4th Appellate District Division 1
(Cases begin at D035601)
Court data last updated:
02/09/2008 08:05 PM
Trial Court Case: GIN23022
Court of Appeal Case:
D043357
Division:
Case Caption: Smithfield et al.
v. Vista Unified School District
et al.
Case Type:
Filing Date: 12/02/2003
Docket (Register of Actions)
Smithfield et al. v. Vista Unified
School District et al.
Case Number D043357 Date
Description Notes
12/09/2003 Notice of appeal
lodged/received. Filed
December 1, 2003 by
RICHARD and ROSEMARY
SMITHFIELD
12/09/2003 Notice of appeal
lodged/received. Amended
notice filed 12/2/03 by
appellants to reflect correct
date of judgment
12/09/2003 Appellate package
sent.
12/09/2003 Note: appellants
paid in cash
12/09/2003 Notice per rule 5.1
- with reporter's transcript. Filed
Dec. 1, 2003
12/19/2003 Civil case
information statement filed.
12/17/2003 Notice to reporter
to prepare transcript. S.
Anderson - 8/1/03
01/21/2004 Filing fee. check
received by County
01/27/2004 Change of address
filed for: Dean Gregory
Chandler
(Old address) Law Ofc Dean
Chandler
220 W Grand Ave
Escondido CA 92025
02/25/2004 REPORTER'S
TRANSCRIPT FILED*** Clerk's
rule 5.1; Reporter's-1
03/12/2004 Association of
attorneys filed for: appellants.
Dean G. Chandler associates
IN Martha L. McGill for
appellants Richard and
Rosemary Smithfield.
03/26/2004 Granted -
extension of time. Attorney:
McGill, Martha > to 4/26/04
Party: Smithfield, Rosemary
Party: Smithfield, Richard
04/28/2004 Granted -
extension of time. Attorney:
Chandler, Dean > to 5/26/04
Party: Smithfield, Rosemary
Attorney: Chandler, Dean
Party: Smithfield, Richard
05/11/2004 Change of address
filed for: Martha L. Mc Gill
(Old address)
732 North Highway 101, Suite B
Encinitas CA 92024
05/26/2004 Granted -
extension of time. Attorney:
Chandler, Dean > 16 days to
6/11/04 AS LAST
Party: Smithfield, Rosemary
Party: Smithfield, Richard
06/16/2004 Appellant notified
pursuant to rule 17(a)(1).
06/18/2004 APPELLANT'S
OPENING BRIEF. Attorney:
Chandler, Dean last extension
Party: Smithfield, Rosemary
Party: Smithfield, Richard
Attorney: McGill, Martha
06/18/2004 Appellant's
appendix filed. 2 Vols.
07/19/2004 Stipulation of
extension of time filed to:
Attorney: Shinoff, Daniel > 30
days to 8/18/04
Party: Vista Unified School
District
Attorney: Shinoff, Daniel
Party: Monce, Eric
08/19/2004 Granted -
extension of time. Attorney:
Shinoff, Daniel > to 9/17/04
LAST EXTENSION
Party: Vista Unified School
District
Party: Monce, Eric
NO ENVELOPES - Extension
returned via atty. service slip
08/19/2004 Received
document entitled: Amended
proof of service to show service
of req. ext. time to file
RB on correct address for atty.
McGill.
09/22/2004 Respondent
notified pursuant to rule
17(a)(2).
10/07/2004 RESPONDENT'S
BRIEF. Attorney: Shinoff, Daniel
LAST EXTENSION
Party: Vista Unified School
District
Party: Monce, Eric
10/27/2004 APPELLANT'S
REPLY BRIEF. Attorney: Mc Gill,
Martha
Party: Smithfield, Rosemary
Party: Smithfield, Richard
Attorney: Chandler, Dean
10/27/2004 Oral argument
waiver notice sent. 11/8/04
10/27/2004 CASE FULLY
BRIEFED.
