Los Angeles school officials are going back 40 years in their internal review of teacher discipline cases - perfect lie to cover firing older higher paid teachers

THIS IS IMMEDIATE FUTURE OF PUBLIC EDUCATION...

Los Angeles (CNN) -- In an expanding investigation into teacher misconduct, Los Angeles school officials are going back 40 years in their internal review of teacher discipline cases in an effort to determine whether any of the instructors should also be referred for possible license revocation, a school spokesman said Friday.

Los Angeles School Superintendent John Deasy has asked the principals at more than 1,000 schools to search the files of the past 40 years for "any cases of possible employee misconduct," spokesman Tom Waldman told CNN.

The 40-year period is a significant expansion from the past four years of misconduct cases that the system has already reviewed.

So far, Los Angeles school officials have referred the discipline cases of 604 teachers from the past four years to state authorities who have powers to revoke a teacher's credentials, officials said.

Of those 604 cases (THIS NUMBER IS FROM HR AT LAUSD, THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF TEACHERS IN LAUSD "Rubber Rooms" MAY BE TWICE THAT FIGURE. )  in which teachers were fired or facing discipline, 60 teachers were accused of sexual misconduct with pupils on or off campus or with minors who weren't students, school officials said.

The California Commission on Teacher Credentialing will investigate 366 of the 604 teacher cases to determine if licenses should be revoked, which is a six-month process, spokeswoman Anne Padilla said. Most of the cases focused on allegations of teacher misconduct that involved student safety.

Padilla said Friday that 122 of the 604 cases were referred back to the school district for further information because the state agency didn't have the authority to investigate.

She also told CNN that 103 of the 604 cases were duplicates and were already being investigated by the agency's committee on credentials. "For the vast majority, no final action has been taken. They are still in process," Padilla said about the 103 cases.

The referral of the cases to state licensing investigators comes as the nation's second largest school system deals with a crisis of teacher misconduct. The district has been reeling from a scandal at Miramonte Elementary School, where two teachers have been charged with lewd acts on pupils, including one teacher accused of putting children in adult-like bondage situations and placing semen-filled spoons at their mouths.

The state license of that teacher, Mark Berndt -- who has pleaded not guilty to 23 counts of lewd acts on pupils -- has been suspended as the state agency monitors his criminal case, and a license revocation occurs upon a conviction, Padilla said. If an appeal to a conviction is made, the suspension of teaching credentials continues, Padilla said.

This week, the California Senate approved a bill that would empower school boards to fire teachers for misconduct and expedite the firing process of instructors accused of offenses involving sex, violence or drugs, said Democratic state Sen. Alex Padilla, who authored the legislation.

The bill now goes to the State Assembly for a vote.

"Because a school board is ultimately responsible for ensuring a safe learning environment, the school board should be empowered to dismiss employees they determine to be a serious threat to the health and safety of students," Sen. Padilla said in a statement.

The lurid allegations at Miramonte prompted the Los Angeles system to do an internal review of its handling of past teacher misconduct cases, and the district determined that 604 cases needed to be referred to state licensing authorities for review, though "a substantial number" of other misconduct cases had already been reported to the state, school officials said.

One parent, Alvaro Salgero, told CNN that he was concerned about child abuse in the school system.

"It tended to be a safe place, but from what I hear, it seems that's not happening in some places," Salgero said. "There isn't sufficient security for children.

"We're able to realize that there wasn't much of an investigation with teachers and they didn't investigate them before giving them a job, and those who suffer are the children, the pupils," Salgero said.

The 604 cases include teachers who were disciplined or were about to face discipline since July 2008, according to Ira Berman, Los Angeles Unified School District director of employee relations, and Vivian Ekchian, the district's chief human resources officer.

The cases also include teachers who were fired by the school board or who left the district after termination proceedings were initiated or while an allegation of misconduct was pending, Berman and Ekchian said.

The system doesn't know whether any of the teachers who were fired or who left the district are still in the classroom in other school districts.

The 604 figure also includes teachers who were suspended for 11 days or more for a variety of reasons not involving sexual misconduct with students, the two officials said.

"The safety of our students is our No. 1 priority," Ekchian said in explaining why the system referred the 604 cases to the state.

The system's internal investigation arose after parental outrage after charges were filed against former Miramonte teacher Berndt, who resigned from the system last year but was not referred to the state for possible license revocation, district spokesman Waldman said.

Berndt, 61, pleaded not guilty in February to allegations he bound young students, then photographed them with semen-filled spoons held at their mouths and three-inch cockroaches crawling across their faces, among other graphic depictions.

"We had not informed Sacramento to revoke Mr. Berndt's credentials," Waldman said.

Berndt is being held on $23 million bond and faces 23 counts of lewd acts on a child. The 23 victims were between 7 and 10 years old, and all but two of them were girls, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office said.

Authorities have said they have discovered roughly 600 images allegedly taken by Berndt in his classroom. Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Deasy has said Berndt was removed from his teaching job in January 2011 after school officials learned of the police investigation. A teacher for 30 years, Berndt initially challenged the school district's decision to dismiss him. But he eventually dropped his appeal and resigned last spring.

His arrest in January led to broader fallout over the adequacy of safeguards for the school's students and the prospect of more victims.

Days after Berndt was taken into custody, another Miramonte Elementary teacher -- Martin Springer, 49 -- was arrested and charged with three felony counts of lewd acts with a girl younger than 14. He has pleaded not guilty.

The LAUSD board subsequently shut Miramonte for two days, during which the board reconstituted the entire staff in the 1,400-student school. Miramonte is in unincorporated Los Angeles County within the Florence-Firestone area, about six miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

"Because a school board is ultimately responsible for ensuring a safe learning environment, the school board should be empowered to dismiss employees they determine to be a serious threat to the health and safety of students," Sen. Padilla said in a statement.

READ THIS: For every seven teachers brought up on charges by the average school district, one has anything directly to do with students. However, of the former seven teachers, 90% are at or near the top of their pay scale. Of that seven less than 15% are prosectuted by police. STILL, 100% WILL BE EFFECTIVELY FIRED OR DRIVEN OFF.

While time is showing it is actually easy to fire a teacher w/o a cause that would stand up in crimminal or civil court, the same district can't keep one single high school student safe from the violence, gang activities or the drug use on its own campuses. Not a single student can be kept safe until they graduate. IS THIS ABOUT PAYROLL SAVINGS OR REAL STUDENT SAFETY?

The lurid allegations at Miramonte prompted the Los Angeles system to do an internal review of its handling of past teacher misconduct cases, and the district determined that 604 cases needed to be referred to state licensing authorities for review, though "a substantial number" of other misconduct cases had already been reported to the state, school officials said.

One parent, Alvaro Salgero, told CNN that he was concerned about child abuse in the school system.  "It tended to be a safe place, but from what I hear, it seems that's not happening in some places," Salgero said. "There isn't sufficient security for children 

"We're able to realize that there wasn't much of an investigation with teachers and they didn't investigate them before giving them a job, and those who suffer are the children, the pupils," Salgero said.

