|
 |
||
|
CUSD Update The Sept. 4 OC Register included an article about Capistrano school district’s newest campus, San Juan Hills High School, San Juan Capistrano, which opened for the first time on Sept. 4. The highly positive article describing this state-of-the-art school read more like a district-written promo piece than a news story. A Capo parent said, “Everyone should take a tour of this school. It looks like a country club. The school includes such details as decorative etching on the driveway. Mature trees were brought in instead of seedlings. The surrounding hills are all landscaped.” The new $140-million school, where no expense was spared, was being built while Newhart Middle School continued to decline. Newhart – Mission Viejo’s only trailer park – can boast a new trailer this year, referred to as a modular building. This week, a CUSD resident sent the blog a summary of the 2006-2007 grand jury testimonies, posted below for readers’ convenience. Testimony of former superintendent James Fleming: Fleming took the Fifth Amendment on all questions including his education. He did, however, provide the names of his wife and children, but that’s it. It has recently come to light that he does not have an Ed.D. – a doctorate in education – but instead may have a doctorate in public administration (DPA). Testimony of CUSD Trustee Marlene Draper In Draper’s 2006-2007 testimony, she answered questions about appearing before the 1991 Orange County Grand Jury. She stated she does not really recall what the focus of the investigation was, but she believes it had to do with the district being involved in supporting a Mello-Roos election and spending district funds to advocate for the passage of the bond. She spent most of the time using phrases like I suppose, I don’t recall, I don’t know, and I don’t remember. She definitely recalls telling Fleming not to get involved with the recall, but she didn’t have a recollection of the timing. She also states that the board did discuss a $3.8-million settlement above the guaranteed maximum price on the no-bid contract for the district office as being confidential, not secret. Regardless, it was a violation of the Brown Act. It is clear from her testimony that she relied on attorneys and staff to make the district’s decisions and rarely questioned the decisions they were making. Regarding the lists of enemies, she states that she believes Sherine Smith provided her with a copy of the first email that was sent about the recall. She states that she did see the lists of proponents that the papers refer to as an “enemies list” in July 2006 or before. This is before retired judge Stuart Waldrip was hired for the district’s self-investigation to determine if a list existed and before Marlene Draper emphatically stated at a board meeting, “There is no list.” Fleming told her the list was developed by using a list of names from emails sent early in spring 2005 about the recall. Draper stated David Doomey was the district expert regarding district financing of the building program. District employees Doomey, Crawford and Lovely received three salary increases in just over one year, and Draper could not explain why some of the increases were given. Former CUSD Trustee John Casabianca Casabianca states he did not have the time to read board information and instead relied on staff briefings. In fact, if payments to his employer, Twining Laboratories, were included on the check warrants or purchase orders, he relied on Dan Crawford to tell him to abstain from voting. He spent a lot of time explaining that everything was discussed in closed session but they only voted in open session. He, too, stated that he relied on the attorneys and staff for information, trusted them to know what they were doing and did not question them. Casabianca stated David Doomey was the district expert regarding financing of the building program. CUSD CFO Sherry Hahn Hahn stated that spending Mello-Roos funds is David Doomey’s area, as it is his specialty. She believed that the discussion regarding the cost overruns on the district office perhaps should have been handled in open session. On questions that the DA expected the CFO to have the answers to, about the financing and contracts regarding the district office, Hahn repeatedly deferred to Doomey as the expert. She said Doomey was in charge of all facility budgets. She seemed to have no understanding of how facility funds are spent. The DA asked Hahn about a spreadsheet titled “Cost Associated with Recall,” KM typed it. David Smollar objected to amount associated with his name $9,269, while $2,523 was associated with Hahn; other employees were listed (page 288). Former Deputy Superintendent David Doomey Doomey ended his career with CUSD as a deputy superintendent overseeing the CUSD facility planning area and, per other testimony, he was in charge of all district facility funds. He started in CUSD as a physical education teacher in 1987, and prior to that he was a store manager of a Gemco Department Store (page 800). When he retired from CUSD, he was earning $156,000 plus an annual $1,900 masters stipend and $700 monthly expenses (page 814). When asked, Doomey could not explain the funding vehicle for the district office (a lease leaseback agreement) other than it was recommended by legal counsel. He stated that other than it was advised by legal counsel he had no idea why the lease leaseback deal on the district office was a good idea (page 806). A no-bid contract was awarded to Valley Commercial Contractors (a subsidiary of Voit Development, who CUSD purchased the land from) for a guaranteed maximum contract price of $22,620,000. The board never asked any question regarding the contract price or the lease leaseback funding. He relied on the lawyers that the funding vehicle and price on the district office were a good deal for CUSD. When asked if the plans for the district office were completed before the board voted to allocate more than $22 million, Doomey responded, “I don’t believe so, but I can’t remember.” He also states that they began construction on the building prior to the city of SJC approving the plans (pages 840-859). Throughout his testimony he stated he relied on attorneys. Examples of Doomey’s testimony: Question: I mean, you are an expert in your field, aren’t you? Question: Then why did you simply rely on a lawyer telling you that this