Confidentially or Not, the Eveland Settlement is a desparaging Statement of School Boards and their True Intentions

Confidentially, the Eveland settlement is a crying shame

Originally written and publihsed 

 by Maura Larkin

The San Diego Education Report

March 10, 2012

"A year ago, Daniel Shinoff, prominent attorney the the San Marcos USD, needled me (Maura Larkin) for raising the dark questions that pounded my skull like a migraine. 'being the mensch you are, he wrote, I am confident you will extend your apologies to this fine educational community when the truth comes out in court.' Well, Mr. Shinoff, the truth hasn’t come out in court. Only the District's dollars."

Is San Marcos Unified School District tacitly admitting responsibility by way of the $4.75 million judgement the court has ordered for Scotty Eveland's injuries. Why didn't they settle with the Eveland family in the first place? It's mind-boggling to think how much the school district paid its lawyers to attend over 300 depositions, countless motions, and trial preparations. A Million? More? That money should have gone to the Eveland family! So why the charade? The school board and administrators should rethink their attitude toward students and their families--and to the public at large.

The school district's insurance premiums are going to go up as a result of this case--and the taxpayers will be stuck with those increased bills for many years to come.

Was attorney Danielle Shinoff working for the public good, or was he working to protect a specific coach who had made a catastrophically bad decision? Was he also working to protect other individuals in power in San Marcos Unified School District? Would the school district have been better off to settle with Scott Eveland years ago? We're pretty sure Shinoff's coffers are much the better off for convincing the school board to fight. But Why?

Is this really how the public wants lawyers to behave when they are supposedly working for the public?

See all Maura Laurkins posts regarding the Scott Eveland case.




the Sand Diego, Union-Times
by Logan Jenkins

March 9, 2012

There is no shame. Only dollars.

Nearly a year ago, I started a column with a personal anxiety:

“My biggest fear about Eveland vs. San Marcos Unified School District is that the lawsuit will be settled without a full accounting before a jury.”

On Friday, that worry was realized following a phony Kabuki dance that no one ever expected to lead to a jury trial.

In a matter of minutes, the financial terms of the 11th-hour settlement were announced — and a curtain of silence descended.

The two sides, which argued diametrically opposed accounts of what happened to Scotty Eveland, agreed not to “disparage” the other and to “refrain from rehashing the disputed allegations.”

There is no blame. Only a relatively paltry $4.375 million (minus hefty attorney fees and accrued medical liens), doled out by a remote insurance company.

There’s no lesson. Only a joint statement that appears to have been crafted by Mary Poppins on behalf of the San Marcos school district.

There’s no suggestion, the joint statement says, that “professional and hardworking coaches, athletic trainers, administrators and staff of the Mission Hills High School intentionally contributed to the unfortunate and tragic accident that occurred during a high-school football game (italics mine).”

Mind you, no one ever alleged that Scotty Eveland’s Mission Hills coach, Chris Hauser, intentionally inflicted a life-changing brain injury upon his second-string middle linebacker.

What was alleged, assuming witnesses were telling the truth, was a “catastrophic error of judgment” to send Eveland into the game, in the words of the neurosurgeon who operated upon Eveland after he collapsed on the field.

Also alleged was a conspiracy to cover up the coach’s alleged decision when Eveland’s headache allegedly was so severe he couldn’t focus on the ball.

Given the unavoidable conclusion that some of the players in this tragedy have lied through their teeth — either plaintiff witnesses or school employees — then is a reckoning on behalf of all young athletes too much to ask?

Evidently so.

There is no shame nor contrition. Only $ dollars.

  The two sides, which argued diametrically opposed accounts of what happened to Scotty Eveland, agreed not to “disparage” the other and to “refrain from rehashing the disputed allegations.” There is no (assignment of) blame. Only a relatively paltry $4.375 million (minus hefty attorney fees and accrued medical liens), doled out by a remote (indifferent) insurance company.

There’s no lesson. Only a joint statement that appears to have been crafted by Mary Poppins on behalf of the San Marcos school district. There’s no suggestion, the joint statement says, that professional and hardworking coaches, athletic trainers, administrators and staff of the Mission Hills High School intentionally contributed to the unfortunate and tragic accident that occurred during a high-school football game.

Mind you, no one ever alleged that Scotty Eveland’s Mission Hills coach, Chris Hauser, intentionally inflicted a life-changing brain injury upon his second-string middle linebacker.

What was alleged, assuming witnesses were telling the truth, was a “catastrophic error of judgment” to send Eveland into the game, in the words of the neurosurgeon who operated upon Eveland after he collapsed on the field.

Also alleged was a conspiracy to cover up the coach’s alleged decision when Eveland’s headache allegedly was so severe he couldn’t focus on the ball. Given the unavoidable conclusion that some of the football players in this tragedy have lied through their teeth — either plaintiff, witnesses or school employees — then is a reckoning to come for a  Student atheletes, coaches, and  others?  No once again, only Dollars bearing no witness and no standard.