The 604 cases include teachers who were disciplined or were about to face discipline since July 2008, according to Ira Berman, Los Angeles Unified School District director of employee relations, and Vivian Ekchian, the district's chief human resources officer 

The cases also include teachers who were fired by the school board or who left the district after termination proceedings were initiated or while an allegation of misconduct was pending, Berman and Ekchian said.

The system doesn't know whether any of the teachers who were fired or who left the district are still in the classroom in other school districts.

The 604 figure also includes teachers who were suspended for 11 days or more for a variety of reasons not involving sexual misconduct with students, the two officials said.

"The safety of our students is our No. 1 priority," Ekchian said in explaining why the system referred the 604 cases to the state.

The system's internal investigation arose after parental outrage after charges were filed against former Miramonte teacher Berndt, who resigned from the system last year but was not referred to the state for possible license revocation, district spokesman Waldman said.

Berndt, 61, pleaded not guilty in February to allegations he bound young students, then photographed them with semen-filled spoons held at their mouths and three-inch cockroaches crawling across their faces, among other graphic depictions.

"We had not informed Sacramento to revoke Mr. Berndt's credentials," Waldman said.

Berndt is being held on $23 million bond and faces 23 counts of lewd acts on a child. The 23 victims were between 7 and 10 years old, and all but two of them were girls, the Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office said.

Authorities have said they have discovered roughly 600 images allegedly taken by Berndt in his classroom.

Los Angeles Unified School District Superintendent Deasy has said Berndt was removed from his teaching job in January 2011 after school officials learned of the police investigation.

A teacher for 30 years, Berndt initially challenged the school district's decision to dismiss him. But he eventually dropped his appeal and resigned last spring.

His arrest in January led to broader fallout over the adequacy of safeguards for the school's students and the prospect of more victims.

Days after Berndt was taken into custody, another Miramonte Elementary teacher -- Martin Springer, 49 -- was arrested and charged with three felony counts of lewd acts with a girl younger than 14. He has pleaded not guilty.

The LAUSD board subsequently shut Miramonte for two days, during which the board reconstituted the entire staff in the 1,400-student school. Miramonte is in unincorporated Los Angeles County within the Florence-Firestone area, about six miles south of downtown Los Angeles.

To Rick Sayre and Mike Rios: Wrong again boys the voters would vote for and did not get confused by a Bond Initiative in 2012

Measure T – Perris Union High School District

112/112 100.00%

	Vote Count	Percent
BONDS YES	21,305	60.29%
BONDS NO	14,033	39.71%
Total	35,338	100.00%

---

Measure U – Hemet Unified School District

107/107 100.00%

	Vote Count	Percent
BONDS YES	24,695	68.74%
BONDS NO	11,230	31.26%
Total	35,925	100.00%

		IN FACT EACH AND EVERY ONE ON THE BALLOT!  BRILLIANT  PERCEPTION!

ADDENDEM TO "AN OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN"

State panel OKs demotion; fatal crash involved judge

By Onell R. Soto

SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE

September 21, 2002

(NOTATIONS IN ITALICS ARE PURELY THE OPINION OF THE POSTER)

Judge H. James Ahler, 54, of Escondido, hit and killed a pedestrian in Escondido within an hour of drinking three glasses of wine a year ago,  (BULLSHIT, AHLER IS 6'2 AND ABOUT 260 LB.S. THERE IS PHYSIOLOGICAL WAY THAT A MAN THAT SIZE COULD HAVE REACHED PT. 15 PERCENT BLOOD ALCOHOL, TWICE THE STATE LIMIT ON THREE GLASSES OF WINE. SOUNDS LIKE ANOTHER AHLER LIE: MY OPINION. AT .15 PERCENT MOST DRUNKS ARE SEEING DOUBLE AND SLURRING THERE WORDS. yet THE DA SAID ALCOHOL HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH AHLER HITTING AND KILLING THAT PEDESTRIAN. I REITERATE... BULLSHIT) according to the decision by the California State Personnel Board.

After the fatal Sept. 18, 2001, crash, he served ONE night in jail, pleaded  guilty to "misdemeanor drunken driving," paid $1,200 in fines and had to  attend counseling and ONE session in which victims described the impact of drunken driving on their lives and those of their loved ones, court records show. Ahler has been an administrative law judge with the Office of Administrative Hearings in San Diego since 1994, typically hearing  similar cases in which professionals have their licenses suspensions or revoked

BUT HOW AHLER  SUFFERED HE CLAIMS!
 Because of his conviction, Ahler – who had been promoted in June  2001 from a position paying $102,614 annually to a higher rank as an  administrative law judge specialist, which pays $107,641 – was demoted. HE HAS SINCE MADE UP THAT SALARY DIFFERENCE MANY TIMES OVER - UNLIKE the "discipline" shoveled out to MOST OF AHLER'S VICTIMS OTHER WISE KNOWN AS  "DEFENDANTS" when FORCED INTO AHLER'S KANGAROO COURT. 

WWHATEVER  THE AGENCY WANTS.  PAID FOR BY HUGE LAW FIRMS FOR THESE "Agencys" i.e. Government or school district employees. 

But H. JAMES AHLER KEPT HIS JOB!  How many paychecks a month does Alher get? (Or perhaps he's paid in cash for his services to these agencies and their attorneys?) Ahler told officers when he was arrested that he drank three glasses of  wine within an hour of the crash, according to documents from the  personnel board, which hears appeals from state employees who feel they've been wrongly disciplined.

In Vista Superior Court, Ahler admitted his blood-alcohol level at the time of the crash was .15 of a percent, nearly twice the .08 of a percent at which California motorists are presumed to be too drunk to drive.

Compare "Dickless" James Ahler's own behavior with the average "discipline" afforded most drunks who kill another human while driving intoxicated! Don't take my word look this up yourself. But don't bother asking Sacramento! No one seems to want to talk about Ahler's Behavior. This includes the AG's office, Jerry Brown's office, the supervising ALJ appointed by Brown.

Ahler was not charged with killing 67-year-old Charles Ames of Escondido because his drinking didn't contribute to the death, said prosecutor Evan Miller. He admitted to being drunk while driving but that drunken driving didn't contribute? WOW, I want to be President of a local bar, no pun intended, association.

Miller said Ames (the pedestrian), whose own blood-alcohol level was reported to be .28, crossed against a red light in a dark corner wearing dark clothing. None of a half-dozen witnesses to the crash saw him before impact, he said. (Sorry but that  sort of surprise on the road happens 2-3 times in the experiences of most drivers ,SOBER drivers and in similar circumstances almost NEVER end up in a COLLLISION LET ALONE A FATALITY involving a pedestrian at an intersection. Most are lit anyway.)  How the hell were there six witnesses at four A.M. anyway? Were they all
NNorth County San Diego attorneys?