11/01/2004 Request for oral
argument filed by: appellant/15
min
11/05/2004 Request for oral
argument filed by:
respondents-15 minutes
POS on way
11/10/2004 Received letter
from: Atty McGill re recent
decision of the California
Supreme Court in
Stockett case
11/15/2004 Received
document entitled: POS for o/a
letter of November 4, 2004
12/03/2004 **CALENDAR
NOTICE SENT** Calendar
Date: Wednesday, January 12,
2005 @ 1:30 p.m.
12/29/2004 Order filed. The
order of December 3, 2004
placing this matter on calendar
for
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
at l:30 p.m. is vacated. Oral
argument
will be calendared in
FEBRUARY. The clerk of the
court will notify
all parties of the new date and
time.
01/06/2005 **CALENDAR
NOTICE SENT** Calendar
Date: Wednesday, February 16,
2005 at l:30 p.m.
02/16/2005 Cause argued and
submitted.
03/10/2005 Opinion filed. The
judgment is affirmed. Irion, J.;
We Concur: McConnell, PJ,
Huffman, J.
05/10/2005 Remittitur issued.
05/10/2005 Case complete.
05/10/2006 Record sent to
storage.
Smithfield v. Vista Unified
School Dist.
3/10/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN
OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule
977(a), prohibits courts and
parties from citing or relying on
opinions not certified for
publication or ordered
published, except as specified
by rule 977(b). This opinion has
not been certified for publication
or ordered published for
purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiffs Richard Smithfield
and Rosemary Smithfield
appeal a summary judgment
favoring defendants Vista
Unified School District (District)
and Eric Monce on plaintiffs'
complaint for retaliatory
harassment, negligent hiring,
and intentional/negligent
infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiffs contend the superior
court reversibly erred by
determining (1) their cause of
action for retaliatory
harassment was barred by their
failure to comply with the claim
presentation requirements of
the Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code,
§ 810 et seq.); (2) their cause of
action for District's negligently
hiring, supervising and
retaining its employee Monce
was barred by the statutory
immunity accorded a
"mandated reporter" under the
Child Abuse and Neglect
Reporting Act (Pen. Code, §
11164 et seq.); and (3) their
causes of action for
intentional/negligent infliction of
emotional distress were barred
by mandated reporter immunity
and by the exclusive remedy
provisions of the Workers'
Compensation Act (Lab. Code,
§ 3600 et seq.). We determine
defendants were entitled to
judgment as a matter of law
and, accordingly, affirm the
summary judgment.
I. INTRODUCTION
This lawsuit arises from
several workplace disputes at
District's Mission Meadows
Elementary School (Mission
Meadows) between plaintiffs
(teachers at the school) and
Monce (the school's principal).
For purposes of determining
the propriety of the defense
summary judgment, we state
the facts undisputed by the
parties and other facts in the
light most favorable to plaintiffs.
A. Events Before Plaintiffs
Presented Their Original Claim
Under the Tort Claims Act
On August 13, 2001, Mission
Meadows teacher Cami
Lonnegren gave Monce a letter
alleging Richard had been
emotionally and physically
abusive and/or sexually
inappropriate with students and
staff members. Without first
conducting an investigation of
Lonnegren's allegations,
Monce decided to report her
allegations to San Diego
County's Child Protective
Services (CPS). On August 15,
2001, Monce told Richard
allegations of child abuse had
been received that made it
necessary for Monce to file a
report with CPS. As a mandated
reporter under the Child Abuse
and Neglect Reporting Act (Pen.
Code, §§ 11165.7, 11165.9),
Monce reported Lonnegren's
allegations to CPS.
At the meeting held September
5, 2001, Monce provided and
read to Richard a
memorandum (September
2001 Memorandum) to give
Richard more information about
the child abuse allegations
against him and to hear
Richard's response to that
information...
(Cases begin at D035601)
Court data last updated:
02/09/2008 08:05 PM
Trial Court Case: GIN23022
Court of Appeal Case:
D043357
Division:
Case Caption: Smithfield et al.
v. Vista Unified School District
et al.
Case Type:
Filing Date: 12/02/2003
Docket (Register of Actions)
Smithfield et al. v. Vista Unified
School District et al.