Chicago’s Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy is Taking Aim at (Gun Manufacturers') Lobbyists

Chicago’s Police Superintendent, Garry McCarthy is taking aim at (gun) lobbyists who mcCarthy says prevent politicians, from implementing more gun control measures. (Because they, the vicious gun lobbyists, have apparently discovered that the smell of freshly minted $20s and $50s alter the living brain cells of humans - well especially Human Politicos; wave stacks of $20s in front of the otherwise up-standing politician and that politician; he or she will become giddy,  confused, dizzy, completely malleable in terms of their values. Kind of like waving oxymoron, excuse me, Oxycodon in front of Rush Limbaugh, an otherwise caring, loving and insightful “talking head” who with the help of Rupert Murdoch seek only the essence of truth and fairness in everything they air).

(This unseen life altering presence is a kin to a disease for most politicians. Rumors are leaning toward another re-wright of the  Americans with Disabilities Act. ADAAA 2011)

“If there was a special interest influencing police work, I believe that would be called corruption,” McCarthy said. “So, if it has to do with donating money, versus a popular vote, I think we have a bigger problem in this country and someone has to wake up to that.”
Gun rights advocates seized on the comments, saying that McCarthy was blaming the city’s gun violence on donors and lobbyists who advocate for the Second Amendment.

“Garry McCarthy’s understanding of our Constitution barely qualifies him as a meter maid, never mind the chief of the nation’s third largest police department,” Illinois State Rifle Association Executive Director Richard Pearson said.

Despite having some of the toughest gun laws in the nation, Chicago saw more than 500 homicides last year for the first time since 2008, and some 43 murders took place in January. That has prompted several pro-gun rights groups to say it proves new gun control measures aren’t the answer.

McCarthy told FoxNews.com Owned and controlled by aforementioned Murdoch, he never advocated “getting rid of the Second Amendment.”  He said he was making the point that there is popular support for new gun control laws and that lobbyists are stopping elected officials from reflecting the will of the people.

“How is it [special interests] are controlling politicians?” he said. “How are they controlling elected officials? It’s not by popular vote.”

McCarthy in the past has blamed “government-sponsored racism” and Sarah Palin for Chicago’s gun violence. He has been outspoken in his opposition to handgun proliferation, telling a radio panel last month he equates fewer guns with improved public safety.

“When people say concealed carry, I say Trayvon Martin,” McCarthy said, referring to the Florida teen who was shot and killed last February by a neighborhood watch volunteer, sparking controversy across the country. “I say Trayvon Martin because the answer to guns is not more guns, and just simply putting guns in people’s hands is going to lead to more tragedy.”

McCarthy backs banning assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, requiring background checks for anyone who buys a gun, mandatory reporting of the sale, transfer, loss or theft of a gun and mandatory minimum prison sentences for people convicted of illegally possessing a gun.

