Schools
CUSD Seeks to IMPUNE THE INTEGRITY of a Private Citizen
October 11, 2017 CUSD BOT Meeting Agenda Item #19 Trustee Request
October 11, 2017 CUSD BOT Meeting Agenda Item #19 Trustee Request
Citizen's Response
Date: October 5, 2017
To: Ray Armstrong, Senior Deputy Attorney
From: Dawn Urbanek
Re: Taxpayer response to OCDA's finings regarding the Conflict of Interest case against Trustee Hatton-Hodson
________________________________________________
Mr. Armstrong-
I am just a taxpayer in the state of California- not a politician- not a corporate board member; or anyone that has any power to do much, other than write letters to local elected officials in the hope that those representatives in government agencies that are suppose to represent the interests of taxpayers and students, do their job. So far- I do not feel adequately represented by the CUSD Board of Trustees, the County Board of Supervisors, the Fair Political Practices Commission, and now I am deeply troubled by the District Attorney's conclusions to a year long investigation into the Conflict of interest allegations against former Trustee Lynn Hatton-Hodson.
Conflict of Interest with Trustee Hatton- Hodson:
Find out what's happening in San Juan Capistranofor free with the latest updates from Patch.
1) The $10,000.00 paid to ACSA Foundation for Education was done on an MOU, not with a Purchase Order.
2) The services (CUSD's participation in Systems Leadership Collaborative) had already been performed when Staff brought the MOU to the Board for approval.
Find out what's happening in San Juan Capistranofor free with the latest updates from Patch.
3) Lynn Hatton-Hodson’s partner Jay Westover, was the individual who did the 2 day workshop in October 2015 at CUSD, so OF COURSE LYNN HATTON-HODSON KNEW ABOUT THE WORK SYSTEMS LEADERSHIP COLLABORATIVE WAS DOING FOR CUSD. Her partner did the work.
4) The return of the $10,000 was not sufficient to cure this Conflict of Interest because the real Conflict of interest was not based on CUSD’s receipt of a single $10,000 check, it is based on “undue influence”. CUSD has contracts with every single one of Lynn-Hatton-Hodsons business partners.
5) The Conflict of Interest case should have been based on Lynn Hatton-Hodsons "undue influence" over contracts CUSD entered into. The real financial gain is in the data mining of students which has been put in place by CUSD under Lynn Hatton-Hodsons company InnovateEd and her partnership in Systems Leadership Collaborative (ACSA- Michael Fullan - The Flippen Group and Fagen Friedman and Fulfrost). Resigned Trustee Lynn Hatton- Hodson is also partners in LCAPca with ACSA and Progress Advisors. Now that the LCAP is in place, and now that CUSD has added a “Local Dashboard” to collect additional social emotional and health data of all students over and above what the California Department of Education is collecting; Lynn Hatton- Hodson and her business partners will financially profit for years to come. She was able to accomplish this only through her influence on the CUSD Board, and her business relationships with ACSA and the State Department of Education who she was intimately involved in the implementation California's new education funding law LCFF, the Common Core and the LCAP.
6) Given her business interest - Lynn Hatton-Hodson should never have been a CUSD Trustee. It was odd that when she resigned her position as Trustee, she did so in a letter to the County Office of Education- not in a letter to CUSD?
7) The DA's reliance on the fact that Lynn Hatton-Hodson did not know about this contract because she missed the meeting where the MOU was approved is absurd. Trustees get the board packet at 9:00am on the Wednesday before a board meeting and they are to review it before the Agenda is posted to the web. Trustee's are responsible for knowing what is on every agenda whether or not they attend the meeting, or vote on a particular item. Lynn Hatton-Hodson had an obligation to disclose her business interests, and her involvement in Systems Leadership Collaborative. By using an MOU instead of a PO- the intent to hide this “after-the-fact” contract is obvious.
Fair Political Practices Commission Complaint Against Lynn Hatton-Hodson
From the dias Lynn Hatton-Hodson announced that there was no conflict of interest case against her.
When I contacted the FPPC to confirm her statement, I received two separate responses from the Fair Political Practices Commission within minutes of each other. One letter stated that an investigation was never opened. The other said that the investigation was still on-going.
As part of my complaint, the DA's office said they would let me know how that could have happened.
I have never received any correspondence as to the final disposition of my sworn complaint against Lynn Hatton-Hodson.