Case Number D043357 Date
Description Notes
12/09/2003 Notice of appeal
lodged/received. Filed
December 1, 2003 by
RICHARD and ROSEMARY
SMITHFIELD
12/09/2003 Notice of appeal
lodged/received. Amended
notice filed 12/2/03 by
appellants to reflect correct
date of judgment
12/09/2003 Appellate package
sent.
12/09/2003 Note: appellants
paid in cash
12/09/2003 Notice per rule 5.1
- with reporter's transcript. Filed
Dec. 1, 2003
12/19/2003 Civil case
information statement filed.
12/17/2003 Notice to reporter
to prepare transcript. S.
Anderson - 8/1/03
01/21/2004 Filing fee. check
received by County
01/27/2004 Change of address
filed for: Dean Gregory
Chandler
(Old address) Law Ofc Dean
Chandler
220 W Grand Ave
Escondido CA 92025
02/25/2004 REPORTER'S
TRANSCRIPT FILED*** Clerk's
rule 5.1; Reporter's-1
03/12/2004 Association of
attorneys filed for: appellants.
Dean G. Chandler associates
IN Martha L. McGill for
appellants Richard and
Rosemary Smithfield.
03/26/2004 Granted -
extension of time. Attorney:
McGill, Martha > to 4/26/04
Party: Smithfield, Rosemary
Party: Smithfield, Richard
04/28/2004 Granted -
extension of time. Attorney:
Chandler, Dean > to 5/26/04
Party: Smithfield, Rosemary
Attorney: Chandler, Dean
Party: Smithfield, Richard
05/11/2004 Change of address
filed for: Martha L. Mc Gill
(Old address)
732 North Highway 101, Suite B
Encinitas CA 92024
05/26/2004 Granted -
extension of time. Attorney:
Chandler, Dean > 16 days to
6/11/04 AS LAST
Party: Smithfield, Rosemary
Party: Smithfield, Richard
06/16/2004 Appellant notified
pursuant to rule 17(a)(1).
06/18/2004 APPELLANT'S
OPENING BRIEF. Attorney:
Chandler, Dean last extension
Party: Smithfield, Rosemary
Party: Smithfield, Richard
Attorney: McGill, Martha
06/18/2004 Appellant's
appendix filed. 2 Vols.
07/19/2004 Stipulation of
extension of time filed to:
Attorney: Shinoff, Daniel > 30
days to 8/18/04
Party: Vista Unified School
District
Attorney: Shinoff, Daniel
Party: Monce, Eric
08/19/2004 Granted -
extension of time. Attorney:
Shinoff, Daniel > to 9/17/04
LAST EXTENSION
Party: Vista Unified School
District
Party: Monce, Eric
NO ENVELOPES - Extension
returned via atty. service slip
08/19/2004 Received
document entitled: Amended
proof of service to show service
of req. ext. time to file
RB on correct address for atty.
McGill.
09/22/2004 Respondent
notified pursuant to rule
17(a)(2).
10/07/2004 RESPONDENT'S
BRIEF. Attorney: Shinoff, Daniel
LAST EXTENSION
Party: Vista Unified School
District
Party: Monce, Eric
10/27/2004 APPELLANT'S
REPLY BRIEF. Attorney: Mc Gill,
Martha
Party: Smithfield, Rosemary
Party: Smithfield, Richard
Attorney: Chandler, Dean
10/27/2004 Oral argument
waiver notice sent. 11/8/04
10/27/2004 CASE FULLY
BRIEFED.
11/01/2004 Request for oral
argument filed by: appellant/15
min
11/05/2004 Request for oral
argument filed by:
respondents-15 minutes
POS on way
11/10/2004 Received letter
from: Atty McGill re recent
decision of the California
Supreme Court in
Stockett case
11/15/2004 Received
document entitled: POS for o/a
letter of November 4, 2004
12/03/2004 **CALENDAR
NOTICE SENT** Calendar
Date: Wednesday, January 12,
2005 @ 1:30 p.m.
