| ... |
Update June 27, 2006
After protracted efforts, I have obtained a handful of public records from SDCOE. The
documents I received do not contain language explaining SDCOE's expenditures in defense
of 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, a former employee at Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz,
and her close associates at the JPA have arbitrary power over which lawyers are
approved for the panel of defense attorneys. Stutz lawyer Daniel Shinoff gets the lion's
share of the work. Interestingly, Dan Shinoff was involved in hiring his own boss, Diane
Crosier, at SDCOE-JPA.
Voice of San Diego reported that Rodger Hartnett alleges that the Stutz Artiano firm
received a disproportionate share of work "based on personal relationships" in the office
rather than merit. Harnett, who was interviewed for his job by a panel that included
Shinoff, claims in his wrongful termination suit against the County Office of Education that
he was fired because of his complaints about Stutz Artiano...
Clearly, Ms. Crosier and these lawyers have an understanding that 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 from SDCOE. The
documents I received do not contain language explaining SDCOE's expenditures in defense
of 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, a former employee at Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz,
and her close associates at the JPA have arbitrary power over which lawyers are
approved for the panel of defense attorneys. Stutz lawyer Daniel Shinoff gets the lion's
share of the work. Interestingly, Dan Shinoff was involved in hiring his own boss, Diane
Crosier, at SDCOE-JPA.
Voice of San Diego reported that Rodger Hartnett alleges that the Stutz Artiano firm
received a disproportionate share of work "based on personal relationships" in the office
rather than merit. Harnett, who was interviewed for his job by a panel that included
Shinoff, claims in his wrongful termination suit against the County Office of Education that
he was fired because of his complaints about Stutz Artiano...
Clearly, Ms. Crosier and these lawyers have an understanding that 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--unless the lawyer had been doing what the
client wanted.
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:
Note about February 2006 SDCOE meeting
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. I guess Watkins wanted to use up
my time.
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. I guess Watkins wanted to use up
my time.
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?
Update: Nothing has improved since Ernest Dronenburg left the
board.
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?
Update: Nothing has improved since Ernest Dronenburg left the
board.
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 San Diego Union-Tribune, June 19, 2003 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?"
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?
"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?"
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.
outside lawyers.
On February 6, 2006 , I addressed the SDCOE board on the occasion of Ernest
Dronenburg's resignation from the board. I said the following at a special
meeting of the SDCOE board:
Dronenburg's resignation from the board. I said the following at a special
meeting of the SDCOE board:
 |
 |
 |
The San Diego Union Tribune vehemently criticized public entity lawyers when
Otay Water District was sued by a ratepayer. The water district was defended by
the same lawyers that CVESD indemnified: Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz.
Otay Water District was sued by a ratepayer. The water district was defended by
the same lawyers that CVESD indemnified: Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz.
SDCOE Indemnified its own Lawyers
Part 3
Why did a public agency, San Diego County Office of Education,
spend taxpayer dollars to protect outside lawyers?
Part 3
Why did a public agency, San Diego County Office of Education,
spend taxpayer dollars to protect outside lawyers?
SDCOE Special Meeting to Select Board Member February 6, 2006
Maura Larkins opposition to improper effort by CVESD to defend
Stutz from Obstruction of Justice complaint
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
Indemnifying Lawyers
Part 1 Proof of indemnity
Part 2 Opposing indemnity
Part 3 SDCOE lawyers
Part 1 Proof of indemnity
Part 2 Opposing indemnity
Part 3 SDCOE lawyers
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?
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?
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
The City Council
Indemnifies, too
The benefit that Snapper
objected to in 2002, and was
later indemnified for, is now a
key issue in the pre-trial
hearing in District Attorney
Bonnie Dumanis' criminal
conflict-of-interest case
against six former city of San
Diego pension trustees.
Ryan, the former auditor,
abruptly retired in 2004 as
scrutiny of the city's finances
intensified. Last week he
invoked his Fifth Amendment
rights not to testify for fear of
self-incrimination.
By ANDREW DONOHUE and
EVAN McLAUGHLIN
Voice of San Diego
Dec. 15, 2005
The city attorney's expansive
probe into City Hall has now
turned inward to his own
office after the revelation
that the City Council voted to
provide legal defense to its
personnel director and
auditor when council
members unanimously
approved a special benefit
for the firefighters union
president.
City Attorney Mike Aguirre
said fresh information,
including news of the
indemnity and the recent
discovery of 2002 e-mails,
shows that current and
former attorneys for the city
were at least informed of the
details of the controversial
pension pact that is a focal
point in the city's legal and
fiscal woes.
"Our office has to set the
example. We cannot be at
the fraud trough, pigging out
on the taxpayers, and expect
to be able to have any
credibility," said Aguirre, who
took office in December.
Rich Snapper, the city's
personnel director, testified
in Superior Court on
Tuesday in the felony
conflict-of-interest case
against six former pension
officials that the City Council
voted to pay his legal fees if
litigation ever arose
surrounding the payment of
the controversial benefit.
