||| FROM BILL WATSON |||
Responding to the falsehoods coming from the campaign of Kari’s opponent is becoming really tiresome. The latest hit piece, submitted by John Nance and Lisa Des Jardin, concerns Kari’s time as superintendent of the Beverly Hills Unified School District (BHUSD), where she served approximately from October 2006 through October 2008.
When Kari arrived, there was a contractor, a Ms. Christiansen, in place serving as the Facilities Director. The previous superintendent had converted Ms. Christiansen from employee to contractor with a generous contract.
Well after Kari had moved on to her position in the Bay Area, her successor at BHUSD discovered what he believed to be a conflict of interest with Ms. Christiansen. Based on this, the Board terminated Ms. Christiansen’s contract and she sued.
During the years-long legal battle, Kari was twice flown down to Los Angeles by BHUSD to give a deposition and later to testify for the school district. Kari did not “walk away from the problem.”
It should be noted that ultimately, Ms. Christiansen prevailed and won on appeal. In addition, Nance and Des Jardin toss $300 million bond into their scramble of “facts” as more dark matter. The truth is that this bond was passed by 65% of the electorate who concurred with the facility needs of the district.
In short, the entire situation had nothing to do with Kari. Those are the facts, as opposed to the falsehoods. We can’t resist borrowing a quote from a recent letter in support of Kari, “When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
**If you are reading theOrcasonian for free, thank your fellow islanders. If you would like to support theOrcasonian CLICK HERE to set your modestly-priced, voluntary subscription. Otherwise, no worries; we’re happy to share with you.**
Bill, you are tired of responding to “falsehoods,” while I’m getting weary of explaining the truth, as presented in the legal record. This case came about based on the lack of oversight that occurred on McVeigh’s watch; the firing of the consultant took place after she hightailed it out of there.
At first McVeigh didn’t even know the legal status of one of her key officers and then proceeded to augment her contract by the millions. This is quoted from the legal record, “The new District Superintendant Kari McVeigh believed for a time that Christiansen was a District employee and a member of her staff.” Also, if you read from the record, in June 2008, with one year left on her existing contract, Christensen negotiated a new contract. She testified that McVeigh wanted a new contract because the existing contract did not contain a “termination for convenience” clause; that is, a clause that would allow the district to end her contract without cause. However, IN ADDITION to the clause, and this is verbatim from the appeal language, the new contract ALSO (and I quote) “provided for a retroactive payment in the amount not to exceed $950,000 for services performed between January 1 and June 30, 2008.” (That is 6 months folks.) “The compensation would be updated annually as approved by the board.” … “McVeigh signed the contract on behalf of the district. The contract was approved by the board.”
Regarding the 300 million dollar bond, this is also from the record, verbatim: “Christiansen told McVeigh that if the Board approved the survey at its July 2008 study session, there would be enough time to place the issue on the November 2008 ballot. Eventually Christiansen got her way. She presented her idea for the bonds at the Board’s July 2008 study session. The Board approved the bond survey and approved placing the bond issues on the November 2008 ballot.” … “Later … Christiansen e-mailed McVeigh, “Can we include my company’s name too? I’d hate to do all this work and then be pushed aside.”
At the same Board meeting, Christiansen proposed that the District retain Strategic for program and project management of the projects to be funded by the bond. Christiansen proposed an amendment to the 2008 contract that Strategic be paid $6 million (2 percent of the $300 million project budget) for program management and $10.125 million (4.5 percent of the construction value of $225 million) for project management (hereafter “contract amendment”).” “After the meeting, Christiansen e-mailed McVeigh. Christiansen stated that she had been “breaking [her] butt” for the District, and now her competitors would have an opportunity to obtain the management contract. Christiansen claimed she had been discounting her fees to the District and threatened to stop the discount.
At a Board meeting in August 2008, Plotkin recommended that the Board approve Christiansen’s contract amendment. The Board approved the contract amendment. … On November 8, 2008, the voters passed the $334 million bond measure. On November 20, 2008, Christiansen sent the first invoice for program and project management services in the amount of $231,414.24. Between November 2008 and August 2009, Strategic collected more than $2 million in management fees even though no specific project had been approved.”