The DA's office said it was investigating this, and would get back to me. Now I am being told that if I want an answer I will need to ask the FPPC myself- well like the County of Orange regarding Toll Road issues, the Fair Political Practices Commissions does not respond to my inquiries. I have PUBLIC RECORDS REQUESTS to the County of Orange regarding the Toll Road that have never been responded to and the FPPC has never responded to my requests for a conclusion to my FPPC complaint.
There is something terribly wrong in the State of California right now, and terribly wrong in Orange County.
We have a District Attorney’s office that is being investigated by the FBI. (In my opinion, the FBI should really be investigating the County Board of Supervisors) and their involvement with the TCA/Toll Road- Ranch/CUSD boondoggle.
We have a School District that is abusive to taxpayers and to it's students, and there is no where for taxpayers to go for relief.
I have knowledge of four land deals - all corrupt; that will, or have resulted in the gifting and/or wasting of taxpayer assets representing millions of taxpayers dollars. Dollars that our children desperately need for very basic services like reasonable class sizes, safe facilities and access to a curriculum that aligns with minimum State Content Standards and Curriculum Frameworks that are taught by an appropriately credentialed teacher. Everyone of these land deals will have a substantial negative effect on the quality of life for taxpayers living and working near these properties. The total amount of these deals represent over $45 million of taxpayer money.
Esencia K-8
The Esencia K-8 school site purchase, which your office has been reviewing for a very long time is clear and simple, yet there has been no action on the part of the DA’s office.
The site for Esencia was appraised at highest and best use, which means it was valued based on entitlements to build homes. Both the initial appraisal and the two re-appraisals concluded that same fact. CUSD paid for entitlements it has never received. There has been a gifting of public money in excess of $13 million dollars. Notable, neither The Ranch, nor CUSD asked for an appraisal that addressed the value of the property without any entitlements. Both parties wanted an inflated appraisal value for this land.
It is not "OK" to inflate land values that will enrich CUSD and the Ranch with higher State matching funds.
It is not OK for the Ranch to now have a comp on lands within the Ranch plan area that are artificially higher, so that all future land sales will be artificially inflated.
Tesoro High School/Toll Road
Despite countless requests for emergency relief, there has been no action taken by any party to protect the students at Tesoro from a Toll Road that is being constructed less than 100' from the school without any protective barrier as required by the EIR.
In closing...
I appreciate how difficult it must be for all DA’s right now given the Toll Road Issues, the FBI investigations, and the public controversies between DA Tony Rackauckas and County Board of Supervisors, especially Todd Spitzer.
I was personally very deflated in December when the CUSD Board had Tony Rackauckas come to a CUSD board meeting to swear in Trustee Pritchard and Trustee Reardon. I knew then that the chances of actually seeing any results that would benefit taxpayers and students were slim and probably none.
While I am very disappointed in the results of the DA's investigation into the Conflict of Interest allegations against Trustee Hatton-Hodson, I can understand that the entire office has been placed in a compromised position.
There appears to no longer be a Rule of Law in the State, or in the County of Orange.
Dawn Urbanek
FYI-
From the December 14, 2016 CUSD BOT Meeting the meeting was broken into pieces trying to accommodate the arrival of DA Tony Rackauckas to swear in Trustee Pritchard and Trustee Reardon- it was very odd.
Board Audio:
Board Audio at 86:55
Superintendent Vital at the Presidential Inauguration with Head of the California Republican Party Jim Brulte.
I now believe that the FPPC failed to take action because the Superintendent of CUSD is involved with the Head of the Republican Party for the State of California and no one wants answers to the issues named above. Political favor?
Trustee Hatton-Hodson was placed in CUSD by people very high up in public education for the sole purpose of implementing "The Blueprint for Education". Jack O'Connell ex superintendent of California's Department of Education endorsed Lynn Hatton-Hodson for Trustee and is now an advisor to CUSD as a member of Capital Advisors.
It all smells very bad from my perspective and the harm that has been done to taxpayers and students is irreversible.
Undue Influence was the Conflict of Interest I sent to the DA’s Office and that is NOT ADDRESSED IN THIS 5 page letter after a year long investigation?
Undue Influence
Education Week: No State Will Measure Social-Emotional Learning Under ESSA. Will That Slow It's Momentum?
CUSD is measuring Social-Emotional Learning
CUSD is measuring Social-Emotional Learning while everyone else realizes it is unethical to collect personally identifiable data on EVERY student with NO ABILITY FOR PARENTS TO OPT OUT!