Defense lawyer Daniel Cronin said Ahler was "not responsible for the death." )

"The pedestrian ran out in front of him,"Cronin said. "It would have happened if he was stone cold sober." (AND NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THE ROAD, TRAFFIC LIGHTS OR HIS VEHICLES SPEED.)

Ahler challenged the demotion, which took place during the standard probationary period relating to the June 2001 promotion (SO INSTEAD OF REMORSE, ALJ H.JAMES AHLER IMMEDIATELY STARTED TO WHINE AND BITCH IN PUBLIC ABOUT NOT GETTING A $102 DOLLAR A WEEK RAISE)

In his defense, Ahler argued that his supervisors should have simply written a letter disapproving his actions, not taken away his promotion.  He said that, except for the conviction, he continues to do his job well.

Lawyer Everett Bobbitt, who represented Ahler before the personnel board, said the demotion was too harsh, especially because Ahler continues handling complicated cases and deserves the higher rank.

"It's really not a demotion. They're just taking money away," Bobbitt said. "The work hasn't changed at all." But an administrative law judge with the State Personnel Board ruled Ahler violated his duty as a judge by driving drunk. (Yep, he's still doing a piss poor job  that his reputation demands)

"Such conduct does not comply with the law, does not promote public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary and demeans the judicial office," Judge William A. Snyder wrote two weeks ago, paraphrasing the Canons of Judicial Ethics in his decision upholding Ahler's 

demotion.

Snyder said some of the people coming before Ahler might question his impartiality. He noted that Ahler and his colleagues decide whether OR NOT TO FIRE AND DESTROY THE LIVES OF AHLERS JUCICIAL VICTIMS IN MUCH THE WAY HE KILLED THAT PEDESTRIAN - WITH IMPUNITY.

WHY DOES JERRY BROWN AND KAMELA HARRIS ENDORSE THIS FOOL'S BEHAVIORS BOTH ON AND OFF THE BENCH... PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE HE AND HIS BEHAVIOR ON THE BENCH EXIST AT ALL. IGNORE IT AND IT WILL GO-AWAY. 

H. JAMES AHLER IS NOT GOING ANYWHERE HIS PRESENCE WITH OAH IS THE FAULT OF THE GOVERNOR AND  ATTORNEY GENERAL KAMELA HARRIS. AHLER WILL BE THEIR RESPECTIVE LEGACYS IN MY MIND WHEN I THINK OF JUDCIAL MISDEEDS

.http://schoolcounselingvideocast.blogspot.com/2012/09/blog-post_14.html

OPEN LETTER TO GOVERNOR JERRY BROWN - FIRE JUDGE H. JAMES AHLER

August 12, 2012

Honorable Governor Jerry Brown,

Honorable Kamala Harris, Attorney General of California

Honorable Linda Cabatic, OAH supervising ALJ

PRA coordinator

Full Disclosure, Chief News Editor

CNN Regional News Editor

Let me ask what I am sure is and has been known in Sacramento for a decade. What circumstances has allowed a man convicted of killing a pedestrian while driving intoxicated, (by State standards), to remain as an Administrative Law Judge until now? To my knowledge, he was never disciplined for the manslaughter of the pedestrian in Vista, CA where he sits at the head of the North County Bar Association. 

In my opinion, he unofficially sits as paid "in-house Judge" for the likes of a private law firm, Friedman, Fagan and FulFrost. This firm represents almost 420 school districts. Ahler has the well-deserved reputation as executioner over the lives and careers of hundreds of educators. Almost all of these educators are denied the legal due process demanded by law, contract, the CTC and California Ed Code standards for disciplining educators. 

Ahler appears oblivious. Yet H. James Ahler's victim's family is denied closure or justice because Ahler appears to have skated under the radar by virtue of his office and connections made while in that office, according to The San Diego Tribune. Governor Brown, how can someone convicted of a misdemeanor for killing a man walking home while Ahler was about on a drunken stupor - BEHIND THE WHEEL - ever sit in judgment of anyone’s employment?

I have started investigating Judge Ahler’s association with large law firms representing (Government funded) public schools and against educators all at the top of their districts pay scale. Ironic? I am sure I will have a considerable amount more to ask once the investigation is concluded. However Governor Brown Sir, the question remains. How does a man like Ahler sit as lawfully employed Judge in any venue in California under your watch?

Under your watch Sir, you appointed Linda Cabatic to replace the former OAH supervising judge. I am sure you saw the need for change of the quasi-constitutional and quasi ethical tribunal. Despite your efforts, nothing of substance has changed and Administrative Law Judges like James Ahler sit in judgment and in Ahler's case specifically; while having escaped fair judgment himself. Ahler is an example why the OAH is universally seen as the new extension to Public School District’s hiring and firing process and their ability to cull highly paid Educators from the payroll. In turn more educators are having to sue their districts in Civil court to find a remedy. Ultimately, this ends up costing the local tax payers hundreds of thousands of dollars in unnecessary attorney’s fees and judgments every year.

 No Educator enters this process expecting any semblance of 'justice,' especially when agency attorneys can depend on the strategy of a last minute motion to remove a presiding ALJ and without notifying the defendant, pull Ahler in. 

Ahler himself has been suspended for his overt acts to control the outcome of OA hearings in favor of the agency (e.g. OAH hearing Maura Larkins, San Diego.) As Governor, why would you allow the likes of H. James Ahler to represent the OAH of our State? Yet, Ahler remains a dirty little secret of California's legal system. Ahler represents a significant stain on your administration and bane to the CTC's efforts to keep good educators. I hope you will order an investigation of H. James.

FDN’s video “The Cost of Courage.” Richard I Fine's fight against judical corruption, Los Angeles and California.

Thank you for your personal attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

When Jonah Edelman, a school reform activist was videotaped bragging how his organization had outfoxed the Chicago Teachers Union by helping pass legislation he thought would make it impossible for teachers to strike...

That’s when Jonah Edelman, a "school reform activist" out of Oregon, was videotaped before a Colorado think tank bragging how his organization had outfoxed the Chicago Teachers Union by helping pass legislation in Illinois he thought would make it impossible for teachers here to strike.

The provision of which Edelman was so proud: a requirement that the CTU couldn’t authorize a strike without an affirmative vote from 75 percent of its members.

“The unions cannot strike in Chicago. They will never be able to muster the 75 percent threshold necessary to strike,” boasted Edelman, basing his prediction on data showing past strike authorizations had never exceeded 50 percent of the membership. Edelman suggested the teachers hadn’t done their homework.

A lot of folks figured he was probably correct about the 75 percent threshold being insurmountable. Not any more.

Teacher discontent is so pervasive within CPS that the possibility of the union passing a strike authorization vote — not to be confused with actually going out on strike — now looms as a strong possibility.

