Update June 27, 2006
After protracted efforts, I have obtained a handful of public records. The
documents I received do not contain language explaining SDCOE's
expenditures in defense of wrongdoing by its lawyers. In fact, the
documents contain language to the contrary.
How then, and why, do these lawyers get SDCOE to help them avoid
responsibility for wrongdoing?
SDCOE JPA Director Diane Crosier and her close associates at the JPA have
arbitrary power over which lawyers are approved for the panel of defense
attorneys.
Clearly, Ms. Crosier and these lawyers have an understanding that when
they violate the law, SDCOE-JPA and the school districts it insures will
support and defend these lawyers with taxpayer dollars and the power and
prestige of the public entity.
Proof of Indemnification
After protracted efforts, I have obtained a handful of public records. The
documents I received do not contain language explaining SDCOE's
expenditures in defense of wrongdoing by its lawyers. In fact, the
documents contain language to the contrary.
How then, and why, do these lawyers get SDCOE to help them avoid
responsibility for wrongdoing?
SDCOE JPA Director Diane Crosier and her close associates at the JPA have
arbitrary power over which lawyers are approved for the panel of defense
attorneys.
Clearly, Ms. Crosier and these lawyers have an understanding that when
they violate the law, SDCOE-JPA and the school districts it insures will
support and defend these lawyers with taxpayer dollars and the power and
prestige of the public entity.
Proof of Indemnification
No one would pay to defend his lawyer
for wrongdoing--unless the lawyer had
been doing what the client wanted.
for wrongdoing--unless the lawyer had
been doing what the client wanted.
| Click on links below to see court documents of case in which Chula Vista Elementary School District defended its outside lawyers for obstruction of justice. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
Kelly's Cover-up
In this June 22, 2006 letter, Kelly Minnehan (aka Kelly Angell) denies that any contract for legal
services exists between SDCOE and Randall Winet or his law firm.
How then can she explain the letter from Randall Winet to Maura Larkins?
In this June 22, 2006 letter, Kelly Minnehan (aka Kelly Angell) denies that any contract for legal
services exists between SDCOE and Randall Winet or his law firm.
How then can she explain the letter from Randall Winet to Maura Larkins?
The evidence that Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff &
Holtz was indemnified by SDCOE JPA:
Holtz was indemnified by SDCOE JPA:
| Copyright © 2006, 2007, 2008 Maura Larkins' San Diego Education Report. All Rights Reserved. |
Note about February 2006 SDCOE meeting
ethics in government, board Mesa Spring Valley School District Mesa Spring Valley School District
applied for Dronenburg's position.
Mr. Winet has a conflict of interest which he did not reveal, but every member of the board was
fully aware of it.
Winet's brother, Randall Winet, is a lawyer for the SDCOE JPA. Rick Winet can be trusted to keep
the public's dollars flowing to his family and others who have control of the SDCOE JPA.
Or at least I think he can.
Am I right or wrong, Mr. Winet?
SDCOE board member Bob Watkins also showed contempt for ethics in government by nominating
Mr. Winet. The rest of the board did not go along with Mr. Watkins, who clearly wants to maintain
the status quo at the JPA, including the indemnification of lawyers.
Sharon Jones, also a board member of the La Mesa Spring Valley School District, was a MUCH
BETTER CHOICE TO REPLACE MR. DRONENBURG. Mr. Dronenburg united the community of District
3, and SHARON JONES is an ideal replacement for him.
Board member Bob Watkins broke protocol to interrupt Maura Larkins in the middle of her speech.
All speeches had a strict five-minute time limit which was enforced for everyone except Bob
Watkins' pal Rick Winet, who went over his time limit to REPEAT the names of those who had
endorsed him. He had already announced those names at the beginning of his speech!
Mr. Winet is clearly a person who thinks that rules don't apply to him.
ethics in government, board Mesa Spring Valley School District Mesa Spring Valley School District
applied for Dronenburg's position.
Mr. Winet has a conflict of interest which he did not reveal, but every member of the board was
fully aware of it.
Winet's brother, Randall Winet, is a lawyer for the SDCOE JPA. Rick Winet can be trusted to keep
the public's dollars flowing to his family and others who have control of the SDCOE JPA.
