We have received the FYE 2005 and 2006 information and it is astonishing how much more in legal fees the district is now incurring:
· 2005 - $51,956 ($0 on special ed)
· 2006 - $102,863 ($5,476 on special ed)
· 2007 - $240,464 ($12,883 on special ed)
· 2008 - 353,487 ($178,742 on special ed) and
2009 - through April 29, 2009 for the FYE June 30, 2009 $255,39
($116,597 on special ed).
Dr. Rob Haley took over special ed the beginning of the 2008 FYE.
The SHUSD School Board has scheduled a special meeting for Monday, June
29th, at 6:30 p.m. to discuss the PARS retirement plan for Allan Gordon
and Jim Zoll. Specifically, the Board intends to retroactively ratify
all of the actions taken by the Board and Allan Gordon to include Allan
Gordon and Jim Zoll in the PARS retirement plan and award them almost
$350,000 in benefits. The Board is taking this action despite the
serious conflict of interest issues presented to them by concerned
parents.
IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT PEOPLE ATTEND THIS BOARD MEETING
AND TELL THE BOARD THAT THEY NEED TO INVESTIGATE
ALLAN GORDON'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST REGARDING THE
PARS PLAN AND THAT THEY SHOULD NOT RATIFY PREVIOUS
ACTIONS, THE LEGALITY OF WHICH ARE IN DISPUTE.
Copied From the Website of the Office of the Attorney General : (http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/contract.php)
Following is a list of topics we’ll cover in this lesson.
Here’s Jessica Carrington speaking with Dennis Lowery, the ethics officer for her agency. Follow along to learn more about Government Code section 1090.
Jessica: “Hi Dennis, as the ethics officer for our department, I have a question for you. Although the Political Reform Act covers a lot of ground, apparently, it is not the only conflict of interest law in this state. I’ve heard something about section 1090. What does it cover?”
Dennis: “Well Jessica, section 1090 deals specifically with conflicts of interest in the contract-making process. It does not supplant the Political Reform Act, but acts in tandem with it. Here’s what it does. It provides that an officer or employee may not make a contract in which he or she is financially interested.”
Jessica: “Does that mean a public official cannot be involved with such a contract process at all?”
Dennis: “That’s right. Any participation by an officer or an employee in the process by which such a contract is developed, negotiated and executed is a violation of section 1090. Also, there are situations where a board member’s participation is attributed even where the board member does not actually participate.”
Jessica: “Now let me make sure that I am following you. Did you say that section 1090 applies only to contracts or does it apply to other types of governmental action?”
Dennis: “For the prohibition of section 1090 to apply, there must be a contract. Section 1090 does not apply to other types of governmental action such as adopting regulations, issuing permits or licenses, conducting investigations or issuing reports.”
Jessica: “Does section 1090 apply only to written contracts?”
Dennis: “No. In addition to written contracts, section 1090 applies to all contracts, including oral contracts and purchases made outside the formal contract process.”
Jessica: “What about grants? Are grants considered separately from contracts?”
Dennis: “No. Jessica, grants generally qualify as contracts for purposes of section 1090.”
Jessica: “What happens if I discover that I have a conflict of interest under section 1090 at some point in the contract-making process.”
Dennis: “You’d want to discontinue the contract process at once. Fortunately, if a contract in which an officer or employee has a financial interest is not ultimately executed, no violation exists.”
Jessica: “Thank you, Dennis, for helping me understand a little bit about section 1090.”
The Department of Technology is considering adopting regulations that would restrict access to the Internet, and thereby adversely affect stocks owned by the director. Does section 1090 apply? Yes or No.
The prohibition of section 1090 applies to virtually all state and local officers, employees and multi-member bodies, such as boards or commissions, whether elected or appointed, at both the state and local levels.
An official participates in the making of a contract if the official is involved with its preparation at any stage in the process. The contract-making process begins at the time the idea for the contract is conceived and continues through the actual execution of the contract. That means that planning, determining the scope of the contract, drafting plans and specifications, setting contract terms, evaluating applicants, and negotiating are all included.
Under the general rule, officials may avoid a violation of section 1090 by disqualifying themselves from participation in the making of the contract whenever they have a financial interest in the contract. There are limited exceptions to the general rule that are strictly interpreted.
Members of bodies with contracting power are conclusively presumed to participate in the making of all contracts under the body’s jurisdiction.