"When the Every Student Succeeds Act was enacted, speculation swirled that states might use it as a launching pad to use measures of students’ social and emotional competencies to determine whether their schools are successful."
CUSD's "LOCAL" DASHBOARD
The Capistrano Unified School District in Orange County California is doing this. In addition to California's State Dashboard, CUSD has developed its own "local Dashboard" specifically designed to capture social and emotional data on every student in the District, because it does not allow students to "Opt Out".
The work they are doing is getting so close to HIPPA Violations it is scary.
I believe this was all initiated by an ex-Trustee Lynn Hatton-Hodson who owns a company called InnovateEd that was partners in Systems Leadership Collaborative and LCAPca. She resigned under Conflict of Interest Allegations.
But- CUSD is marching forward with the data collection that has been put in place. I have have stood before that board many time and expressed my concern about the Collection of personally identifiable information on EVERY student with no ability to OPT OUT
See: See May 17, 2017 Board Workshop (which they do not record) Agenda Item #1 District Dashboard
Yellow: Social Emotional Indicators
Blue: Academic Indicators
See also CUSD's "Application to Conduct Research" where they sell that data to any interested party. http://capousd.ca.schoolloop.com/cms/page_view?d=x&piid=&vpid=1479030789577
Fair Political Practices Complaint - Supporting Documentation
On Saturday October 1, 2016 I received a letter from the Fair Political Practices Commission regarding Trustee Hatton-Hodson's failure to report her business interest in InnovateEd, Systems Leadership Collaborative and LCAPca.
This complaint is over 1 years old and I have never received any written conclusion to this matter.
The Conflict of Interest Investigation Takes a Very Odd Turn
February 22, 2017 CUSD BOT Meeting
Board Audio at 56:02 Trustee Hatton-Hodson makes a statement from the Dais that there is no investigation currently.
Trustee Hatton- Hodson Lies from the Dais:
"There is NO Pending Conflict of Interest Case Against Her."
February 23, 2017 E-mail to FPPC re: Trustee Hatton-Hodsons' statement
February 23, 2017 E-mail to Special Prosecutor Ray Armstrong re: Trustee Hatton-Hodsons' statement
February 23, 2017 E-mail response from Special Prosecutor Ray Armstrong
Many People discredited all the work I had been doing because of Trustee Hatton-Hodsons lie from the Dais. The only way to restore my credibility was to verify that there was still an ongoing investigation.
February 23, 2017 E-mail to Special Prosecutor Ray Armstrong asking if I can share his response.
February 24, 2017 E-mail from Chloe Hackert FPPC at 11:19 am
February 24, 2017 E-mail from Adrianne Korchmaros FPPC at 11:22 am
February 24, 2017 E-mail to Adrianne Korchmaros FPPC at 11:30
February 24, 2017 E-mail from Adrianne Korchmaros FPPC at 11:32
February 28, 2017 Letter from Galena West, Chief enforcement Division FPPC
March 7, 2017 Letter to Galena West, Chief enforcement Division FPPC
The Fair Political Practices Commission HAS NEVER RESPONDED to this letter.
Maybe there needs to be an investigation into the Fair Political Practices Commission; especially in light of their recent change to campaign finance laws to help Senator Josh Newman fight his recall.
Take the FAIR out of the Political Practice Commission's name.
Trustee Hatton-Hodson announces her resignation from the Board of Trustees
At the April 19, 2017 BOT meeting Trustee Hatton-Hodson announces that she will resign effective June 2, 2017.
Note: She gave her letter of resignation to the County Office of Education- shouldn't it have gone to CUSD?
On her way out of the door, Trustee Hatton-Hodson asks that Board Policy be changed to LIMIT PUBLIC COMMENT
The entire documented scandal can be read at the following link: CUSDWatch: Scandal... The Untold Story Behind The Resignation of CUSD Trustee Lynn Hatton-Hodson
ARTICLE By Craig P. Alexander regarding CUSD paying for Trustee Hatton- Hodson's legal defense.
So what did taxpayers get from CUSD’s financing of Former Trustee Lynn Hatton-Hodson’s Financial Conflict of Interest defense? Nothing!
Part One of Two
Posted by Craig P. Alexander on August 24, 2017
Former CUSD Trustee Hatton-Hodson’s Undisclosed Financial Conflicts Of Interest And The FPPC
Last fall it was discovered that elected CUSD Trustee Lynn Hatton-Hodson had an undisclosed financial conflict of interest due to her ownership interest in a vendor to Capistrano Unified School District. She apparently did not disclose this conflict in her required filing with the County known as a Form 700 (Statement of Economic Interest). A citizen made a complaint to the FPPC (the Fair Political Practices Commission) about Ms. Hatton-Hodson’s failure to disclose the obvious conflict.