IS THIS THE EXCEPTION OR ... Castle Park Elementary's PTA President is Charged with Embezzeling $20,000 in Student Funds

Chula Vista: Castle Park Elementary's PTA President Kimberlee Simmons, who repeatedly levied personal attacks at the
school's principal, Ollie Matos in the local press; has herself been charged with embezeling $20,000 from student funds Simmons was in charge of.


Within a year of the Chula Vista Star-News' running a series of negative op/ed pieces based on attacks by Simmon's  and a few Castle Park staff members toward the Principal; authorities discovered that $20,000 was missing from the elementary school's PTA accounts.  Summarily, PTA President Kimberlee Simmons was arrested for the embezzlement.


The Chula Vista Star-News neglected to run the arrest story however. Even though it and other papers had published personal stories that attacked the principal. The Star-News didn't bother to print the purported $20,000 theft and embezlement story. Neither did the San Diego Union Tribune who also published similarly harsh opinionated reports on Matos' performance, Tribune Editor Don Sevrens neglected this aspect of the story as well.

PTA PRESIDENT Kim Simmons was elected in 2004, reportedly because School Site Council leader Felicia Starr wanted someone she could control in charge of the PTA.  Starr, a parent representative on the site council, made efforts to ensure that Latino parents did not get a vote. She is said to have engaged in hostilities with Latino parents who had innocently tried to nominate candidates for the position of president.   Starr and her teacher allies were so intent on having a PTA president who would rally with them against the principal, that loyalty to these "leaders" was the one and only criterion to be elected a candidate for PTA president.


As a result of the embezzlement (the second discovered at Castle Park Elementary within 6 years), there has been no PTA at the school from mid-2005 through mid-2009.  Parents just recently began to organize themselves through ACORN. The Star-News failed to inform their readers about the resulting secretive transfers of teachers Robin Donlan and Peg Myers, an the hundreds of thousands in school district money used to defend these teachers (and, as I previously stated often happens, a cover up for the district level administrators responsible.)


The Star-News publisher Linda Rosas Townson reportedly knew the truth, but chose to reveal only a select part of the story to the public and parents, possibly to protect some of the persons involved .

IS THIS THE EXCEPTION OR ... The PTO President of a Huntington Beach elementary school, is charged with One Felony Count of Grand Theft by Embezzlement

The PTO president of a Huntington Beach elementary school, Gail Diane Panella-Monestere, 52, of Huntington Beach, is charged with one felony count of grand theft by embezzlement, prosecutors said.

Originally Published Online in 
THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER

By ALEJANDRA MOLINA and SEAN EMERY  

Gail Diane Panella-Monestere, 52, of Huntington Beach, was charged with one felony count of grand theft by embezzlement, according to the Orange County District Attorney's Office. She is suspected of embezzling more than $22,000 from student fundraisers, authorities said if convicted, she faces a maximum sentence of three years in Orange County Jail.

The PTO is also known in other school districts as the PTA and the PTSA; a Parent-Teacher-Student- Organization. Panella-Monestere was responsible for tracking and maintaining fundraiser money for Sun View Elementary School between September 2010 and February 2011, the District Attorney's Office said.

Prosecutors said Panella-Monestere abused her position of trust and embezzled about $22,000 when she wrote unauthorized checks to herself from the PTO bank account in amounts ranging from $250 to $800. She cashed them for personal use, prosecutors added.

Panella-Monestere is accused of keeping cash raised from fundraising events intended to be deposited into the PTO bank account.

School administrators discovered fundraiser money was missing and reported the theft to the Huntington Beach Police Department, who investigated the case.

Panella-Monestere is scheduled to appear in court for an arraignment on June 29, court officials said.

IS THIS THE EXCEPTION OR ...

This story may sound unusual and appalling considering the accusations, however having worked as an ASB director for nearly 5 years and educator for 15, I can tell you that the kind of theft that is described in the article happens at almost every school - public or private. Without district direction, school level oversight and administrative accountability, these incidents happen with widespread regularity. State budget cuts have reduced the number of experienced administrators needed and the problem is multiplied.

BACKGROUND

Most of the time school fundraising, whether it's elementary, middle or high school, is done in cash. Checks and credit cards are seldom accepted. Checks – because of the large number that are return unpaid and credit cards because the schools themselves usually cannot afford the cost.

There are basically three entities that oversee various student fundraising; most are school clubs that fall under the auspices of the ASB (Associated School Body, or student government). Others are run completely by parents, and are independent of the school or district, these are called booster clubs. Neither the principal nor the school district maintains a functional oversight. The last is the PTSA, PTO or PTA, although it may be known under other names. This is the organization of parents who fundraise for the good of the school as a whole and who are governed-by a very strict code with district level and state level hierarchies. Still, the handling of the monies is left to the parent or parents in charge.

The PTSA or PTO works directly with the staff and principal in order to provide for or assist all the staff and students at that school. However the bookkeeping and handling of large amounts of cash is left up to the means of charter's officers, often parents without systematic direction and the temptation is too often that individuals undoing. Regardless of which three organizations, theft happens almost all the time somewhere at some school in your school district. Thefts from Booster Clubs, especially high school, often amount into the hundreds of thousands each year.

JUST ANOTHER LOCAL EXAMPLE?


At the Moreno Valley Unified School District middle school at which I was the ASB co-director, between 2008-2010, teachers and other staff including the principal and his relatives were responsible for stealing as much as $100,000 in cash from student funds.  This includes theft, illegal usage, deliberate misappropriation or laundering money into other bank accounts. Folks that's just one school in one medium sized school district! 

When this kind of mishandling becomes apparent, it is often impossible for concerned individuals to get district level administrators to respond to complaints or reports about stealing of student fundraising monies. Often, these administrators are afraid the situation will become public and the disappearance or mishandling of these monies will reflect poorly on them and their job performance. (In some instances it should.) So instead of fixing the problem, a labor intensive effort, many district administrators will take the easy way out and collaborate in a series of cover-ups hoping the problem can be quietly swpt away. But the problem just becomes systemic as has happened in Moreno Valley. 


Even when presented with evidence enough to warrant a formal investigation, the Riverside County Office of Education seems hard pressed to do anything about about uncooperative districts. In 2006 Moreno Valley Unified School District defied the Riverside County Grand Jury's direction to change its accounting practices. The then Assistant Superintendent of Fiscal Services lied in a letter to the Grand Jury regarding the matter and got away with it because his statements were not thoroughly investigated. The changes the grand jury directed have not been implemented to this day. And the relasted problems have grown much larger. In keeping with the ideology of cover-up is better, Moreno Valley Unified has also ignored the Federal Government Office of Civil Rights' list of demands for change after their investigation of the districts H.R. department practices in 2005.

This kind of system wide cover up also fosters acts of retaliation. District and site level administrators hoping to silence vocal staff or parents trying to do the right thing by way of the students and their schools. This is especially true if the issue has become endemic across the entire school district. For more than 15 years this has been the case in Moreno Valley.