If a member of a multi-member body with contracting power has a financial interest in a contract, section 1090 generally provides that the contract cannot be made even if the member has disqualified himself or herself from actually participating in the contract.
The law does provide several limited exceptions that will permit a financially interested board member to disqualify himself or herself and allow the remaining members of the body to enter into the contract.
These exceptions are termed “remote interest exceptions.” They are quite limited and are strictly interpreted.
Armando is an employee in the Network Technology Division of the department. He discussed with his supervisor recent problems encountered by the department and the benefits of contracting with a private vendor for certain services. Subsequently, the department approved the Network Technology Division’s proposal to solicit bids from vendors for the performance of such services. Did Armando’s conversation with his supervisor constitute “participating in the making of a contract” according to section 1090? Yes or No.
Section 1090 does not define when an official is financially interested in a contract. However, the courts have applied the prohibition to include a broad range of interests.
The courts have continually reiterated that no matter how twisted and winding the trail may be, if the connection between the financial interest of the official and the contract can be made, a violation of section 1090 will be found.
Under section 1090, financial interests are often defined in terms of relationships. For example, if you have an employment relationship with the person or entity that seeks to contract with your agency, you are deemed to have a financial interest in the contract. Other examples are listed below.
The official’s interest also includes the community property and separate property interests of the official’s spouse.
TRUE or FALSE: Under section 1090, the term “financial interest” is specifically defined in statutes and regulations.
TRUE or FALSE: The separate property of an official’s spouse is not a financial interest under section 1090.
As you know by now, section 1090 prohibits officials with financial interests from making contracts in their official capacity. If a person has previously entered into a contract with the state prior to appointment or employment with a government agency, the contract is unaffected by section 1090. However, section 1090 would apply to any modification, option, renewal or extension of the contract.
Any contract made in violation of section 1090 is void and cannot be enforced. An official who commits a violation of section 1090 is subject to criminal, civil and administrative sanctions.
A person convicted of violating section 1090 is also forever disqualified from holding any office in this state.
A city council member had sold a parcel of land to a third party, which in turn re-sold the property to the city. Despite the fact that the council member had abstained from the council vote that authorized the city’s acquisition of the property, and had acted throughout in good faith, the California Supreme Court concluded that he had violated section 1090.
As a sanction, the Court required the council member to forfeit the entire sales price of $258,000, while the city was permitted to retain the property. Thus, where section 1090 is violated, the government can get its money back without having to restore any of the benefits received under the contract.
The fact that the contract is fair, or even highly advantageous to the government, is irrelevant.
The State Superintendent of Public Instruction was found guilty of violating section 1090 by entering into official contracts in which he had a financial interest. Superintendent Honig was criminally convicted of this offense, and eventually was required to relinquish his public office as a result.
Violation of section 1090 can lead to which of the following? Select all that apply. There may be more than one correct answer.
Remember that section 1090 applies to contracts. Following is a list of important points to remember about section 1090.
Dear Community Members:
Over the course of the last week, we have been subjected to ridiculous personal attacks and the false accusations by two members of our school board, Cindy Warren and Cynthia Lane, and the husband of a school board member, Jeff Warren. Up until now, we have refrained from addressing these attacks because, first and foremost, THEY HAVE NO MERIT. However, due to the fact that the Warrens have engaged in a barrage of public statements which are meant to defame and discredit us, and are based on nothing more than the desire to distract our community from the real issues at hand, we now feel the need to respond to these outrageous and completely baseless allegations. Therefore, we are now providing the facts of what actually took place last week regarding our meeting at the Warrens’ house. The facts are as follows:
About two weeks ago, we discovered some troubling information about the PARS retirement plan offered to Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll. Specifically, we discovered that the Board neither publicly discussed nor properly authorized their inclusion into the PARS plan (potential Brown Act violation), that the Board failed to provide an accurate analysis of the cost of adding Gordon and Zoll to the plan (their inclusion decreased the total savings to the district), and that, according to California law, the PARS plan for Gordon and Zoll may be void since Gordon would financially benefit from the very plan that he negotiated and signed. Because of this, there are serious questions as to whether Gordon and Zoll are entitled to their combined $327,727 retirement benefit.