Still, from the record, McVeigh’s replacement, interim superintendent, Jerry Gross, was the one who brought the excessive payments under Strategic’s contract to the attention of the board. “The Board became aware that Christiansen was receiving “a lot of money.” Boardmember Myra Laurie testified that when Gross told her how much Christiansen was receiving, she was shocked and became physically ill.” … “The Board met within 24 hours to consider the matter. The Board retained a new attorney, Dannis Woliver Kelley, to advise it. On August 13, 2009, an attorney from Dannis Woliver Kelley’s office wrote Christiansen’s attorney advising him that Strategic’s contracts with the District are void under section 1090 for conflicts of interest.”
“The trial court awarded Strategic $4,310,660 in prejudgment interest pursuant to Civil Code section 3287, subdivision (b), and $2.3 million contractual attorney fees. The total judgment is $20,321,169.” So, Christiansen won and the Beverly Hills Unified School District filed an appeal and eventually prevailed. So you have it kind of backwards, Bill.
Clearly Ms. Christensen was engaged in what gives at least the appearance of something that could be called looting of the school district’s budget. Certainly San Juan County does not have the ability to compensate somebody nearly 2 million dollars for a job that has an approved compensation of $170,000. So we ask the question again, is this the caliber of oversight that would inspire confidence in this candidate for a fiduciary role in the highest county office?
Citation: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1895679.html
Lisa DesJardins you literally keep posting the same press release. Obviously you have either a personal or some political bias. Outside of the same press release, what exactly is your personal issue? And totally fine if you want to say you want Stephanie Day to win. But your repeated tirade here is getting boring.
As a resident and property owner, I have a vested interest in what happens in San Juan County. The McVeigh camp is repeatedly saying this lawsuit, not press release, is not true. I am simply pointing out that it is, repeatedly.
As a lawyer myself, I can tell you it isn’t a practice of the court to publish lies. I take exception to your claim that the expose of the lawsuit which encompassed actions of Ms. McVeigh’s in her role as Superintendent of the Beverly Hills School District is another “hit piece,” from Stephanie O’day’s campaign. Our crystal clear intent was to hold McVeigh’s official acts and omissions up to public scrutiny in order to help answer the question: Does this person demonstrate the qualities and tendencies we want in a member of the County Council? The narrative focused primarily on the words of the California Court of Appeals, which outlines the actions and inactions of Ms. McVeigh from the time she took over as Superintendent of the Beverly Hills School District in California from 2006 through her departure in 2008. How can anyone believe this woman when she is outright attempting to mislead us by saying this is a lie. The case can be read in full by going to: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1895679.html
A) The court pointed out that for a while after taking office, McVeigh did not even realize that one of her key officers (a woman named Karen Christiansen, Director of Planning and Facilities) was not an employee, and that she was operating on a contract basis through her own LLC. The history of McVeigh’s interaction with Christensen, their friendship, her contract, and McVeigh’s role in not putting the brakes on the monstrous inflation of the costs of that contract, are important indices of how much attention she paid to the overall budget.
B) What McVeigh’s successor brought to the attention of the board was that Ms. Christiansen, through her private company, Strategic LLC, was being paid large sums (on a contract that McVeigh had signed, which increased the maximum compensation from $130,000 per annum to $170,000 plus a retroactive payment for the period of January 1 and June 30, 2008 in an amount not to exceed $950,000), and subsequent payments that were made to Strategic. Strategic collected more than $2 million in management fees even though no specific project had been approved.
C) Soon after McVeigh signed the contract she left the district. She was a primary participant and therefore witness due to her contracting authority through her position with the district, so of course she would be asked to testify.
D) Ms. Christainsen was charged criminally, but her ultimate criminal conviction was reversed. Then she sued the school district and won. The school district then appealed the lower court’s decision, and it was reversed. The information surrounding the bond shenanigans are all included in the record. (Citation above.)
In short, the statement that “the entire situation had nothing to do with Kari” is clearly false.
In addition, Mr. Watson, it is elementary that even a clumsily concealed inference of slander (as you have repeated herein) may be in itself an act of actionable defamation.