Or at least I think he can.
Am I right or wrong, Mr. Winet?
SDCOE board member Bob Watkins also showed contempt for ethics in government by nominating
Mr. Winet. The rest of the board did not go along with Mr. Watkins, who clearly wants to maintain
the status quo at the JPA, including the indemnification of lawyers.
Sharon Jones, also a board member of the La Mesa Spring Valley School District, was a MUCH
BETTER CHOICE TO REPLACE MR. DRONENBURG. Mr. Dronenburg united the community of District
3, and SHARON JONES is an ideal replacement for him.
Board member Bob Watkins broke protocol to interrupt Maura Larkins in the middle of her speech.
All speeches had a strict five-minute time limit which was enforced for everyone except Bob
Watkins' pal Rick Winet, who went over his time limit to REPEAT the names of those who had
endorsed him. He had already announced those names at the beginning of his speech!
Mr. Winet is clearly a person who thinks that rules don't apply to him.
I'd like to remind the board that you are directly responsible for hiring the chief
administrator of the SDCOE-JPA, or Joint Powers Authority.
For anyone who isn't familiar with the Joint Powers Authority, it is basically an insurance
company which is operated by both the San Diego County Office of Education and a private
insurance company.
Local school districts buy their liability insurance from the JPA.
I have one question for the board:
How can you possibly justify the fact that the JPA indemnifies the outside lawyers that it
hires?
administrator of the SDCOE-JPA, or Joint Powers Authority.
For anyone who isn't familiar with the Joint Powers Authority, it is basically an insurance
company which is operated by both the San Diego County Office of Education and a private
insurance company.
Local school districts buy their liability insurance from the JPA.
I have one question for the board:
How can you possibly justify the fact that the JPA indemnifies the outside lawyers that it
hires?
This is EXACTLY the
question that the San Diego
Union Tribune asked in June
of 2003, after it
discovered that the
deeply corrupt Otay
Water District had
indemnified its lawyers.
question that the San Diego
Union Tribune asked in June
of 2003, after it
discovered that the
deeply corrupt Otay
Water District had
indemnified its lawyers.
Why would a public
agency dole out
taxpayer dollars to
protect outside
lawyers for their
wrongdoing?
agency dole out
taxpayer dollars to
protect outside
lawyers for their
wrongdoing?
Here is a quote
from the Union
Tribune
editorial:
"Usually when an outside law
firm represents a public
agency, either the law firm
indemnifies the agency
against bad legal advice or
both sides agree that each
will be held harmless.
"Legal experts say [that
indemnification of lawyers]
is a far from normal
procedure for public
agencies. Most lawyers
would not ask to be released
from liability for advice
rendered to a client."
The Union Tribune editorial
ended with two questions:
"(1) ...Why would any
client, especially a
public agency,
supported entirely by
[tax] payer dollars,
agree to such a deal?
"(2) "What kind of
legal advice is [a public
agency] receiving if its
attorneys won't stand
behind that advice
without indemnity?"
I ask you, what is going on
here? The JPA is not doing
this to benefit taxpayers, or
voters, or children. It is
doing this to help keep
individuals who are guilty of
wrongdoing in control of
school districts.
Until you disavow the
practice of indemnifying
outside lawyers, I will be left
wondering: What can you
possibly be thinking?
from the Union
Tribune
editorial:
"Usually when an outside law
firm represents a public
agency, either the law firm
indemnifies the agency
against bad legal advice or
both sides agree that each
will be held harmless.
"Legal experts say [that
indemnification of lawyers]
is a far from normal
procedure for public
agencies. Most lawyers
would not ask to be released
from liability for advice
rendered to a client."
The Union Tribune editorial
ended with two questions:
"(1) ...Why would any
client, especially a
public agency,
supported entirely by
[tax] payer dollars,
agree to such a deal?
"(2) "What kind of
legal advice is [a public
agency] receiving if its
attorneys won't stand
behind that advice
without indemnity?"
I ask you, what is going on
here? The JPA is not doing
this to benefit taxpayers, or
voters, or children. It is
doing this to help keep
individuals who are guilty of
wrongdoing in control of
school districts.