12/29/2004 Order filed. The
order of December 3, 2004
placing this matter on calendar
for
Wednesday, January 12, 2005
at l:30 p.m. is vacated. Oral
argument
will be calendared in
FEBRUARY. The clerk of the
court will notify
all parties of the new date and
time.
01/06/2005 **CALENDAR
NOTICE SENT** Calendar
Date: Wednesday, February 16,
2005 at l:30 p.m.
02/16/2005 Cause argued and
submitted.
03/10/2005 Opinion filed. The
judgment is affirmed. Irion, J.;
We Concur: McConnell, PJ,
Huffman, J.
05/10/2005 Remittitur issued.
05/10/2005 Case complete.
05/10/2006 Record sent to
storage.
Smithfield v. Vista Unified
School Dist.
3/10/2005
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN
OFFICIAL REPORTS
California Rules of Court, rule
977(a), prohibits courts and
parties from citing or relying on
opinions not certified for
publication or ordered
published, except as specified
by rule 977(b). This opinion has
not been certified for publication
or ordered published for
purposes of rule 977.
Plaintiffs Richard Smithfield
and Rosemary Smithfield
appeal a summary judgment
favoring defendants Vista
Unified School District (District)
and Eric Monce on plaintiffs'
complaint for retaliatory
harassment, negligent hiring,
and intentional/negligent
infliction of emotional distress.
Plaintiffs contend the superior
court reversibly erred by
determining (1) their cause of
action for retaliatory
harassment was barred by their
failure to comply with the claim
presentation requirements of
the Tort Claims Act (Gov. Code,
§ 810 et seq.); (2) their cause of
action for District's negligently
hiring, supervising and
retaining its employee Monce
was barred by the statutory
immunity accorded a
"mandated reporter" under the
Child Abuse and Neglect
Reporting Act (Pen. Code, §
11164 et seq.); and (3) their
causes of action for
intentional/negligent infliction of
emotional distress were barred
by mandated reporter immunity
and by the exclusive remedy
provisions of the Workers'
Compensation Act (Lab. Code,
§ 3600 et seq.). We determine
defendants were entitled to
judgment as a matter of law
and, accordingly, affirm the
summary judgment.
I. INTRODUCTION
This lawsuit arises from
several workplace disputes at
District's Mission Meadows
Elementary School (Mission
Meadows) between plaintiffs
(teachers at the school) and
Monce (the school's principal).
For purposes of determining
the propriety of the defense
summary judgment, we state
the facts undisputed by the
parties and other facts in the
light most favorable to plaintiffs.
A. Events Before Plaintiffs
Presented Their Original Claim
Under the Tort Claims Act
On August 13, 2001, Mission
Meadows teacher Cami
Lonnegren gave Monce a letter
alleging Richard had been
emotionally and physically
abusive and/or sexually
inappropriate with students and
staff members. Without first
conducting an investigation of
Lonnegren's allegations,
Monce decided to report her
allegations to San Diego
County's Child Protective
Services (CPS). On August 15,
2001, Monce told Richard
allegations of child abuse had
been received that made it
necessary for Monce to file a
report with CPS. As a mandated
reporter under the Child Abuse
and Neglect Reporting Act (Pen.
Code, §§ 11165.7, 11165.9),
Monce reported Lonnegren's
allegations to CPS.
At the meeting held September
5, 2001, Monce provided and
read to Richard a
memorandum (September
2001 Memorandum) to give
Richard more information about
the child abuse allegations
against him and to hear
Richard's response to that
information...
