MiraCosta should applaud 2007 gadfly
San Diego Union Tribune
By Logan Jenkins
November 29, 2009
Two years ago, around this reflective time of year, I decided to name a “Hero of the Year,” a variant on Time magazine’s annual honor. Here’s a passage from the 2007 column:
...Gadfly
...As you know, MiraCosta’s headline-grabbing 2007 scandal, known as Palmgate, resulted in a bewilderingly generous $1.6 million severance package for former President Victoria Richart. The outlandish payout, more than $1 million more than the 18 months’ salary and benefits to which she was contractually entitled, was based on the flimsy premise that Richart might successfully sue the college for personal damages.
Enter Page, a deputy counsel for Orange County who enlisted another attorney, Ron Cozad, to help him challenge the apparent gift of public funds, as well as the secret, grotesque circumstances in which the “settlement” — more accurately, legal heist — was approved.
In an all-night meeting, three dissident trustees had been bullied into signing off on the insane severance package. They weren’t waterboarded, but they were threatened with personal financial ruin...
In light of the appellate court’s stunning reversal of a district court’s dismissal of Page’s arguments, Richart faces what could be an uncomfortable procedure.
She may very well be forced “to disgorge her ill-gotten gains,” a colorful phrase Page imports from the legal language of his native England.
Aside from the disgorger, the other loser in this reversal is the law firm of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, MiraCosta’s mouthpiece.
You can’t blame Richart and her attorney at the time, Bob Ottilie, for trying to stick it to the college when Richart decided to jump ship and take a chest of gold with her. All’s fair in love and war — and litigation. If it hadn’t been for Page — a gadfly wised up on labor law — their confidence game would have worked like a charm.
No, the outrageous payment — $650,000 in unproven (I’d say phantom) damages, as well as other tribute to Richart — has to be placed at the door of the prominent law firm.
Last week, Dan Shinoff suggested it was unclear if Richart would have to return any money when the case returns in January to a Vista judge for disposition.
He suggested Page was “naive” to think it’s as simple as that.
In a letter to MiraCosta trustees last week, Page responded:
“I think Mr. Shinoff is terribly conflicted because he got the Board into this mess and has now only put the college into a worse position; he’s doing his best to cover up what in my view is his own professional negligence.”
Page goes on to say the board should seek an independent legal opinion as to how to proceed.
No comments:
Post a Comment