Some of the irresponsibility and cover up allowing these problems occurs at the level of the district school board members. Often the issues are known and liabilities discussed in the board's "closed sessions." The personalities, backgrounds and voter perceptions of the board trustees influence their decisions. These factors make for a cauldron of personal vendettas, poor dicissions, illegal investigations – usually at the behest of one or more of the trustees, thousands of dollars in unnecessary legal fees, and/or blind adherence to the subjective recommendations by the above-mentioned district administrators whose very employment is determined by the whims of the board members they report to.


This problem is further complicated by the trustees need to show voters their school district is being well managed so these trustees will be reelected at the end of their terms. Conversely, a politician can not hope for election to a "higher office" if they are associated with some district scandal. For many trustees the school board is just a stepping stone towards a more powerful and well paying elected office.

For others being a board member is an extension of a narrcisstic facet of their personality. Where they can take the stage in front of neighbors and local individuals. For them, inspite of their retoric, students' and parents' educational needs are seldom their driving concerns.

THE RICH CONTINUE TO GET RICHER IN GOOD OR BAD ECONOMIC TIMES

By STEVEN RATTNER
New York Times
March 25, 2012

NEW statistics show an ever-more-startling divergence between the fortunes of the wealthy and everybody else — and the desperate need to address this wrenching problem. Even in a country that sometimes seems inured to income inequality, these takeaways are truly stunning.

Economic Scene: Inequality Undermines Democracy (March 21, 2012)

In 2010, as the nation continued to recover from the recession, a dizzying 93 percent of the additional income created in the country that year, compared to 2009 — $288 billion — went to the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with at least $352,000 in income. That delivered an average single-year pay increase of 11.6 percent to each of these households.

Still more astonishing was the extent to which the super rich got rich faster than the merely rich. In 2010, 37 percent of these additional earnings went to just the top 0.01 percent, a teaspoon-size collection of about 15,000 households with average incomes of $23.8 million. These fortunate few saw their incomes rise by 21.5 percent.

The bottom 99 percent received a microscopic $80 increase in pay per person in 2010, after adjusting for inflation. The top 1 percent, whose average income is $1,019,089, had an 11.6 percent increase in income.

This new data, derived by the French economists Thomas Piketty and Emmanuel Saez from American tax returns, also suggests that those at the top were more likely to earn than inherit their riches. That’s not completely surprising: the rapid growth of new American industries — from technology to financial services — has increased the need for highly educated and skilled workers. At the same time, old industries like manufacturing are employing fewer blue-collar workers.

The result? Pay for college graduates has risen by 15.7 percent over the past 32 years (after adjustment for inflation) while the income of a worker without a high school diploma has plummeted by 25.7 percent over the same period.

Government has also played a role, particularly the George W. Bush tax cuts, which, among other things, gave the wealthy a 15 percent tax on capital gains and dividends. That’s the provision that caused Warren E. Buffett’s secretary to have a higher tax rate than he does.

As a result, the top 1 percent has done progressively better in each economic recovery of the past two decades. In the Clinton era expansion, 45 percent of the total income gains went to the top 1 percent; in the Bush recovery, the figure was 65 percent; now it is 93 percent...

Posted by Maura Larkins at 2:42 PM 0 comments 

Labels: income inequality, rich and poor, taxes, welfare for the rich

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

Rush Limbaugh Calls Sandra Fluke a Slut - Response Video

When the woman is using birth control, her husband or boyfriend is obviously also protected by it. What is Rush Limbaugh's name for the man involved?

Rush Limbaugh Calls Sandra Fluke a Slut - Response Video

A musical comedy duo fronted by Marie Cecile Anderson and Katy Frame has been lassoing hearts throughout the New York City comedy scene. Here's a song about Rush Limbaugh and birth control:

Being a Woman is not a pre-existing condition

Health insurance companies charge women up to 50 percent more than men for the same coverage. Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act will close the insurance gender gap once and for all: It will be illegal for health insurers to discriminate against women.

Right now, being a woman is considered a "pre-existing condition." In fact, insurance companies are charging women up to 50 percent more than men for the same coverage.

How many times have you heard Republicans say this is outrageous? Zero.

And how many times have you heard them vow to repeal the Affordable Care Act? We've lost track.

The Affordable Care Act will close the insurance gender gap once and for all. Beginning in 2014, it will be illegal for health insurers to charge women more than men for the same coverage.

So, by threatening to repeal this law, Mitt Romney and the GOP would essentially give insurance companies license to continue discriminating against women.

Posted by Maura Larkins at 2:22 PM 0 comments 

Labels: . Limbaugh (Rush Limbaugh), birth control, healthcare insurance, sluts

Sunday, March 11, 2012

Does Propranolol Reduce Racism? Probably Yes, Subconsciously

by Christian Nordqvist
Academic Journal
11 Mar 2012

A small study found that people's subconscious racial bias is considerably reduced if they are taking propranolol, a heart disease drug, researchers from Oxford University wrote in the journal Psychopharmacology. The study was carried out by a team of psychologists, ethicists and psychiatrists.

Lead author, Sylvia Terbeck and team carried out an experiment on 36 individuals. 18 were given propranolol, while the other 18 took a placebo that looked just like the propranolol. They found that those on the heart medication scored considerably lower on the Implicit Attitude Test which gauged their subconscious racial bias. The test measures people's levels of subconscious racism.

The authors stressed that propranolol made no difference in people's explicit attitudes to races.
What is propranolol (INN)

Propranolol (INN), molecular formula C16H21NO2, is a sympatholytic non-selective beta blocker. Sympatholytics are medications that are used for the treatment of anxiety, panic and high blood pressure (hypertension).

Propranolol was the first ever effective beta blocker. It is available in both brand name forms, such as Inderal, Deralin, Dociton, Sumial, and generic form as propranolol hydrochloride. It is a banned substance in the Olympics, because of its use in controlling stage fright (social anxiety) and tremors.

Propranolol is also used in treatment for cluster headaches prophylaxis, essential tremor, glaucoma, migraine prophylaxis, primary exertional headache, shaky hands, and tension headache (off label use).

Propranolol blocks activation in the peripheral autonomic nervous system, as well as in the brain area that impacts on emotional responses and fear.
How does propranolol reduce racism?

The authors suggest that racial bias is based on automatic, non-conscious-fear responses, which propranolol reduces.

Sylvia Terbeck said:

"Our results offer new evidence about the processes in the brain that shape implicit racial bias. Implicit racial bias can occur even in people with a sincere belief in equality. Given the key role that such implicit attitudes appear to play in discrimination against other ethnic groups, and the widespread use of propranolol for medical purposes, our findings are also of considerable ethical interest.

Many people with medical conditions are probably already on drugs which affect subconscious bias and more research is needed into how drugs which affect our nervous system affect our moral attitudes and practices.