City officials are normally
reimbursed for attorney's
fees if they're incurred
because of actions they take
on the job, unless their
actions are deemed
fraudulent.
Snapper said in testimony
that he raised concerns over
the granting of the special
benefit and was rebuked by
a city councilman. He said he
was told by former Assistant
City Attorney Les Girard that
if he didn't like the benefit,
he would be granted
indemnity.
Nearly two years later, Girard
unexpectedly hand delivered
a letter to Snapper's desk
memorializing the promise.
According to the memo,
which was released by
Aguirre on Wednesday, the
City Council voted on May
23, 2002, to "defend and
indemnify" Snapper and
former Auditor Ed Ryan on
any matters related to the
so-called "presidential leave"
benefit.
The memo is dated Aug. 3,
2004 -- nearly two years
after the indemnity was
granted and a month and a
half before an investigatory
report by an outside law firm
was released.
The memo indicates that the
City Council voted 9-to-0 in
closed session to authorize
the indemnification. However,
the closed session report for
that day released by Aguirre
doesn't indicate that any
votes were taken.
The record shows that a
team of city attorneys was
present in the meeting,
including Girard and former
City Attorney Casey Gwinn.
"I have ordered that we
conduct an internal
investigation within the City
Attorney's Office of anyone
that's currently working here
and all former city attorneys
who have previously worked
here, to determine what their
involvement was and
whether any of it was
actionable," Aguirre said.
Gwinn was forced out by
term limits last year after
serving two four-year terms
and he now works at the
District Attorney's Office. The
city currently grapples with a
protracted financial crisis
and is under investigation on
a number of fronts due to a
succession of events that
happened largely on Gwinn's
watch.
That the investigation
stretches into the City
Attorney's Office is natural,
as many of the decisions that
have led to the city's sunken
credit rating and pension
problems required at least
some level of legal oversight
from staff. Local and federal
investigators have been
probing the city since early
2004.
Aguirre promised another
installment to his series of
interim reports and said he
might take legal action if
necessary. He said he hopes
to take sworn depositions
from officials such as Gwinn
and Girard -- something that
would create the odd
scenario of a current city
attorney interrogating his
predecessor.
The city attorney has
launched a wide variety of
investigations around City
Hall -- and even extending
now to the county Board of
Supervisors -- since taking
office a year ago. Some,
such as his periodic reports
on the pension system's past
dealings, have shed light on
the focal point of the city's
legal and financial troubles.
Others have been publicized
upon their inception but
never spoken of again, such
as probes in the pension
system's 401(k)-style plan
and possible
conflict-of-interest violations
by the City Council.
The benefit that Snapper
objected to in 2002, and was
later indemnified for, is now a
key issue in the pre-trial
hearing in District Attorney
Bonnie Dumanis' criminal
conflict-of-interest case
against six former city of San
Diego pension trustees.
Prosecutors argue that
former pension officials
criminally violated state law
when they voted on an
agreement that increased
their personal pension
benefits. Firefighters union
President Ron Saathoff, who
is among the six defendants,
was allowed to count both his
union pay and city salary
toward his pension as part of
the deal -- a benefit
prosecutors say boosted his
future pension by $30,000 a
year.
In further testimony
Wednesday, Elmer Heap, a
former in-house legal advisor
for the city, waffled on
whether the he believed that
the pension upgrades
granted in the labor
contracts that year were
contingent upon the pension
board's agreement to relieve
the city of its immediate bill.
Heap said, to his knowledge,
the possibility of a conflict of
interest that is now being
alleged by the district
attorney never came up
during discussions the City
Attorney's Office had with
staff members or retirement
trustees. The deal appeared
clean at the time, he said.
"My frame of mind is that
there was arms-length,
good-faith negotiating going
on," said Heap, who is now
director of the city's
environmental services
department.
Ryan, the former auditor,
abruptly retired in 2004 as
scrutiny of the city's finances
intensified. Last week he
invoked his Fifth Amendment
rights not to testify for fear of
self-incrimination.
-- Sam Hodgson contributed
to this report.
Indemnifies, too
The benefit that Snapper
objected to in 2002, and was
later indemnified for, is now a
key issue in the pre-trial
hearing in District Attorney
Bonnie Dumanis' criminal
conflict-of-interest case
against six former city of San
Diego pension trustees.
Ryan, the former auditor,
abruptly retired in 2004 as
scrutiny of the city's finances
intensified. Last week he
invoked his Fifth Amendment
rights not to testify for fear of
self-incrimination.
By ANDREW DONOHUE and
EVAN McLAUGHLIN
Voice of San Diego
Dec. 15, 2005
The city attorney's expansive
probe into City Hall has now
turned inward to his own
office after the revelation
that the City Council voted to
provide legal defense to its
personnel director and
auditor when council
members unanimously
approved a special benefit
for the firefighters union
president.
City Attorney Mike Aguirre
said fresh information,
including news of the
indemnity and the recent
discovery of 2002 e-mails,
shows that current and
former attorneys for the city
were at least informed of the
details of the controversial
pension pact that is a focal
point in the city's legal and
fiscal woes.