was a good idea; why didn’t you demand some reasons why? Former CUSD administrator Susan McGill McGill states she had no knowledge of a list. She also states she went to the Register of Voters to see how the process of recall validation worked even though the recall had failed. On page 218, the DA begins questions about a memo titled “Costs Associated with recall” and specifically lists Susan McGill cost as $5,621 (page 150) and $50,000 as other costs (page159). Sherine Smith is listed with an hourly rate but no total mentioned. Former administrative assistant or secretary to Fleming, Kate McIntyre When asked if she filed something for the state, she said, “I don’t file, I give it to one of the girls, referring to one of the other Fleming secretaries.” McIntyre obviously did not consider herself as a secretary, and she made approximately $90,000 per year. She was directed by Fleming to make a list of the people on the email sent regarding the recall and to go to TIS (computer information department) to get data on each of the people on the email (page 36). She and Fleming added comments about the people on the list, such as NIMBY. She states the list may have been taken to cabinet meetings and where comments were made about some of the names on the lists. She reminded Fleming of the list when it was faxed to him by the OC Register, yet Fleming denied any knowledge about a list and stated to the OCR reporter he had never seen the list the reporter had faxed to him. CUSD employee Barbara Thacker Thacker states Susan McgGill was in contact with the Register of Voters Neal Kelley. McGill received updates as to the progress of the 2005 recall effort. Thacker also states McGill directed her to type a list of names that McGill collected from recall petitions during her trip to the ROV. The DA refers to a copy of a memo sent from McGill to Fleming although McGill denied collecting names or knowing about a list in her testimony. (This may be why she was charged with perjury). Interim Superintendent Charles McCully McCully had several meetings with James Fleming while employed as the interim superintendent of CUSD. He said he was surprised at the number of support staff in the superintendent’s suite and had no idea what Kate McIntyre or Carolyn Williams did. McCully admitted under oath that he relied 100 percent on whatever Doomey told him -- He did not review a single document or seek any independent confirmation. He thought Dave Doomey was an expert in the area of school district financing. The following are excerpts from former Interim Superintendent McCully’s grand jury testimony: Answer: I had conversations with Dave [Doomey] regarding the administration building because I had had several phone calls, inquiries, and perhaps other kinds of communications, concerns being expressed as to where the resources came from to construct the new administration building. So, one of the first things I wanted to do was to simply clear up the funding, not just of the administration building, but all the projects that had been completed over the last 10 to 15 years…and we had a public meeting on that… Question: Were there documents that clearly showed how the [new $52,000,000 administration] building would be funded? Question: Did you ask for any of them? Question: How did you find out how the building was funded? Question: Did Dave Doomey extract that information? Question: Did you speak with Dave Doomey about the procedure in which the administration building was constructed, the leaseback deal with Valley Commercial? Question: You don't know any of the advantages or disadvantages to [the leaseback deal with Valley Commercial on the administration building]? Question: When Dave Doomey explained to you about the sources of the funding, did he explain why it was he had misinformed either you and or the public about the single source of funding previously? Question: Did you ask him? Question: Was it your understanding that you had a guaranteed maximum price for the construction of the [administration] building? Question: Can you shed some light on the circumstances of how it was that the guaranteed maximum price was exceeded by that much money? Question: Who would make that recommendation [regarding the funding of the administration building] to the board? Question: [as to the “misinformation” the district had put out about the admin building] so you never found out why the district -- Question: Would it surprise you to know that Dave Doomey sat here and told us he was not an expert at all in financing school buildings? Question: Would it surprise you to learn that Dave Doomey said the only way he knows about lease leasebacks is because an attorney told him about it? Question: So, retirement is looking pretty good again? Question: In this evaluation, did you ever come across (page 1053) any administrative positions where you said, “I don't know what they do”? Question: What positions were those, Superintendent McCully? Notes Issues raised in the testimony: It appears no one in the district office is evaluated regarding their job performance. Some raises were given out by Fleming for no particular reason; others were tied to teacher and classified negotiations. None were based on performance that were addressed in the testimony. The board included in Fleming’s contract that he would receive the same raise he negotiated for the teachers. Many of the employees discussed in the testimony had no experience in their jobs prior to receiving them. They moved from teacher to principal to district specialist. Hahn, McGill, Doomey, Smollar, Bristow, Williams and many other district employees are in positions created by Fleming for them. Fleming had four secretaries. The approval of the $22.6-million, no-bid, guaranteed-maximum contract for the district administration building was handled on the consent calendar. There was no public discussion. The board approved the contract for the district office prior to having any plans. The district office building was funded with SJC redevelopment funds and Mello-Roos funds. Then, Doomey, Fleming and the board proceeded to provide misinformation about the use of Mello-Roos (in fact they lie in response to direct questions about Mello-Roos until 2006 when they admitted they used it for the district office). All of the testimony can be found at: Check out the 1991 Grand Jury report on CUSD as well: |
||