Normally the filling out and defending of a Form 700 is completely on the shoulders of the person who files it – whether a successful candidate for office like Ms. Hatton-Hudson or the losing candidate who is not elected to office. In this case the CUSD Board of Trustees had an attorney opine that filling out a Form 700 was an official act of a Trustee and any challenge regarding the form entitles the Trustee to a taxpayer funded defense by attorneys who specialize in this field.
Trustee Hatton-Hodson’s Undisclosed Financial Conflicts of Interest and the FPPC
In September 2016, the Board of Trustees voted 6 to 0 (Ms. Hatton-Hodson did not vote) to retain the law firm of Olson, Hagel & Fishburn, LLP of Sacramento to defend their colleague before the FPPC. The Board of Trustees authorized the District to spend $15,000.00 of taxpayer money to defend her.
The Olson firm was specifically requested by Ms. Hatton-Hodson in a letter addressed to CUSD’s general counsel Mr. David Huff of the law firm of Orbach, Huff, Saurez & Henderson, LLP. [Hatton-Hodson ltr to Huff]. Interestingly the fee agreement between the Olson firm and the District identified the District as the Client not Ms. Hatton-Hodson. [9-28-16 Professional Services Agreement]. Yet they apparently defended Ms. Hatton-Hodson, not the District, before the FPPC.
Conflict of Interest – What Conflict of Interest!
The California Policy Center, Inc. sent Public Records Act requests to CUSD and the FPPC after the FPPC closed its file in this matter in late February 2017.
Most of the time a contract between a client and an attorney firm is required under Business and Professions Code section 6148. CUSD disclosed to CPC the agreement between itself and the Olson firm. Again, oddly, this agreement identifies the District not Trustee Hatton-Hodson as the Client of the firm. The FPPC complaint was the sole scope of work listed for the Olson firm.
In addition, an attorney is not allowed to represent clients with conflicting interests. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-310. The attorney may represent two clients where the conflict of interest between them is only a potential one. But the attorney should obtain a written Waiver of the Potential Conflict of Interest. Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 3-310 (c).
A potential conflict of interest is something that is very foreseeable in this situation and where the interests if the District and Ms. Hatton-Hodson could become adverse requiring the attorney to withdraw from the representation at any time. However when we received the documents from CUSD, while the 9/26/17 Agreement was produced, no signed off letters or notices to either the District or Ms. Hatton-Hodson of the Potential Conflict of Interest for the Olson firm were disclosed. Thus it appears no written waiver was obtained even though one Trustee apparently understood this and brought it to the attention to the Superintendent. [9-26-16 E-mail].
Public Records Act requests by CPC to CUSD and the FPPC – Surprise: Three Law Firms for One Matter!
When CPC sought records under the Public Records Act the requests included attorney fee invoices related to the FPPC matter from CUSD. In documents disclosed by CUSD we received invoices from not one but three law firms. Importantly there was one invoice from the Olson firm dated October 31, 2016 for just over $15,000 – the entire amount authorized by the Board of Trustees just one half of one month earlier. [10-31-16 Olson Invoice].
But there were two other firms sending CUSD invoices for this matter: The Orbach firm apparently to give legal advice that the Board could spend taxpayer funds to defend Trustee Hatton-Hodson and presumably to watch over the Olson firm. Also billing on this matter was the law firm of Werksman, Jackson, Hathaway & Quinn acting as an expert to the Orbach firm. The hourly rate for the Werksman firm’s senior partner is $750 per hour! [Werksman Invoices]. All three law firm’s invoices were heavily redacted (blocked out) so that we could not read what these law firms did for Ms. Hatton-Hodson’s defense. We asked CUSD to give us un-redacted versions of these invoices and it refused.
In Part Two of Two – More Public Money for Attorneys, And for What? Plus Serious Questions Remain from this Episode.
Craig Alexander is an attorney who represents requestors of information under the California Public Records Act. He is also volunteer General Counsel for the California Policy Center, Inc. a policy think tank that advocates for transparency in government. He is a former candidate for CUSD’s Board of Trustees. Craig can be reached at craig@craigalexanderlaw.com.