We requested a copy of the PARS plan from the school district numerous (at least 8) times over several weeks and were refused. It was not until we requested the PARS plan in a meeting on June 15th with several other individuals, including Cindy Warren and Cynthia Lane, that the district finally gave us a copy. We spent countless hours researching and investigating every aspect of this situation. It was critical to us that we come forward with this information only if we were certain that our statements were factually and legally correct. We came to the conclusion that our suspicions were valid and our legal position was solid. We then decided to do what we thought was the right thing: share this information with the school board members. We thought that they needed to know this information and we felt that blind siding them at the public meeting the following day would be wrong.
When we made the decision to meet with the board members, we realized that we could only meet with 2 at a time under the provisions of the Brown Act. We decided to contact them and set up a meeting in a neutral, private place. We did not think that it would be wise to go over our findings in a crowded coffee shop in a small town. When Cindy Warren said she was not comfortable with our meeting place, Kevin Alfaro suggested her house and she agreed.
Soon after our meeting with Cindy Warren and Cynthia Lane began, Jeff Warren walked in and joined us. We sat down with the three of them and went through the memo that we had prepared setting forth what we had discovered about the PARS plan. We were professional and calm in our delivery of this information. At the end of the memo, we listed 4 requests of the board, one of which was that they resign due to their lack of oversight in this matter. After we finished reading the memo with them, we all discussed some of the details regarding the financial data in the memo and we asked them whether they had obtained a legal opinion regarding including Gordon and Zoll in the PARS plan. We also clearly and in no uncertain terms explained that we would be making this information public, but that we wanted to give them a heads up about it and discuss it with them as a courtesy. Cindy Warren at one point made a statement that “WHY SHOULD WE RESIGN IF THIS IS GOING TO COME OUT ANYWAY?” At another point, Cynthia Lane stated “IF WE RESIGN, THEN YOU WON’T TAKE THIS TO THE DA?” To which we responded “WE ARE DEFINITELY TAKING THIS TO THE DA. IT’S COMING OUT.” The memo itself states that a copy will be sent to the DA, the newspapers, and various other public officials. This was always our intention.
Cynthia Lane, Cindy Warren and Jeff Warren have publicly claimed that they were intimidated, threatened and extorted at this meeting. We never made any threats or intimidated anyone during this meeting. If anyone in the room felt intimidated or threatened by us then why, after we finished our discussion, were we brought into their library to look at family photos?
These allegations were made to distract our community from the issues that we raised in our thoroughly documented and researched memo. It was a political maneuver with no basis in truth. What is particularly disturbing about these allegations is their intended affect on our community. A group of concerned parents went to these board members with troubling information they discovered regarding the board's implementation of the PARS retirement plan. Instead of addressing these concerns, these board members made baseless criminal allegations against us and used the regular board meeting to discredit and falsely accuse us of wrongdoing. Their inexcusable actions will now have a chilling effect on the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of our entire community. Who will be brave enough to speak out to these elected officials with the threat of criminal retaliation looming overhead? Freedom of speech is one of our most basic constitutional rights. This attack on that right should be alarming to everyone.
It is disappointing to us that Cindy & Jeff Warren and Cynthia Lane have turned to these mean spirited personal attacks, but you can be certain we will not do the same. We intend to continue to focus on solely the issues. We will not desert our high ethical and moral standards as we continue to uphold the truth.
If you would like to review a copy of our memo on the PARS plan, you can find it on our blog: citizensforqualityed.blogspot.com We also would encourage you to review the Office of the Attorney General's website on this point. http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/contract.php. This link will take you to the Ethics Orientation for State Officials which provides a practical explanation of the law with examples.
Kevin Alfaro
Jeanne DeVincenzi
Sharon Harris
Kathy Zelazny
For a copy of the attachments listed below, please send an email to: citizens4qualityed@gmail.com.
Once we determine how to post a pdf file to our blog, we will post the attachments. Sorry for the inconvenience. Thank You.
Attachments:
Certain school board members have made serious allegations against us. There is no truth whatsoever to these allegations.
What is particularly disturbing about these allegations is their intended affect on our community. A group of concerned parents went to these board members with troubling information they discovered regarding the board's implementation of the PARS retirement plan. Instead of addressing these concerns, these board members made baseless criminal allegations against us and used the regular board meeting to discredit and falsely accuse us of wrongdoing. Their inexcusable actions will now have a chilling effect on the First Amendment freedom of speech rights of our entire community.
Who will be brave enough to speak out to these elected officials with the threat of criminal retaliation looming overhead? Freedom of speech is one of our most basic constitutional rights. This attack on that right should be alarming to everyone.