Co-author,, Prof. Julian Savulescu, wrote:

"Such research raises the tantalising possibility that our unconscious racial attitudes could be modulated using drugs, a possibility that requires careful ethical analysis.

Biological research aiming to make people morally better has a dark history. And propranolol is not a pill to cure racism. But given that many people are already using drugs like propranolol which have 'moral' side effects, we at least need to better understand what these effects are.

Posted by Maura Larkins at 6:00 PM 0 comments 

Labels: propranolol, Race

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Rick Santorum (or perhaps his lookalike?) sees Satan controlling mainline Protestant churches

Rick Santorum lookalike?
See the Fiscal Times photo gallery.

Santorum, under fire for Satan comments, recalls Reagan's 'courage'
By Mitchell Landsberg
February 22, 2012

...In 2008, speaking to students at a Catholic school, Ave Maria University in Naples, Fla., Santorum spoke of a satanic assault on the United States.

“The Father of Lies has his sights on what you would think the Father of Lies would have his sights on: a good, decent, powerful, influential country -- the United States of America,” he said, according to a tape of the remarks on the university website. “If you were Satan, who would you attack in this day and age? There is no one else to go after other than the United States.”

In the same speech, Santorum seemed to suggest that mainline Protestant churches have been influenced by Satan and are no longer Christian. He said the devil had exerted control over academia and then began attacking Christianity. “And of course,” he said, “we look at the shape of mainline Protestantism in this country and it is a shambles, it is gone from the world of Christianity as I see it.”...

Posted by Maura Larkins at 4:04 PM 0 comments 

Labels: . Santorum (Rick Santorum), Christianity, Republicans, Satan

Friday, February 17, 2012

A Clinician’s View of the Laptop-Shooting Dad

Tommy Jordan shows our willingness to excoriate teens for bad behavior while absolving ourselves of parental responsibility for it
By CHRISTOPHER J. FERGUSON
February 17, 2012

By shooting his daughter’s laptop and posting the event on YouTube, Tommy Jordan has become a minor celebrity. His actions give catharsis to perennial adult frustration with teenagers. But watching the video I was struck not only by his own words but also those of his daughter (read aloud by Jordan) which, to me, reflected not moral high ground by either party but a cycle of mutual anger, frustration and failure to communicate. Given that, to my knowledge, his daughter has been given no platform to explain her grievances toward her father, it’s easy to view things through Jordan’s lenses when we hear only one side of the story. I am sure he has legitimate grievances against her (and probably she against him). However, was destroying her property and humiliating her publicly the best way to resolve this conflict?

In my own work as a clinical psychologist, I have worked with many teens and their families. Although certainly some teens are fully responsible for their problems despite having model parents, and at other times the kids would be better off being raised by a pack of raccoons, in most cases both parties fueled rather than dealt responsibly with emerging problems. Rarely did I find either parents or teens who were entirely right, although each often thought they were. Teens ranting over chores and whatnot can often reflect deeper feelings of alienation or perceived uncaring on the part of parents. In many cases the bad behavior of teens, whether disrespect, apathy or conflict, often could be traced back to failures by parents to show respect or caring toward their children in earlier years. To be clear, this is not to absolve teens of responsibility for their actions, merely to point out that family conflicts are rarely so clear as to identify one party as good, the other bad.

A study by Brian Barber in the Journal of Marriage and Family found that both negative parenting and adolescent personality problems contributed to conflicts within the family. Similar research by Bruce Simons-Morton and colleagues in the Journal of School Violence and Soh-Leong Lim and colleagues in Marriage & Family Review suggest that parental warmth and decreased overbearingness are related to less conflict and more positive teen outcomes across cultures.

This is not to say that teens should never be disciplined, but that fostering bonding and trust between the parent and teen is a crucial element that shouldn’t be but often is neglected.

To put this in perspective, let us imagine that my wife and I were having difficulties in our marriage (we are not). One day I discover she has posted ranting complaints about my boorish behavior to her friends on Facebook, believing I will not see them. Do I have a right to feel hurt? Of course. Would shooting her laptop and releasing a publicly humiliating rant of my own against her on YouTube be likely to improve our marriage? No, I don’t think so. But perhaps Hannah Jordan will have a good sense of humor and take this all in stride.

I’m less disappointed in Tommy Jordan, though, than the widespread endorsement of his actions, which probably stems from the habit of disparaging teens, a perennial sport of older adults who enjoy the sanctimonious feel of being able to say, “When we were kids we behaved much better,” even when this is patently untrue. Modern youth, by almost any behavioral measure available, are the best behaved since the 1960s, far better behaved than their parents currently complaining about them. All the Internet backslapping and support for Jordan points to our general willingness to excoriate teens for their bad behavior while absolving ourselves of parental responsibility for it.

I have little doubt Jordan cares about his daughter; that much comes through in his video despite all else. But if this video is reflective of the general way he interacts with her, I see why she might be angry with him. Was her rant on Facebook immature? Sure, but she’s 15. What’s our excuse as parents?


Ferguson is associate professor of psychology and criminal justice at Texas A&M International University. The views expressed are solely his own.

Posted by Maura Larkins at 8:59 AM 0 comments 

Labels: disciplining kids, parent anger, parenting

Friday, February 10, 2012

Eric Cantor protects political intelligence consultants from STOCK Act. Eric Cantor under fire for STOCK Act tweaks

Cantor's version strips a provision requiring consultants to disclose their activities.

By SEUNG MIN KIM
2/8/12
Politico

A feel-good bill has suddenly turned nasty.

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) has released his version of a congressional insider-trading ban, and it strips a provision that would require so-called political intelligence consultants to disclose their activities, like lobbyists already do. It also scraps a proposal that empowers federal prosecutors going after corruption by public officials.

Ray of light on payroll tax talks
Obama budget goes big on highways
No Newt surprises at CPAC
Koch: Obama 'trying to intimidate'
Walker: Recall win aids GOP W.H. bid
Dueling pledges in Montana race

That’s stoked backlash from Democrats and even some Republicans, who are furious at Cantor and are accusing the Virginia Republican of watering down the popular legislation that easily passed Senate last week.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) slammed the House for deleting his amendment targeting the political intelligence industry, which tracks action on Capitol Hill and then sells the information to investors. Instead, the House bill requires just a study of the industry’s activities within 12 months.

“It’s astonishing and extremely disappointing that the House would fulfill Wall Street’s wishes by killing this provision,” Grassley said in a statement. “If Congress delays action, the political intelligence industry will stay in the shadows, just the way Wall Street likes it.”

Cantor spokeswoman Laena Fallon said the provision was deleted because it was “extremely broad” and added that the “unintended consequences on the provision could have affected the first amendment rights of everyone participating in local rotaries to national media conglomerates.”

Democrats weren’t comforted by that explanation.

