Judge says former MiraCosta president must repay $1.3 million

Attorney Dan Shinoff represented MiraCosta College since the beginning of the palmgate/Richart brouhaha, but he was replaced by attorney Michael Gibbs in the most recent phase of this case. It seems it will be a long time before MiraCosta fully recovers from the long campaign of Dan Shinoff and Victoria Richart to secure power over the college.

Judge says former MiraCosta president must repay $1.3 million
By Pat Flynn
SAN DIEGO UNION-TRIBUNE
August 13, 2010

A judge has ordered the former president of MiraCosta College to repay about $1.3 million in compensation she has received from the college district under a 2007 settlement in which she agreed to step down and waive her right to sue over employment issues.

Victoria Muñoz Richart and the district agreed to a $1.6 million settlement after the faculty cast a no-confidence vote against her over her investigation into the illegal sale of palm trees that belonged to the college.

Leon Page, an attorney who lives in Carlsbad, quickly sued, contending that state law prohibits public agencies from granting more than 18 months’ worth of salary and benefits in terminating contracts.

He lost at the trial level, but in November the 4th District Court of Appeal agreed that the deal was an unconstitutional gift of public funds and declared the settlement contract void. The appellate court sent the case back to Superior Court to sort out what to do next.

In his ruling, Judge William S. Dato said the solution is to return the parties to the status they had before the agreement was reached, ordering Richart to repay the money within 90 days and reinstating her right to pursue legal claims against the district.

“Technically, she is also relieved of her obligation to step down as president of the district, but the significance of that fact is far from clear,” Dato wrote, noting that the college has a new president (since March 2009) and that “it is unlikely Richart would want to resume the position even if the district board was willing to permit it.”

The ruling also ordered the district to withhold the approximately $300,000 remaining to be paid under the settlement.

Neither Richart nor her attorneys could be reached for comment Friday.

“This was an abusive, corrupt bargain,” Page said of the deal he torpedoed, saying his role was to stand up for the college and taxpayers “since nobody else did.”

Although he has no role in any future dealings between Richart and the Oceanside-based district, Page said, “I think now this can very easily be settled.”

He said he envisions a scenario in which Richart is able to “hold back” some of what she has been paid.

“I don’t think it’s necessary to squeeze every last penny out of Victoria,” Page said.

Michael Gibbs, an attorney for the college district, said that while there have been no discussions since Dato released his ruling Thursday, a settlement is possible.

“I am sure there will be a good-faith effort to reach a resolution,” he said.

And if that doesn’t happen, there “may well be” more litigation in the case, he said.

Victoria Richart files new claim--my guess is that Diane Crosier at SDCOE-JPA will pay her off

You didn't think she was just going to apologize when the Court of Appeal ruled that she had ripped off taxpayers, did you?

Former MiraCosta College president Victoria Richart and her lawyers Randy Winet and Dan Shinoff seem addicted to playing power games that cost taxpayers millions. The continuing saga of these three musketeers has cost MiraCosta College over $3 million. Richart and Shinoff spent around $1.5 million to investigate $305 worth of stolen water for palm trees at MiraCosta College, and then Winet and Shinoff arranged a payoff of $1.6 million when the College wanted to fire Richart.

The California Court of Appeal says the payoff to Richart was illegal.

So do the three musketeers apologize for ripping off the taxpayers and throwing MiraCosta College into turmoil?

No. Victoria Richart has filed a new claim against MiraCosta. If Randy Winet is representing her, he should immediately become ineligible to work for SDCOE.

Now that she has filed a claim, SDCOE-Joint Powers Authority can pay her off. The previous deal was illegal because it was a severance deal that went over the legal limit. But paying off a claim for damages would not have such a limit.

My guess is that Diane Crosier at SDCOE-JPA will be only too happy to approve a payoff. Crosier is very close to Dan Shinoff, and he certainly isn't going to want to see Victoria Richart on the witness stand at a trial talking about how he advised her to conduct the Palmgate investigation.

See recent story in Voice of San Diego about Dan Shinoff's gifts to Diane Crosier


OCEANSIDE: Richart files claim against MiraCosta
By PAUL SISSON
North County Times
July 1, 2010

Former MiraCosta College President and Superintendent Victoria Munoz Richart has filed a claim against the college alleging potential damages worth more than $2 million for breach of her employment agreement, retaliation, wrongful termination and a host of other allegations.

The claim is the latest twist in a three-year legal battle over a pricey buyout Richart received when she left MiraCosta in June 2007. In a closed-door meeting held that month, the college's board of trustees agreed to give Richart a settlement of cash and benefits valued at up to $1.6 million.

The agreement led to a lawsuit by Carlsbad activist Leon Page, who argued it was an illegal gift of public funds. In November, the state's Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with Page and ordered the lower court to reverse a previous ruling that had upheld the settlement.

A Superior Court judge will soon rule on whether Richart must return some of the money she has already been paid under the deal.

The claim against MiraCosta states that Richart is willing to return to her old job of running the community college if her previous settlement is undone.

Richart's stint at MiraCosta was mired in turmoil that started with her investigation of illegal sales from the college's horticulture department. Along the way, she ran afoul of MiraCosta's faculty senate, which vocally objected to her investigative methods...

MiraCosta trustees make bizarre decision to appeal to California Supreme Court to keep $1.6 million Victoria Richart settlement

Congratulations to the courageous board members George McNeil and Gloria Carranza for trying to protect both taxpayer dollars and the integrity of MiraCosta College in the wake of the
Victoria Richart scandal.