"Our office has to set the
example. We cannot be at
the fraud trough, pigging out
on the taxpayers, and expect
to be able to have any
credibility," said Aguirre, who
took office in December.
Rich Snapper, the city's
personnel director, testified
in Superior Court on
Tuesday in the felony
conflict-of-interest case
against six former pension
officials that the City Council
voted to pay his legal fees if
litigation ever arose
surrounding the payment of
the controversial benefit.
City officials are normally
reimbursed for attorney's
fees if they're incurred
because of actions they take
on the job, unless their
actions are deemed
fraudulent.
Snapper said in testimony
that he raised concerns over
the granting of the special
benefit and was rebuked by
a city councilman. He said he
was told by former Assistant
City Attorney Les Girard that
if he didn't like the benefit,
he would be granted
indemnity.
Nearly two years later, Girard
unexpectedly hand delivered
a letter to Snapper's desk
memorializing the promise.
According to the memo,
which was released by
Aguirre on Wednesday, the
City Council voted on May
23, 2002, to "defend and
indemnify" Snapper and
former Auditor Ed Ryan on
any matters related to the
so-called "presidential leave"
benefit.
The memo is dated Aug. 3,
2004 -- nearly two years
after the indemnity was
granted and a month and a
half before an investigatory
report by an outside law firm
was released.
The memo indicates that the
City Council voted 9-to-0 in
closed session to authorize
the indemnification. However,
the closed session report for
that day released by Aguirre
doesn't indicate that any
votes were taken.
The record shows that a
team of city attorneys was
present in the meeting,
including Girard and former
City Attorney Casey Gwinn.
"I have ordered that we
conduct an internal
investigation within the City
Attorney's Office of anyone
that's currently working here
and all former city attorneys
who have previously worked
here, to determine what their
involvement was and
whether any of it was
actionable," Aguirre said.
Gwinn was forced out by
term limits last year after
serving two four-year terms
and he now works at the
District Attorney's Office. The
city currently grapples with a
protracted financial crisis
and is under investigation on
a number of fronts due to a
succession of events that
happened largely on Gwinn's
watch.
That the investigation
stretches into the City
Attorney's Office is natural,
as many of the decisions that
have led to the city's sunken
credit rating and pension
problems required at least
some level of legal oversight
from staff. Local and federal
investigators have been
probing the city since early
2004.
Aguirre promised another
installment to his series of
interim reports and said he
might take legal action if
necessary. He said he hopes
to take sworn depositions
from officials such as Gwinn
and Girard -- something that
would create the odd
scenario of a current city
attorney interrogating his
predecessor.
The city attorney has
launched a wide variety of
investigations around City
Hall -- and even extending
now to the county Board of
Supervisors -- since taking
office a year ago. Some,
such as his periodic reports
on the pension system's past
dealings, have shed light on
the focal point of the city's
legal and financial troubles.
Others have been publicized
upon their inception but
never spoken of again, such
as probes in the pension
system's 401(k)-style plan
and possible
conflict-of-interest violations
by the City Council.
The benefit that Snapper
objected to in 2002, and was
later indemnified for, is now a
key issue in the pre-trial
hearing in District Attorney
Bonnie Dumanis' criminal
conflict-of-interest case
against six former city of San
Diego pension trustees.
Prosecutors argue that
former pension officials
criminally violated state law
when they voted on an
agreement that increased
their personal pension
benefits. Firefighters union
President Ron Saathoff, who
is among the six defendants,
was allowed to count both his
union pay and city salary
toward his pension as part of
the deal -- a benefit
prosecutors say boosted his
future pension by $30,000 a
year.
In further testimony
Wednesday, Elmer Heap, a
former in-house legal advisor
for the city, waffled on
whether the he believed that
the pension upgrades
granted in the labor
contracts that year were
contingent upon the pension
board's agreement to relieve
the city of its immediate bill.
Heap said, to his knowledge,
the possibility of a conflict of
interest that is now being
alleged by the district
attorney never came up
during discussions the City
Attorney's Office had with
staff members or retirement
trustees. The deal appeared
clean at the time, he said.
"My frame of mind is that
there was arms-length,
good-faith negotiating going
on," said Heap, who is now
director of the city's
environmental services
department.
Ryan, the former auditor,
abruptly retired in 2004 as
scrutiny of the city's finances
intensified. Last week he
invoked his Fifth Amendment
rights not to testify for fear of
self-incrimination.
-- Sam Hodgson contributed
to this report.
Voice of San Diego, under
the leadership of Buzz
Woolley, Andrew Donohue
and Scott Lewis, does a
poor job of getting public
records from SDCOE
the leadership of Buzz
Woolley, Andrew Donohue
and Scott Lewis, does a
poor job of getting public
records from SDCOE
| San Diego Education Report |
| SDER |
San Diego
Education Report
Education Report
| SDER |
| SDER |
| SDER |