Home › News › Local News
Star seeks court order to force spending disclosure
Oxnard high school district, insurer refuse, cite state law
Download this story as a podcast!
STORY TOOLS 
More from Local NewsThe Ventura County Star is seeking a court order to force the Oxnard Union High School District and its insurer to turn over information about how much they're spending to fight a lawsuit filed by a former employee.
Court records show that the agencies' attorney fees through May were at least $340,000.
Encino lawyer Dennis Walsh is representing both the district and the Ventura County Schools Self-Funding Authority, which insures a number of public school districts.
Walsh asserted in letters to The Star that his law firm's invoices are exempt from California's Public Records Act because they are "records pertaining to pending litigation."
Walsh did not return two phone calls seeking comment.
The Star's lawyer, Laura Cota, disagrees that the records are exempt and filed a motion seeking their release last week in Ventura County Superior Court. The Star's motion is scheduled to be heard Jan. 3.
Former employee files suit
The district is fighting a wrongful termination lawsuit filed by Becky Romano, a former assistant principal at Pacifica High School. After suffering a work-related injury in 2003 that required a lengthy convalescence, Romano claims she returned to work as an assistant principal at Rio Mesa High School in August 2004, but the district eventually forced her out by stating she was physically unable to perform her duties.
"Government agencies, including school districts, must be held accountable for their actions in conducting the people's business, and especially in spending the taxpayers' dollars," Cota said. "This paramount need for accountability is why the Legislature grants everyone in this state a right of access to government records."
The information should be accessible, according to Terry Francke, general counsel for Californians Aware, a nonprofit organization dedicated to keeping government open and accountable.
"This is information that is of significance to the public, which is paying for the attorney," Francke said. "It is of trivial significance, if any, to the litigation opponent.
"This position that attorney billings are subject to the exemption for records pertaining to pending litigation has for a long time been the standard position of public agencies that do not want the public to realize how expensive litigation is becoming."
He noted that Proposition 59, passed by voters in 2004, requires that the Public Records Act's exemptions be construed narrowly.
The Star made a formal request for the information in late October, at a time when the district was asking the court for a protective order that would have kept the fees from becoming public. The district has since refused to provide the records.
Unaware of court order
Jack Parham, another lawyer representing the district, said the records are maintained by the Self-Funding Authority, not the school district.
"They may not maintain records of this information, but they could certainly obtain it if they wanted to," Francke said of the district.
"We keep track of everything, but I don't have it in my head right now," said Oxnard Union High School District President Dick Jaquez. "We could ask for it, I guess. We can come up with it."
But Jaquez said he was not aware The Star had gone to court over the matter, and said he'd have to defer to the lawyers' decision to keep the records from public view.
Attorney Allen Ball, representing the former employee, has made the fees an issue by accusing the district's lawyers of dragging their heels to reach a settlement with his client.
"The school district has needlessly thrown away hundreds of thousands of tax dollars chasing ghosts," Ball said. "In fact, rather than even talk about settling this case, the school district has insisted to litigate and litigate and litigate."
The district's lawyers argue the case isn't worth settling.
"We didn't sue anybody, and we have the right to aggressively defend ourselves," Parham said, "so it costs what it costs. We have to spend what we have to protect the public dollars that are out there."
About a year ago, Ball said he offered to settle the matter for about $75,000.
Ordered to pay $35,000
Romano now works as a principal of one of six "house" units at Santa Monica High School. Each unit has 550 students.
Her lawsuit named Director of Human Resources Denise Barnett, Director of Risk Management Steven Gama, Assistant Superintendent Roger Rice and the Oxnard Union High School District.
In May, a judge granted a summary judgment to dismiss Rice and Barnett from the case. The district's lawyers asked the court to order Romano to pay nearly $174,000 in attorney's fees spent to defend Rice and Barnett. The court responded by ordering her to pay $35,000. Romano has appealed that decision. The case against Gama and the district continues.
Posted by Lolly on December 11, 2007 at 11:10 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Ok School District....Go ahead and blow hundreds of thousands of dollars of OUR TAX PAYER MONEY in order to protect the public dollars that are out there…..Does this even make sense??? The district’s lawyer, “Parham,” seems a little confused.
Oh and thanks for the wonderful guidance Dick Jaquez! Yeah right! He’s the president of the board of directors for OUHSD and still has no idea what is going on.
It seems that the district is just doing whatever the attorneys are telling them to do. However, the attorneys didn’t even tell the PRESIDENT of the board that the Star had an interest in this story. (Trying to cover up something Mr. Attorney???) I’m sorry – did we elect individuals who we THOUGHT were competent enough to run our school district, or did we hire money hungry lawyers to do it for them? Think about it….