“The thing we greatly feared has come upon us,” Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) told reporters on Wednesday. “It has been weakened, totally, as far as I’m concerned.”

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.), who co-authored with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) an amendment to crack down on public corruption using a number of measures, said he was “deeply disappointed” his provision had disappeared from the House bill. Leahy noted that a similar measure cleared the House Judiciary Committee in December.

“If we are serious about restoring faith in government and addressing the kinds of egregious misconduct that we have witnessed in recent years in high-profile public corruption cases, Congress must act now to enact serious anti-corruption legislation,” Leahy said in a statement. “The House Republicans’ version of the STOCK Act misses that opportunity.”

For Cantor’s part, the House’s No. 2 Republican has added provisions that he says strengthens the STOCK Act, which explicitly bars lawmakers and their aides from using nonpublic information gained through their jobs to profit themselves.

The new version of the House’s STOCK Act ensures that the bill’s insider-trading ban and its disclosure requirements apply to the executive branch, and it also bans lawmakers convicted of a crime from collecting pensions.

In a shot at House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Republicans also added a so-called “Pelosi provision” that imposes stricter rules on public officials who participate in initial public offerings. The California Democrat was targeted in a “60 Minutes” probe that reported Pelosi and her husband participated in Visa’s IPO while a bill governing credit-card legislation was pending before Congress.

Pelosi has denied any conflict of interest or special access related to the Visa IPO.

Slaughter was peeved at the “Pelosi Provision” when asked about it on Wednesday.

“I think the fact that they put this in was strictly to cause grief to [Pelosi],” Slaughter said, “and I resent it.”

Cantor said in a statement late Tuesday that he consulted “dozens of members” as he reworked the bill. But neither Slaughter nor Rep. Tim Walz (D-Minn.), the primary sponsors of the STOCK Act, worked with Cantor on the new bill, the Democrats said.

Despite the partisan bickering, the legislation is expected to pass when it comes up for a vote Thursday.

Posted by Maura Larkins at 5:24 PM 0 comments 

Labels: . Cantor (Eric Cantor), political intelligence consultants, STOCK Act

Tuesday, January 17, 2012

Strom Thurmond is gone but not forgotten; Juan Williams takes a step to the left

Juan Williams stands in for Obama at Fox debate
The GOP celebrates MLK day by booing the black pundit as Gingrich belittles him for asking tough questions on race
BY JOAN WALSH
Salon.com
JAN 17, 2012

The Fox News debate began auspiciously, with moderator Bret Baier noting that it was our national holiday honoring Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Then his actual question had nothing to do with Dr. King. But those of us who feared the debate would duck racial issues worried for naught. The night climaxed with the South Carolina crowd giving Newt Gingrich a standing ovation for smacking down Fox’s leading black contributor, Juan Williams, for his impertinent questions about race.

Williams asked for it, of course. What was he thinking making tough racial queries at a GOP debate in Myrtle Beach, S.C.? First, he asked Romney how he squared his harsh anti-immigrant rhetoric with his own family’s story of moving to and then from Mexico seeking religious freedom. He asked Rick Santorum, who purports to care about poverty, what he would do about high African-American poverty rates. He asked Ron Paul whether he thought the nation’s harsh drug laws were bad for black people. Then he made the mistake of asking Newt Gingrich about his comments that poor urban children came from communities that lacked a “work ethic,” and his calling Barack Obama “the food stamp president.”

Gingrich couldn’t believe his luck. With a gleam in his eye, he thrashed Williams, and Steve Kornacki believes he may have given his candidacy one last shot with his savvy thumping of Fox’s leading black commentator. It hurt to watch. If Newt gets the nomination – he won’t, but a Democrat can dream – he’ll have to thank Williams at the GOP convention in Tampa, Fla., even before he thanks Callista.

Sure, Santorum took his chance to demagogue on race, telling Williams that it only took three things to stay out of poverty in America: “Work, graduate from high school, and get married before you have children.” He didn’t allow that any residue of racism or discrimination might make it harder for African-Americans to work, graduate from high school or marry. Santorum also made unfounded allegations, again, about the Obama administration forbidding certain federal programs from talking about marriage. But at least he answered Williams with some personal respect.

Gingrich looked as happy about Williams’ questions as he looked deflated at the last New Hampshire debate. The former NPR analyst referenced Gingrich’s belittling comments about poor kids lacking role models with a work ethic, and the NAACP “demanding” food stamps not jobs, and asked, “Can’t you see that this is viewed at a minimum as insulting to all Americans, but particularly to African-Americans?”

“No,” Gingrich said petulantly, with a slight pause, “I don’t see that.” The crowd screamed with glee. Gingrich went on to bash unionized janitors in public schools, and I realized that his student-janitor comments represent a right-wing political trifecta, bashing anti-business regulations like child labor laws, public sector unions and lazy “urban” kids. Oh, and he also got to attack elites this time around, insisting his janitor plans drew liberal disapproval because “only the elites despise earning money.”

But Williams didn’t back away. “The suggestion you made was about a lack of work ethic,” he told Gingrich. “It sounds as if you are seeking to belittle people.” The crowd booed Williams lustily, and Gingrich got a special twinkle in his eye. He looked at Williams like he was a soon-to-be ex-wife.

“First of all, Juan” – and there was a slight cheer when the former speaker called the Pulitzer Prize winner “Juan” – “the fact is that more people have been put on food stamps by Barack Obama than any president in American history. I know among the politically correct you’re not supposed to use facts that are uncomfortable.

“Second, you’re the one who earlier raised a key point,” he continued. “The area that ought to be I-73 was called by Barack Obama a corridor of shame because of unemployment. Has it improved in three years? No — they haven’t built the road, they haven’t helped the people, they haven’t done anything. I’m going to continue to help poor people learn how to get a job, learn how to get a better job, and someday learn how to own the job.” The crowd jumped to its feet screaming “Newt! Newt! Newt!” Fox cut to a commercial.

Where to start? Of course Obama hasn’t “put” anyone on food stamps. The Bush economy nearly doubled the poverty rate...

The Story of Juan
Juan Williams was a sometimes-controversial star at NPR until an inflammatory comment about Muslims sent him further into the arms of Fox News. A look at his career through the eyes of several old and skeptical colleagues.
By David Margolick
Vanity Fair
Jan. 18, 2012

A graduate of Haverford College, Williams launched his journalistic career at The Washington Post, which he joined as an intern in 1976. He was clearly talented and ambitious, but many thought his life there additionally charmed because of his friendship with Donald Graham, son of the publisher, who, having once been a cop in D.C., took a liking to Williams. (Asked whether he’d ever paved Williams’s way or, later, gotten him out of scrapes, Graham replied, “The answer is no—N.O.”)