| Vista Unified School District |
| Best & Best does some Vista Unified School District work (Keenan) and some of Marsh and McMillan (Tri City Hospital through BETA JPA). VUSD took a lawyer out of Best and Best (Woody); also from Foley and Lardner (Greg Moser). |
3 contractors
campaigned for union
candidate, friends with
teachers association
campaigned to pass
bond,
went door to door
bond passed about 2005
to build a high school
high school was not built
contractors sat on bond
oversight committee
they bid low, were picked
They were friends of
superintendent and
facilities director
cost overruns
bought trailers instead of
building schools
roofs leaked
bailed out
$70 million out of $200
million not accounted for
Mike Vail of Temecula
Jerry McCloud filed
lawsuit against VUSD
campaigned for union
candidate, friends with
teachers association
campaigned to pass
bond,
went door to door
bond passed about 2005
to build a high school
high school was not built
contractors sat on bond
oversight committee
they bid low, were picked
They were friends of
superintendent and
facilities director
cost overruns
bought trailers instead of
building schools
roofs leaked
bailed out
$70 million out of $200
million not accounted for
Mike Vail of Temecula
Jerry McCloud filed
lawsuit against VUSD
| Joyce Bayles, superintendent, did internal audit when she came in, found money not used as it should have been, fired a lot of people, Teacher Union hostile to her. |
June 30, 2005
State Supreme Court to hear lawsuit against
VUSD
By: SCOTT MARSHALL - Staff Writer
VISTA ---- A lawsuit alleging that a teacher had
sex multiple times with one of his teenage
students at Vista High School more than 25
years ago could set a statewide legal
standard regarding when such cases can be
filed against public agencies, such as school
districts.
The state Supreme Court agreed June 22 to
review the case of a woman who sued the
Vista Unified School District and her former
teacher, Jeffrey Paul Jones, 57, in connection
with the allegations that Jones sexually
molested her between May 1978 and
November 1979.
The woman was 15 in 1978. Jones was 30.
At issue is whether a state law that allows
adults to file lawsuits based on allegations of
childhood sexual abuse also extends the time
in which they can file a claim against public
agencies.
State law requires that claims be filed with
public agencies within six months of an
alleged injury and before a lawsuit is filed. The
claims give agencies a chance to investigate,
settle some claims, avoid lawsuits, "quickly
rectify a dangerous condition" and account for
the claim in fiscal planning, a state appeals
court decision stated.
The state's 4th District Court of Appeal in San
Diego ruled in April that the woman's lawsuit
against Vista Unified and Jones was filed
within time limits specified by state law and
that the law extended the time for her to file a
claim. The appeals court overturned a
Superior Court judge's decision to dismiss
the woman's lawsuit at the district's request
because a claim was not filed within six
months in 1979.
In May, attorneys for the school district asked
the state Supreme Court to hear the case.
Daniel Shinoff, an attorney for the district, said
that within days of the appeals court ruling in
Vista Unified's case, a different state appeals
court issued a "completely opposite" opinion
in a case that was "almost identical" to the
lawsuit against Vista Unified.
Shinoff said he was pleased the state
Supreme Court agreed to review the case
against Vista Unified and resolve the
discrepancy among appeals courts.
"It's a serious issue for public entities, no
doubt about that," Shinoff said.
The woman's attorney, David Ronquillo, said
Thursday that he disagrees with the district's
contention that state appeals courts have
varied in their opinions about the law at issue
in his client's case against Vista Unified.
Ronquillo said he believes the state's highest
court will agree with the 4th District Court of
Appeal in San Diego and "give a strong
pronouncement" of the appeals court's
position in the case.
"There really is no disagreement," Ronquillo
said. "The statute is pretty clear."
Jones' attorney, Jonathan Vanderpool, could
not be reached Thursday for comment.
The woman filed a claim and her lawsuit
against the district and Jones in September
2003, after a psychological evaluation linked
psychological problems the woman had as an
adult to the alleged sexual molestation by her
teacher years before, the 4th District Court of
Appeals opinion stated.
The lawsuit was filed about two months after
the district attorney's office dismissed criminal
charges against Jones because of a June
2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The nation's
highest court found that the California law
prosecutors used to charge Jones ---- which
allowed them to bypass the usual statute of
limitations in such criminal cases ----- was
unconstitutional.
At a preliminary hearing in 2002 for the
criminal case, the woman, then 40, testified
that she and Jones had sex about 200 times
and engaged in sex acts in the teacher's
lounge, the school's audiovisual room, at a
teachers convention, at Jones' home and
other places.
The woman testified that she did not report the
sex acts to law enforcement until June 2001.
The woman's daughter had just turned 16 and
the woman had run into Jones at Vista High
School on occasion, she said. She would get
sick as a result and believed she had a duty to
step forward, she said at the hearing.
