mrs. Larkins' testimony was not.
The letter below gives no indication that BEFORE the letter was
written, Werlin had been directed to return Maura Larkins to her
classroom. Mr. Werlin falsely told the payroll clerk that Maura
Larkins never went back to work in April 2001. He was clearly
already planning on finding a pretext to remove Maura Larkins again.
Why?
My guess is that he wanted complete, arbitrary power, and did not
want legal niceties or common decency interfering with it. And, of
course, he was covering up a multitude of crimes, as well as
violations of contract and civil law, committed by himself, Robin
Donlan, Michael Carlson, Gina Boyd, Tim O'Neill, and others.
5) After Maura Larkins signed the letter, Werlin asked her to come
back to work.
6) Maura Larkins, who had no concept at that time of the deep
corruption in the school district and at CTA, naively agreed to come
back to work.
| Does the letter below look like a letter you would write after you decided that a terrible mistake had been made, and you had banned a teacher from her classroom for 7 weeks, and replaced her with a substitute who had not even done her student teaching, due to false accusations of other teachers? If this is not the sort of letter you would write, then I'm afraid former Chula Vista Elementary Superintendent Libby Gil and current CVESD board members Patrick Judd, Pamela Smith, and Larry Cunningham wouldn't have much use for you. |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| SAN DIEGO EDUCATION REPORT |
| mauralarkins.com |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
"It was so vicious
it took my breath
away."
--a witness to Richard Werlin's
verbal tirade that went on for
ten minutes right before he
asked Maura Larkins to return
to work.
it took my breath
away."
--a witness to Richard Werlin's
verbal tirade that went on for
ten minutes right before he
asked Maura Larkins to return
to work.
| Richard Werlin has a bad habit of falsifying documents. Another bad habit is not creating any document at all at the time of an event, and then creating document long after when he decides what story would serve his purposes. In the Maura Larkins' case, the paper trail is shocking mostly for what does not exist, but also because of what does exist. Here is one document that reveals one of Werlin's changes on April 4, 2001. |