Williams won praise for his willingness to cover rough parts of town and take on liberal black icons like Mayor Marion Barry long before scandals brought him down, thereby incurring charges of disloyalty from Barry and betrayal from the black mainstream. In 1980, he began writing for the Post editorial page. That December, at a convention for black conservatives in San Francisco, he met 32-year-old Clarence Thomas, then an assistant to Senator John Danforth of Missouri. An op-ed column Williams wrote praising Thomas—whose conservatism was, Williams wrote, “born of the same personal anger at racism that fired the militants of the 1960s”—called him to the attention of the Reagan administration, which led to his first presidential appointment, which effectively led to the Supreme Court. (In 1987, by which point Thomas headed the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Williams profiled him in The Atlantic. The notoriously wary, reclusive Thomas opened up to him: what resulted was by far the most probing and insightful piece about him ever written. Williams and Thomas have remained friends and still lunch together occasionally; Thomas attended Williams’s 50th-birthday party.)

Continuing his expedited march up, in the early 1980s Williams became the paper’s junior reporter at the Reagan White House. Colleagues recall he was eager to get into print—sometimes too eager, jumping to conclusions, seasoning stories with his own opinions, failing to make that crucial last phone call. “Juan had talent and drive,” said Lou Cannon, the Reagan biographer who was then the Post’s top man at the White House. “If he’d been more interested in journalism than in being in the limelight he could have been a great reporter. That’s more essential to understanding him than putting him on the liberal/conservative spectrum.”

Civil-rights groups often complained that their side of things went especially unrepresented or misrepresented in Williams’s stories. In September 1985, a dispute emerged when Ralph Neas, then head of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, accused Williams of distorting his words in a news story. Neas was promptly summoned to the Post, where he found a tribunal—consisting of Ben Bradlee, Robert Kaiser, and Boisfeuillet Jones Jr.—then the Post’s executive editor, assistant managing editor for national news, and general counsel, respectively—convened, it appeared to Neas to, find out more about Williams’s work. What emerged, Neas recalled, was a “gentlemen’s agreement”: Williams would stop writing about civil rights. (Bradlee did not return messages; Kaiser declined to comment; Jones says he does not recall such a meeting.)

Williams disputes Neas’s story, and says that his contemporaneous notes proved Neas’s charge unfounded. Nonetheless, within a year he was moved to the Post’s less illustrious magazine.

EYES ON THE PRIZE

Williams turned out plenty of high-profile pieces at the magazine. One story, about a family devastated when one of its members was murdered, was made into a prime-time special by Oprah Winfrey. He went to South Africa to interview Nelson Mandela. And he scored a rare interview with Justice Thurgood Marshall that would later grow into a biography. (Considering Williams untrustworthy, Marshall’s wife, Cecilia, urged her husband and their friends not to speak to Williams for the book. For years, the N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense and Education Fund, which Marshall long led, denied Williams access to key Marshall papers.) Williams’s editors at the magazine recall that whatever appeared under his byline usually had to be re-written from the ground up. Fame, not craft, was key.

In 1986, the producer of Eyes on the Prize, Henry Hampton, asked Williams to write the companion volume to what would become the legendary series of civil-rights documentaries. Some of Hampton’s co-workers, noting Williams’s lack of sympathy or any discernable ties to the movement, vehemently opposed Hampton’s choice. But Hampton was in a hurry—the films were nearly complete—and Williams was a name brand from a prestigious paper. And, unlike others who’d begged off, he was ambitious and self-confident enough to think he could do the job quickly.

Here, too, according to people who worked with him, Williams’s work was slipshod, even though he was supplied with all of the research materials. It was also slanted—skeptical or hostile to the people being portrayed sympathetically on the screen—and skewed: inordinately focused, for instance, on the sexual peccadilloes of some participants. Many felt that the project’s editorial director, Robert Lavelle, should have gotten co-writer credit for the companion book. Instead, the byline originally read “Juan Williams with the Eyes on the Prize Production Team.” But in interviews Williams always takes sole credit for the writing; indeed, in later printings, any reference at all to his co-authors has mysteriously disappeared. Some press accounts have even cited the book as the basis of the documentary, rather than the other way around—a misimpression which, his former colleagues complain, infuriated Hampton (who died in 1998), and which Williams has done little or nothing to correct.

Williams calls charges that he has taken excessive credit for the book “ridiculous.” “There are a lot of people who are jealous in the world, and crazy,” he said. Here as elsewhere, even Williams’s critics marvel at his sheer brazenness. “The one thing people could learn from him is the ‘parlay,’” said Callie Crossley, one of the producers of the original batch of Eyes documentaries, who now hosts a public radio show on WGBH in Boston. “Honestly, he was doing branding and inventing himself long before people were talking about it.”

IN THE SPOTLIGHT

In 1991 Williams got attention of a different, less welcome variety, for making sexually suggestive comments to women. They were more jerky than menacing—Williams wasn’t their boss, nor did he press himself on anyone—and seemed designed to grab attention more than anything else. But they were chronic and tasteless, some extremely so. (“With your fingernails painted like that, they look like cherries, and I’d just like to eat them up,” he told one Post employee. On another occasion, he told her that he wanted to put his face where she’d just sat and inhale.)
Grumbling about Williams’s catcalls persisted for several years without ever percolating up to management. But a complaint had just reached Williams’s superiors when, during Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings in October 1991, Williams wrote a column defending Thomas and calling Anita Hill a mere tool of Democratic activists. Women at the Post grew outraged, demanding that the paper disclose Williams’s own predilections. The paper resisted, but when other news outlets reported on the dispute, the Post had to, too. The charges were “absolutely false,” Williams told Howard Kurtz, who covered the story for the paper, then went on to describe it in his book, Media Circus; the women had taken “a passing word” in the wrong way.

Williams was exiled from the Post newsroom for a couple of weeks, and the matter died down. But when he returned, and told other publications the Post had effectively apologized for treating him so harshly, things reignited. Post editor Leonard Downie then had to meet with 50 women in the paper’s cafeteria; later more than a hundred employees signed a letter complaining about Williams and the paper’s handling of him.

Downie concluded that the allegations were “serious”; Williams acknowledged he’d misbehaved and promised to “change [his] ways.” But his contrition quickly faded. What he told Kurtz shortly thereafter remains his position today: the imbroglio had everything to do with the Thomas-Hill dispute, and little to do with him. In fact, he sees himself as the real victim of the fracas.

The next year Williams went on leave to work on his Marshall book. He continued to work part-time for the Post’s Outlook section, where an editor routinely checked, and corrected, his facts. Williams was more trouble than he was worth, the Post’s top editors concluded; they longed for some politically palatable way to get rid of him. “We hoped for some Act of God that would solve the problem,” one said. “God” then came in two guises. The first was Roger Ailes, head of the then-fledgling Fox News, who in 1997 signed up Williams for part-time punditry. The second was NPR.

Posted by I, Praetorian at 10:38 AM 0 comments 

Labels: . Gingrich (Newt Gingrich), . Williams (Juan Williams), civil rights, poverty, Race, South Carolina