State Supreme Court to hear lawsuit against
VUSD
By: SCOTT MARSHALL - Staff Writer
VISTA ---- A lawsuit alleging that a teacher had
sex multiple times with one of his teenage
students at Vista High School more than 25
years ago could set a statewide legal
standard regarding when such cases can be
filed against public agencies, such as school
districts.
The state Supreme Court agreed June 22 to
review the case of a woman who sued the
Vista Unified School District and her former
teacher, Jeffrey Paul Jones, 57, in connection
with the allegations that Jones sexually
molested her between May 1978 and
November 1979.
The woman was 15 in 1978. Jones was 30.
At issue is whether a state law that allows
adults to file lawsuits based on allegations of
childhood sexual abuse also extends the time
in which they can file a claim against public
agencies.
State law requires that claims be filed with
public agencies within six months of an
alleged injury and before a lawsuit is filed. The
claims give agencies a chance to investigate,
settle some claims, avoid lawsuits, "quickly
rectify a dangerous condition" and account for
the claim in fiscal planning, a state appeals
court decision stated.
The state's 4th District Court of Appeal in San
Diego ruled in April that the woman's lawsuit
against Vista Unified and Jones was filed
within time limits specified by state law and
that the law extended the time for her to file a
claim. The appeals court overturned a
Superior Court judge's decision to dismiss
the woman's lawsuit at the district's request
because a claim was not filed within six
months in 1979.
In May, attorneys for the school district asked
the state Supreme Court to hear the case.
Daniel Shinoff, an attorney for the district, said
that within days of the appeals court ruling in
Vista Unified's case, a different state appeals
court issued a "completely opposite" opinion
in a case that was "almost identical" to the
lawsuit against Vista Unified.
Shinoff said he was pleased the state
Supreme Court agreed to review the case
against Vista Unified and resolve the
discrepancy among appeals courts.
"It's a serious issue for public entities, no
doubt about that," Shinoff said.
The woman's attorney, David Ronquillo, said
Thursday that he disagrees with the district's
contention that state appeals courts have
varied in their opinions about the law at issue
in his client's case against Vista Unified.
Ronquillo said he believes the state's highest
court will agree with the 4th District Court of
Appeal in San Diego and "give a strong
pronouncement" of the appeals court's
position in the case.
"There really is no disagreement," Ronquillo
said. "The statute is pretty clear."
Jones' attorney, Jonathan Vanderpool, could
not be reached Thursday for comment.
The woman filed a claim and her lawsuit
against the district and Jones in September
2003, after a psychological evaluation linked
psychological problems the woman had as an
adult to the alleged sexual molestation by her
teacher years before, the 4th District Court of
Appeals opinion stated.
The lawsuit was filed about two months after
the district attorney's office dismissed criminal
charges against Jones because of a June
2003 U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The nation's
highest court found that the California law
prosecutors used to charge Jones ---- which
allowed them to bypass the usual statute of
limitations in such criminal cases ----- was
unconstitutional.
At a preliminary hearing in 2002 for the
criminal case, the woman, then 40, testified
that she and Jones had sex about 200 times
and engaged in sex acts in the teacher's
lounge, the school's audiovisual room, at a
teachers convention, at Jones' home and
other places.
The woman testified that she did not report the
sex acts to law enforcement until June 2001.
The woman's daughter had just turned 16 and
the woman had run into Jones at Vista High
School on occasion, she said. She would get
sick as a result and believed she had a duty to
step forward, she said at the hearing.
| Shirk v. VUSD |
| VUSD Attorneys Dan Shinoff, Jeffrey Morris and Carreli gloat that district doesn't have to pay even though girl was abused |
From the website of the Stutz law firm:
In California Supreme Court Victory,
Shinoff, Sleeth, Carelli, Morris and
Pate Save the Tort Claim Act from
Revival Statutes
In a precedent setting decision, the
California Supreme Court upheld the
stricter time limitations for alleged
victims of childhood sexual abuse to
file suit against public entities. The
reversal of the local Court of Appeal,
obtained by attorneys Dan Shinoff,
Jack Sleeth, Bill Pate, Jeff Morris and
Paul Carelli, all partners with the firm
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, protects
public entities from the so-called
“revival” statutes. As the name
suggests, the Legislature (under Gray
Davis) passed the revival statutes to
revive really old claims, which normally
would have expired under statutes of
limitation. Revival statutes have been
the vehicle for the highly publicized
clergy abuse claims against the
Catholic Diocese. This decision
virtually eliminates the ability to bring
similar cases against government
entities. [ Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch.
Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 164 P.3d
630.]
In California Supreme Court Victory,
Shinoff, Sleeth, Carelli, Morris and
Pate Save the Tort Claim Act from
Revival Statutes
In a precedent setting decision, the
California Supreme Court upheld the
stricter time limitations for alleged
victims of childhood sexual abuse to
file suit against public entities. The
reversal of the local Court of Appeal,
obtained by attorneys Dan Shinoff,
Jack Sleeth, Bill Pate, Jeff Morris and
Paul Carelli, all partners with the firm
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, protects
public entities from the so-called
“revival” statutes. As the name
suggests, the Legislature (under Gray
Davis) passed the revival statutes to
revive really old claims, which normally
would have expired under statutes of
limitation. Revival statutes have been
the vehicle for the highly publicized
clergy abuse claims against the
Catholic Diocese. This decision
virtually eliminates the ability to bring
similar cases against government
entities. [ Shirk v. Vista Unified Sch.
Dist. (2007) 42 Cal.4th 201, 164 P.3d
630.]
| Donna Caperton represents VUSD sent cease and desist |
| BLOGS |
| District reviewing charter's practices Grade inflation among allegations By Bruce Lieberman San Diego Union-Tribune January 25, 2009 Guajome Park Academy charter school is undergoing a review by the Vista Unified School District, which has received several complaints in recent months over how the charter is run, allegations of grade inflation and other issues. District administrators have revealed few details about their investigation, but they have requested numerous records from the charter school. They include conflict-of- interest statements for board members, tax records, board meeting minutes and other documents. The interim superintendent of Guajome Park Academy, which enrolls about 1,500 students in sixth through 12th grade, said she has no idea what the complaints are about. “This is unprecedented,” Carla Skaggs said of the district's review. “They are looking into something, (and) we don't know what it is. “We are positive and hopeful,” she said. “We know that we are transparent and will cooperate with their review in a positive manner.” Skaggs has served as the academy's interim superintendent since June, when former Superintendent Penny Harrison abruptly resigned. The reasons for Harrison's departure are unclear, and Skaggs and district officials have offered no clues. But Vista Unified administrators suggested that the 27-member school board for Guajome Park Academy has dragged its feet in hiring a replacement. Skaggs is essentially the sole administrator at the charter school, serving as interim superintendent, director of personnel and chief business officer. “The District urges you and the GPA governing board to act quickly in filling that position consistent with the requirements of the GPA charter,” wrote Donna Caperton, Vista Unified's chief business officer, in a Dec. 12 letter to Skaggs. “Failure to do so would constitute a serious violation.” The letter also requested charter school records... Charter schools enjoy significant autonomy from many state regulations so they can try innovative approaches to teaching and learning. But they are still publicly funded institutions and are subject to oversight by the public school districts that sponsor them. On Thursday, Skaggs said the charter school board has prepared a job description for a new superintendent and intends to hire someone by July 1. Some parents, among them a former board member, have said Guajome Park Academy needs new leadership to halt systemic grade inflation. “We have kids who are in the top levels in our math and English classes who cannot pass basic math and English at the junior college level,” said Lori Quattrone, who pulled her daughter out of Guajome Park Academy last summer and transferred her to Vista High School. Her son, who graduated from the charter school last summer, has been struggling at Palomar College. Justin Quattrone, 18, said he graduated with an A-plus grade point average of 4.2. But community college has been tough. “I guess my grades were a little inflated, and that hurt me in the long run,” he said... |
| Vista Unified School District |
Education Reform Report