Perhaps the CRISIS that Bore Fruit in Chris Dorner was Predicted Two Years-Ago

My thoughts and prayers go out to all area Police Offocers and Sheriff Deputies, especially the loved ones of the victims'  of Dormer's Rampage.  However, the Piece Below, written Almost Two years-ago, begs the question:  Did LAPD Have Every Reason to See This Coming? May 9, 2011 -  by Stephen A. Jamieson Regarding a LA Times article about the multiplicity of lawsuits involving the LAPD. "Interesting that the essence of the article is that the City botched the defense of the case(s), and not that the City is perhaps terrible at making sure the employees/cops are treated appropriately and according to legal standards during their employment so as to avoid so many lawsuits from being filed in the first  place." "At least 17 officers have won million-dollar-plus jury verdicts or settlements from the city in the last decade in lawsuits involving accusations of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation and other workplace injustices" Below is the article from the LA Times $1-million-plus LAPD payouts LAPD clear backlog of untested DNA evidence By Joel Rubin Los Angeles Times May 8, 2011   Robert Hill did not join the Los Angeles Police Department to become a millionaire. And yet, that's what happened in September when city officials cut the veteran cop and his lawyer a check for nearly $4 million. The money was compensation for the snide comments and other abuse Hill suffered at the hands of other LAPD officers after he reported that a supervisor used racial slurs and embezzled department funds. In the last decade, at least 16 other officers have won million-dollar-plus jury verdicts or settlements from the city in lawsuits in which they leveled accusations of sexual harassment, racial discrimination, retaliation and other workplace injustices. Dozens more officers have won five- or six-figure paydays. "These cases irk the heck out of me," said City Councilman Greig Smith, who has been a critic of the city's job-protection rules that, he said, make it too difficult to fire officers who cause workplace problems. "Somebody running a private company would never let this … stand. Why do we let it happen here? And we see the same things happening over and over again." City records show that from 2005 to 2010, officers have sued the department over workplace issues more than 250 times. The city has paid settlements or verdicts totaling more than $18 million in about 45 of those cases and has lost several other verdicts worth several million dollars more in cases it is appealing, a review of the records shows. The city has prevailed in about 50 cases. The rest, representing tens of millions of dollars in potential liability, remain open. Litigious officers have bedeviled Los Angeles police chiefs and city lawyers for decades, and a survey of large police departments across the country indicates that LAPD officers file suit more than others. Los Angeles police, for example, brought an average of about three times more lawsuits a year per officer than officers in Chicago and the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. And there were about a third fewer lawsuits among Boston police. Officer-driven lawsuits have come under greater scrutiny in recent years as Los Angeles' financial problems have gotten worse. Elected officials and the LAPD's independent watchdog believe the department should be doing more to deter workplace conflict and avoid the expensive litigation. Beyond the financial toll, the cases often amount to embarrassing, public airings of the department's dirty laundry — nasty fights that expose crude behavior by officers and a retaliatory mindset of supervisors that undermine efforts by senior officials to present the LAPD as a smoothly run operation. The case of Patricia Fuller, who at the time was the only woman serving as a dog handler in the LAPD's canine unit, underscores how contentious and costly workplace incidents can become for the city. Fuller had accused men in the unit of making vulgar sexual advances and comments, while also excluding her from training exercises, court records show. In 2009, city officials paid Fuller $2.25 million to settle her claims. Then another canine officer, Donald Bender, filed a lawsuit alleging that he had been stripped of a rank and kicked out of the unit as retaliation for coming to Fuller's defense. He was followed by Blaine Blackstone, a sergeant who supervised Fuller. Blackstone said he had been the target of retaliation by superiors after he refused their demands that he placate Fuller by changing her performance evaluation. The city refused to settle with Bender and Blackstone, and both officers won their cases. Bender received $2.5 million and Blackstone was awarded nearly $750,000 in damages, court records show. For Hill, who said the retaliation against him included being followed by other officers, falsely accused of misconduct and removed from a coveted assignment, knowing the large verdict he won came from taxpayers left him with mixed feelings. "Here I was a public servant suing the city, basically suing the taxpayers who I was committed to protecting," Hill said. "What I really wanted was for the names of the people who had harmed me to be on that lawsuit. I wanted the money to come out of their pockets. I felt bad that the wrong people were paying, but it was the only recourse I had as an officer." Large verdicts can be a financial boon for rank-and-file police officers who earn $45,000 to about $85,000, depending on the number of years they have served. Some, like Hill, choose to remain on the job, while others leave. Beyond the money, some who have been fired have successfully sued to get their jobs back. The question of whether to settle a case or take the officer to court can be a dicey one for city and police officials. Settle too easily, the thinking goes, and the department will be seen by officers and attorneys as an easy target. Taking too hard a stand, however, carries risks as well. Employment cases are difficult to defend against, lawyers say, since they often turn on emotional issues and differing perceptions of what occurred. "If you settle, all you're doing is encouraging other officers to file more lawsuits," said LAPD Cmdr. Stuart Maislin, who for several years ran the department's Risk Management Division. "It sends the message that the city is just giving away money — that an officer just has to make a claim and they'll walk away with some money in their pocket. The only way to stop that is to take them to court and fight them." "When we lose," Maislin added, "we lose big." In general, City Atty. Carman Trutanich and Gerald Chaleff, a senior advisor to LAPD Chief Charlie Beck who oversees employee lawsuits, have pursued a hard-line approach with officers in recent years, refusing to settle except in those cases where it is clear the city is likely to lose in court. That tough stance has led to mixed results. The city has lost a handful of jury verdicts that could have been avoided if it had been willing to settle. Attorney Matthew McNicholas, for example, represented Richard Romney, an officer who was fired after he testified about the department's overtime policy in a labor dispute; Melissa Borck, who filed a sexual harassment lawsuit; and Bender, the canine officer. McNicholas offered to settle the three cases for a total of $2 million, but police officials and city lawyers were adamant about taking all three to court and ended up losing verdicts totaling about $9.5 million. Understaffing and a lack of lawyers with experience in workplace issues in the city attorney's office has hampered the city's ability to defend itself against such lawsuits in court, officials said. Bill Carter, Trutanich's chief deputy, said overworked attorneys have missed court-filing deadlines, failed to take important depositions and made other blunders on employment cases. "We're creating a recipe for disaster," Carter said. The recent high-dollar verdicts and settlements suggest that the department needs to do more to mediate workplace conflicts, said Nicole Bershon, inspector general for the Los Angeles Police Commission. That should include bringing in impartial employment experts to help resolve conflicts before they reach a courtroom, she said. The department also has come under fire for failing to thoroughly investigate complaints of workplace problems. In a 2010 audit of LAPD investigations into employee allegations of retaliation, Bershon's office found that investigators routinely neglected to interview people accused of misconduct, or even name them in the investigations. The way the department handles officer lawsuits has become a source of increasingly hostile fodder for the Police Protective League, the union that represents rank-and-file officers and sometimes assists officers in bringing their suits. Emboldened by recent high-profile verdicts for officers, union officials have grown vocal at what they see as the unwillingness or inability of senior LAPD officials to deal with problems in the workplace — a charge department leaders deny. "I've got a news flash for … the 'leaders' who are tasked with ensuring the Department treats its people fairly. Look in the mirror to find out where the problems are," Sgt. John Mumma, the union's secretary, wrote in a recent open letter published in the union's magazine. "How many more officers are going to become millionaires over the botched handling of their cases?"