So what did taxpayers get from CUSD’s financing of Former Trustee Lynn Hatton-Hodson’s Financial Conflict of Interest defense? Nothing!
Part Two of Two
Even More Taxpayer Education Dollars to The Olson Law Firm and the Blocked Entries of the Descriptions of Services
In December the Board authorized a $10,000 increase in the allowed cost for the Olson firm (for total legal fees of $25,000.00). [12-6-16 More Money for Olson Authorization]. Then in February 2017 the FPPC closed its file. The Olson firm did not submit another invoice to CUSD until April 30, 2017 for $937.50. When CUSD finally disclosed this invoice in late July (after several requests by CPC) it contained the similar redactions as in the 10/31/16 invoice. [4-30-17 Olson Invoice]
As an attorney myself I understand and value the need for the attorney client communication privilege. However in this case we have taxpayer funds being spent for the legal defense of a financial disclosure filing which is normally privately funded by the politician themselves. Therefore it would be proper for the taxpayers to know what they received for their money. CUSD could waive the Attorney Client Privilege and give us un-redacted invoices. But it has refused to do so.
Just What Did the Olson Firm Do For The Money?
With all of the Olson’s firm’s billing activity as of October 31, 2016 we would expect there to be letters and e-mails going back and forth between the Olson firm and the FPPC.
But in the responses to CPC by CUSD and the FPPC not one letter or e-mail was apparently exchanged between the Olson firm and the FPPC. Not. One. Letter. Or. E-mail. Nothing! And none between the FPPC and the Orbach or Werksman firms either. The FPPC advised me that if they had “phone notes” of any conversations with the Olson firm, those would have been turned over in response to our Public Records Act request. None were disclosed.
Serious Questions Remain
So after obtaining everything in writing from CUSD (and the FPPC) that they would disclose, many serious questions remain:
Why are there be no written communications or telephone notes of conversations between the Olson law firm and the FPPC?
Why would the Olson firm not bill the District for the time put into the case between Nov. 1st and Feb. 28th until April 30, 2017?
Just what did this Olson firm do for the $16,274.50 taxpayer’s dollars it was paid?
Are there other matters the Olson firm is being paid taxpayer money for by CUSD? There is an investigation by the Orange County District Attorney’s office into this same matter involving Ms. Hatton-Hodson. That District Attorney investigation is not mentioned in the 9/26/16 Olson retainer agreement with CUSD.
Is the Orbach firm working for CUSD / Hatton-Hodson on the District Attorney’s investigation? Why else would they hire the $750 per hour Werksman firm which advertises itself as “Tenacious. Proven. Criminal Trial Attorneys“? The Werksman firm’s total invoicing (per the records CUSD disclosed) on this matter is $13,972.50 to date. $2,175.00 for work done in March 2017 AFTER the FPPC closed its file in February 2017.
Why would the Olson law firm retained to assist the former trustee by the District not list Trustee Hatton-Hodson as the Client rather than the District? After all the District did not fail to file the Disclosure form correctly – Lynn Hatton-Hodson apparently failed to do this. Why were there no written waivers of the obvious potential conflict of interest in the file disclosed to CPC?
What did the Orbach firm do for CUSD that the Olson firm was not already doing after the Board of Trustees hired Olson in late September 2016?
Here is the breakdown of the taxpayer dollars spent on lawyers in the Lynn Hatton-Hodson matter to date:
Olson $16,274.50
Orbach $11,728.00
Werksman $13,972.50
Total $41,975.00
Who Received What Benefits For The Public’s $41,975.00 Tax Dollars?
What did the taxpayers get for this expenditure of public funds? Apparently absolutely nothing except dollars that could have been used in the class room are now in the possession of attorneys. In fact, three sets of attorneys!
What did CUSD and the children it is supposed to service get for this expense? Nothing.
What did former Trustee Lynn Hatton-Hodson receive? A free taxpayer funded legal defense before the FPPC (and maybe for the District Attorney’s investigation as well).
Perhaps the real question here is what did the other Trustees get for this expenditure of their constituents’ money! Apparently the comfort of knowing that if in the future they are caught with their proverbial hands in the financial cookie jar they will have taxpayer dollars to defend their actions and mistakes as political candidates.
Craig Alexander is an attorney who represents requestors of information under the California Public Records Act. He is also volunteer General Counsel for the California Policy Center, Inc. a policy think tank that advocates for transparency in government. He is a former candidate for CUSD’s Board of Trustees. Craig can be reached at craig@craigalexanderlaw.com.