But what are the majority trustees thinking? Are they just doing what attorney Dan Shinoff advises them to do? Are they as anxious to keep tax money flowing to Dan Shinoff as they are to let Victoria Richart keep $1.6 million settlement that the Court of Appeal has ruled illegal? I'm particularly disappointed in Jacqueline Simon, who seemed for a while to care about the public good as opposed to the back room dealers. I can't help but wonder if someone intimidated her into submission.

The article below fails to tell us how much more the taxpayers will have to pay to San Diego County Office of Education--Joint Powers Authority in increased premiums due to all this. And of course, the SDCOE-JPA is funded with tax dollars, so the taxpayers pay Dan Shinoff even when MiraCosta College doesn't.


OCEANSIDE: MiraCosta wants state's high court to review Richart decision
By PAUL SISSON
January 20, 2010

MiraCosta College trustees will ask the California Supreme Court to overturn a recent appellate court ruling that invalidates a roughly $1.6 million settlement between the board and its former superintendent and president.

Trustees voted 4-2 in a closed-session meeting Tuesday to appeal the ruling to the state's highest court, with board member William Fischer absent and trustees George McNeil and Gloria Carranza opposing the move.

The decision to appeal marks the latest chapter in a long-running legal battle over the payout that began in August 2007, when Carlsbad attorney Leon Page sued MiraCosta, alleging the settlement was an illegal gift of public funds.

A Superior Court judge initially ruled against Page, but the attorney had better success with the 4th District Court of Appeal. In a Nov. 23 ruling, that court found the settlement between the college and former president Victoria Munoz Richart was void because it exceeded the value of 18 months' salary and benefits ---- the maximum the state allows in contract buy-outs for executives of local agencies.

MiraCosta trustees and lawyers have said since then they fear Richart's legal claims against the college would be worth far more than $1.6 million if they were ever taken to civil court.

In a statement released Wednesday about the high-court appeal, board chairman Gregory Post said other local agencies are also concerned about the precedent the appellate court ruling would set, should it stand.

"The board's interest in protecting the district from further litigation and the additional expense that could result from the Appellate Court ruling continues to remain a top priority," Post's statement read.

The statement says an insurance policy with the San Diego Schools Joint Powers Authority will cover the cost of the appeal. MiraCosta officials said attorney Daniel Shinoff and his law firm, Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff and Holtz, will continue to handle the case.

The request for appeal is expected to be filed Jan. 27.

Reached Wednesday morning, Page said he was "offended" by the decision to fight the appellate decision and doesn't understand why the college would continue to fight the notion that it should regain the settlement cash.

"They could have just accepted the appellate court's decision and used it as an opportunity to negotiate a legally viable settlement agreement with Richart," Page said. "Instead, they're fighting for the right to give away the public's money, and they're using tax dollars to pay the lawyers to continue that fight."

McNeil, one of the MiraCosta trustees who opposed filing the appeal, said Wednesday that he "felt the appellate court decision was worth supporting," but understands the position of his colleagues...

Logan Jenkins talks about Daniel Shinoff and the Victoria Richart deal at Miracosta College

See recent updates about MiraCosta College and the palmgate scandal.

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.

Leon Page and taxpayers win in court of appeal; Victoria Richart and Daniel Shinoff lose MiraCosta College case

See all MiraCosta College posts.

A big win for education. Sadly, however, MiraCosta College reformers seem to have faded away. Trustee Judy Stratton has left office, and Gloria Carranza and Jacqueline Simon seem to have fallen into line behind Diane Crosier and the SDCOE lawyers who helped MiraCosta College spend $3 million to wage a power struggle over a $305 water bill for palm trees.


OCEANSIDE: Appeals court puts MiraCosta settlement 'in limbo'
Former president could have to give back more than $1 million
By STACY BRANDT
November 23, 2009

Former MiraCosta College President Victoria Munoz Richart may have to give back some or all of the $1.6 million settlement she received when she left the school in 2007, based on a state appeals court ruling Monday.

The ruling, which reverses a 2008 decision by trial judge Thomas P. Nugent, says the settlement amount exceeded what is allowed under a state law that caps executive payout packages at no more than 18 months of salary and benefits.

Richart, reached by phone Monday, declined to comment on the ruling and referred all questions to her attorney, Randy Winet.

Winet said it's unclear exactly what the ruling will mean for his client and the settlement.

"It does put it back into limbo," he said.

Leon Page, an activist and Carlsbad resident who sued Richart and MiraCosta over the deal, said he considers the decision a clear victory...

HERE'S PART OF WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL SAID TODAY:

...Thus, the public is entitled to monitor and provide input on the Board's collective acquisition and exchange of facts (see Roberts v. City of Palmdale, supra, 5 Cal.4th at p. 376) in furtherance of a mediation or resolution of Richart's claims.

In sum, the trial court erred in sustaining respondents' demurrers to Page's second cause of action without leave to amend.

DISPOSITION

The judgment is reversed.

The matter is remanded with directions that the trial court

(1) enter an order granting summary adjudication of Page's first and third causes of action for Brown Act violations in District's favor and granting summary adjudication of Page's fourth and sixth causes of action in Page's favor;

(2) vacate its order sustaining respondents' demurrers to Page's second cause of action; and (3) enter an order overruling respondents' demurrers to the second cause of action.



THE COURT CITED A CASE INVOLVING THE SAME PLAYERS

The published case Bell v. Vista USD was repeatedly cited in the appellate decision. Bell v. Vista USD involved the same set of players: Bob Ottilie for the plaintiff, Shinoff & Sleeth for the defendant.

Bell v. Vista USD

COUNSEL

Stutz, Gallagher, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, Daniel R. Shinoff, Jack M. Sleeth, Jr., and

Paul V. Carelli IV for Defendants and Appellants.
Robert P. Ottilie for Plaintiff and Respondent.
[82 Cal.App.4th 677]