Until you disavow the
practice of indemnifying
outside lawyers, I will be left
wondering: What can you
possibly be thinking?
SDCOE should not pay taxpayer dollars to defend those outside lawyers.
In January 2006, Maura Larkins applied for Ernest Dronenburg's position on the SDCOE board. On
February 6, 2006 she gave the following speech at a special meeting of the SDCOE board:
February 6, 2006 she gave the following speech at a special meeting of the SDCOE board:
Update:
Sharon Jones won 59% of the vote in her June 6,
2006 race against Rick Winet.
Sharon Jones won 59% of the vote in her June 6,
2006 race against Rick Winet.
 |
 |
 |
The San Diego Union Tribune vehemently criticized public entity
lawyers when Otay Water District was sued by a citizen. The water
district was defended by the same lawyers that CVESD had to
defend: Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz.
lawyers when Otay Water District was sued by a citizen. The water
district was defended by the same lawyers that CVESD had to
defend: Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz.
Indemnifying Lawyers
Part 3
Why did a public agency spend taxpayer
dollars to protect outside lawyers for
their wrongdoing?
Part 3
Why did a public agency spend taxpayer
dollars to protect outside lawyers for
their wrongdoing?
SDCOE Special Meeting to Select Board Member
February 6, 2006
February 6, 2006
Maura Larkins opposition to
improper effort by CVESD to
defend Stutz from Obstruction of
Justice complaint
improper effort by CVESD to
defend Stutz from Obstruction of
Justice complaint
Maura Larkins
opposition to improper
effort by CVESD to
defend Stutz from
Obstruction of Justice
complaint
opposition to improper
effort by CVESD to
defend Stutz from
Obstruction of Justice
complaint
San Diego County Office of Education (SDCOE)
Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
Otay Water District's legal
advice keeps getting more
expensive
The San Diego Union -
Tribune
Jun 19, 2003
Among a half dozen legal
actions and complaints
pending against the district
is a false-claims lawsuit
against board member
Jaime Bonilla, General
Manager Bob Griego, the
firm of Burke, Williams &
Sorensen, and two Burke
attorneys, Bonifacio Garcia
and Roberta Sistos. The
claim alleges Bonilla
directed Garcia and Sistos
to perform legal services
for the Otay Water District
in December 2000, months
before the water district
board had hired the law
firm. In fact, Bonilla himself
hadn't even been sworn in
as a board member when
he ordered the legal
services to be performed.
Legal experts say the
indemnity given to Burke,
Williams & Sorensen by the
Otay Water District is far
from normal procedure for
public agencies. Most
lawyers would not ask to
be released from liability
for advice rendered to a
client. And why would any
client, especially a public
agency supported entirely
by ratepayer dollars, agree
to such a deal? What kind
of legal advice is Otay
receiving if its attorneys
won't stand behind that
advice without indemnity?
advice keeps getting more
expensive
The San Diego Union -
Tribune
Jun 19, 2003
Among a half dozen legal
actions and complaints
pending against the district
is a false-claims lawsuit
against board member
Jaime Bonilla, General
Manager Bob Griego, the
firm of Burke, Williams &
Sorensen, and two Burke
attorneys, Bonifacio Garcia
and Roberta Sistos. The
claim alleges Bonilla
directed Garcia and Sistos
to perform legal services
for the Otay Water District
in December 2000, months
before the water district
board had hired the law
firm. In fact, Bonilla himself
hadn't even been sworn in
as a board member when
he ordered the legal
services to be performed.
Legal experts say the
indemnity given to Burke,
Williams & Sorensen by the
Otay Water District is far
from normal procedure for
public agencies. Most
lawyers would not ask to
be released from liability
for advice rendered to a
client. And why would any
client, especially a public
agency supported entirely
by ratepayer dollars, agree
to such a deal? What kind
of legal advice is Otay
receiving if its attorneys
won't stand behind that
advice without indemnity?
Why This Website
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz v. Maura
Larkins defamation
SDCOE
CVESD
Castle Park
Elementary School
Law Enforcement
CTA
CVE
Stutz Artiano Shinoff
& Holtz
Silence is Golden
Schools and Violence
Office Admin Hearings
Larkins OAH Hearing
| San Diego Education Report |