Don’t let this political maneuvering distract you from the truth about what we discovered about the PARS retirement plan: 1) According to California law regarding conflicts of interest, the plan may be void since Gordon would financially benefit from the very plan that he negotiated and signed; 2) The Board failed to provide an accurate analysis of the cost of adding Gordon and Zoll to the plan (their inclusion decreased the total savings to the district); and 3) The Board neither publicly discussed nor properly authorized the inclusion of Superintendent Gordon and Jim Zoll into this plan (potential Brown Act violation).
Bottom line, there are serious questions as to whether Gordon and Zoll are entitled to their combined $327,727 retirement benefit.
The board should address these serious issues, not launch personal attacks on the people that uncovered the misconduct.
Kevin Alfaro
Jeanne DeVincenzi
Sharon Harris
Kathy ZelaznySave the Date for the following:
Friday 6/19: Potluck Dinner at Crane Park at 6pm. We will discuss recall issues while sharing a meal. Everyone is invited. Discussions will be in Spanish & English.
Thursday 6/25: Signature Gathering Workshop at Crane Park at 6pm. This workshop is for anyone that would like to help gather signatures on the recall petitions and would like to know the rules and to learn some tips.
Saturday 6/27: Kick-off Bash at Crane Park at 10am! Petitions will be distributed to gather signatures. Anyone that is interested in gathering signatures or simply signing the petitions is welcome. Promotional materials will be available for circulation.
TBD: Another Signature Workshop for those interested in gathering signatures-after the July 4 holiday.
*Any number of signatures is valuable. If you would like, feel free to take just one petition home (per board member)-it has 12 spaces.
Blog address: http://citizensforqualityed.blogspot.com
Email for questions and comments: citizens4qualityed@gmail.com
Donations: 1241 Adams Street Box #1010 St. Helena , CA 94574
Thank You,
Citizens for Quality Education
Dear Community Members,
We suspect that many of you have questions or concerns about the recall and would like to discuss things face to face with someone that supports the recall effort. TODAY, Saturday June 13, 2009, from 10-1pm, there will be a few members of Citizens For Quality Education at Crane Park (look for balloons) to talk with anyone that is interested. There is no set agenda. We will be there to discuss whatever you would like to discuss. Come for a few minutes or stay the whole time. Hope to see you there. Please spread the word.
SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger proposed an additional $2.8 billion in cuts to state government this morning that would slice even deeper into funding for education, health and welfare programs and the wages of state workers.
Schools would be hit by $680 million in new cuts, while the state’s social safety net for the poor would see the loss of an additional $872 million in funding for the poor, disabled and aged. A 5% salary reduction for state employees would slash $470 million.
“We really scraped the bottom of the barrel here,” said Mike Genest, Schwarzenegger’s finance director. “We cut everything we could think of.... It’s unfortunate, but it is what it is -- and we have to live within our means.”
-- Eric Bailey
Source: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/05/schwarzenegger-proposes-more-cuts-to-california-schools.html
Gov Schwarzenegger: "The text books are outdated as far as I'm concerned"
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has unveiled a plan to save money by phasing out school textbooks in favour of internet aids.
Gov Schwarzenegger wants to cut hundreds of millions of dollars in state spending each year.
He says converting to online study will also help keep pupils more up-to-date.
California is facing a state budget gap of $24.3bn and Gov Schwarzenegger on Monday scrapped funding for contracts entered into after 1 March.
'Every penny'
The BBC's Rajesh Mirchandani says Gov Schwarzenegger believes internet activities such as Facebook, Twitter and downloading to iPods show that young people are the first to adopt new online technologies, and so the internet is also the best way to learn in classrooms.
 |
From the beginning of the next school year in August, maths and science students in California's high schools will have access to online texts that have passed an academic standards review.
The governor says digital textbooks can be updated easily - so learning keeps pace with progress.
But our correspondent says the real reason Gov Schwarzenegger wants the change is money.
Last year California spent $350m on textbooks and can no longer afford it.
Authorities are making deep cuts to tackle the budget deficit.
On Monday, Gov Schwarzenegger signed an executive order to scrap funding on contracts from 1 March and bar state agencies from entering into new ones.
He said: "Every state agency and department will scrutinise how every penny is spent on contracts to make sure the state is getting the best deal for every taxpayer dollar."
The Republican governor has ruled out imposing higher taxes to meet the shortfall.
Last month voters rejected a raft of Gov Schwarzenegger's proposals to tackle the deficit.