Posted by Reenee on December 11, 2007 at 11:23 a.m. (Suggest removal)
"We didn't sue anybody, and we have the right to aggressively defend ourselves," Parham said, "so it costs what it costs. We have to spend what we have to protect the public dollars that are out there."
If this money was truly the “public’s dollars”, and it is our money being spent, why are we left in the dark? How much money has been thrown away? “Cost what it costs”, what does this mean? They have already spent over $340, 000?....For what, to save us $75, 000? How is it possible that the District spend $340,000 of the public’s money without feeling the need disclose to the public how that money is being spent and for what reasons? Who are they to decide how much money needs to be spent on defending someone and/or how much more needs to be spent. (I obviously do not trust this attorney’s or even the School District’s judgment.)
Other than wrongfully terminating Ms. Romano…are there any other allegations?????
“The district's lawyers argue the case isn't worth settling.” What else can they say……we spent over $300 THOUSAND DOLLARS in defense just because we are at war with the Plaintiff. And even though we might be at fault, we might as well spend over $300 THOUSAND DOLLARS from the School District’s funds and put it some attorney’s pocket…. LIKE THE DEFENSE ATTORNEY AND/OR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT WILL EVER ADMIT TO THAT!
Last time I checked, I was not paying taxes to make an attorney rich nor so that the School District to make stupid decisions on how much of those taxes to spend on something that their own attorney claims is not worth. Is it just me, or does anybody think that our School District made a smart decision made to continue to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on a case that could have been settled for $75 thousand dollars or even less?
Posted by jwallace on December 11, 2007 at 2:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Awww... How cute! The Star is pretending to have a pair! Funny how they do a decent job reporting this when it's set to make them look good. If only they attacked every story with the same energy level.
Anyway, we can't trust the school board to set an agenda on how to teach HIGH SCHOOLERS how to read and write. What makes you think they were competent in spending money as well? Also, you can't really blame the attorney for looking out for his own best interests, can you? There's a major difference between ethics and loyalty here - a lawyer has to pretend to have the former, but doesn't have to show signs of having the latter.
Posted by thirza.miller on December 12, 2007 at 11:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Regarding the comment made earlier: Wouldn't it be far better if many kids could read and write at grade level 'before' they got to High School? But that problem is not because of wasted spending, or is it??
Posted by Reenee on December 12, 2007 at 4:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Lets see... spend $340,000 as of May, the case has been going on, to save $75,000? Do the math!! How do you (TheDocIzBack) come to the conclusion that even if there might be a defense fund, those monies do not constitute public monies? You certaintly can't ask the president of the school district as he does not have any idea. This appears to be people in the school district who acted improperly and are quite willing to spend any amount of public money to defend themselves. The rest of your comment is incoherent. Do you drink???
And for your information, I attended OHS, and let me tell you...the school district can definetly use some of that money for books, desks...a better education for the students that attend these schools. Try letting these individually named defendents pay for there own attorneys fees.... I bet you they would have settled a long, long time ago. Not because they work for the school district makes them perfect. Why should anybody who is terminated wrongfully from their employment allow the employer to get away with it??? If this would have happened to you, I am positive that you would have instantly gone to meet with an attorney. So if anybody is being two faced here..it is you "TheDocIzBack". And by the way..yes I do have a child that attends a school at the OUSD... and they are always asking the parents for donations. How active do you expect for parents to be with their kid's school? With having a full-time job, assisting the teachers with our kid's education and after school activities....is that good enough. Anyways, this is not about how active you are with your child's schooling, but it is actually about making bad decisions, and then taking everyone's money to pay for the individual's mistakes. Have you considered the idea that the School District might have terminated this person wrongfully????? The DISTRICT is not immune to treating their employees bad and terminating them wrongfully!!
Posted by jwallace on December 12, 2007 at 11:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)
My God, Thedoclzback, please tell me you're not a teacher for the school district! First off, let me say, "Bravo" for pulling the 1st Amendment card so quickly in your speech there. But let me also point out that the 1st Amendment protects the individual citizen's freedom of speech by preventing federal legislature from being passed (by the Federal Government) that would hinder those rights... It has nothing to do with you slamming a privately owned newspaper ON THEIR OWN BLOG! I'm surprised they didn't pull MY last comment. Apparently you not only didn't read the Bill of Rights, but you also didn't read the User Agreement that all of us agreed to prior to signing onto this forum.
Bravo for being the victim of your own argument and proving education IS more important than milk money since you obviously have filled up with the latter instead of the former...
(Requires free registration.)
Article discussions on this site are to support community debates of issues related to our stories and editorials.
Discussions should not stray from the subject of the story or editorial.
We do not allow the following:
We reserve the right to delete threads and/or ban users for these or other reasons we deem necessary.
Opinions are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.