Defendants’ Craig Foster and Oscar de la Torre Will Testify Against Their Own Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District & Admit That The Other Board of Education Defendants’ Knew That If They Tested The Caulk They Would Find PCBs in Excess of 50 PPMs and Have To Remove Them

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District’s Board of Education Defendants’ Craig Foster and Oscar de la Torre will testify against their other Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Board of Education members, and admit that they knew that if they tested the caulk they would find PCBs in excess of 50 PPM and have to remove them!

See witness list numbers 15 (Oscar de la Torre) and 16 (Craig Foster) as located on page 5 and 6 of the attached Plaintiff’s witness list.

See attached Witness List:

AMERICA UNITES FOR KIDS WITNESS LIST WITH BOARD MEMBERS,TEACHERS AND CUSTODIAN WITNESS’

See link to JDSUPRA News:

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/defendants-craig-foster-and-oscar-de-la-33904/

Teachers and Custodians will also testify against their own Santa Monica Unified School District and exclaim that the District failed to comply with their own Best Management Practices (BMPs).

The attached Declarations from Malibu High School teachers Katy Lapajne and Lisa Lambert includes evidence from 33 other Malibu High School teachers that the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) is not complying with their Best Management Practices (BMPs) and is in violation of the EPA Region 9’s guidelines.

See pdf copies of the Declarations from two Malibu High School Teachers:

DECLARATION OF MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER KATY LAPAJNE

DECLARATION OF MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER LISA LAMBERT

Declaration of Jaun Cabrillo Elementary Teacher Robin Levy with allegations that she felt intimidated by Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw and Pittman Law Firm’s Attorney Julia Stein.

See Robin Levy’s declaration signed under penalty of perjury:

DECLARATION OF JAUN CABRILLO TEACHER ROBIN LEVY

Robin Levy has declared under penalty of perjury that she believed she was being coerced to change her testimony to implicate Malibu Parent Matt DeNicola with allegations of trespassing and vandalism to Jaun Cabrillo Elementary School.

Two elected members of the SMMUSD have condemned the criminal complaint, as have several staff members, including the school librarian who decried the “administration’s hounding of staff members for statements and the threat of prosecution.” (See attached emails from Board members Craig Foster and Oscar de la Torre) (See attached email from School Librarian Suzanne Moscoso)

See School Board Member emails here:

11_4_15_SMMUSD_board_members_protest

See School Librarian’s email here:

11_4_15_Librarian response

The attached declaration from Malibu High School Parent Matt DeNicola declares that former SMMUSD Board of Education member Ben Allen, now California State Senator Ben Allen admitted in September 2014 that the SMMUSD Board of Education chose not to test for PCBs, because they knew that they would find illegal levels of toxic PCBs and be forced to remove them under the TSCA. (See Matt DeNicola Declaration, pg. 1, paragraph 2)

DECLARATION OF MATT DENICOLA RE CALIFORNIA STATE SENATOR BEN ALLEN

See Declaration from Malibu High School Teacher Carla Bowman Smith declaring that Malibu High School’s condition is horrific, and is infested with rats, feces and urine:

DECLARATION OF MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER CARLA BOWMAN SMITH

CURRENT HEALTH ISSUES WITH STUDENTS AND TEACHERS AT MALIBU SCHOOLS

6 teachers with thyroid cancer;

4 alumni (28-year-old)with thyroid cancer;

1 current student with thyroid disease, possible thyroid cancer

25 teachers with thyroid disease (including 14 of 30 Malibu Middle School teachers);

10 alumni in their 20s with thyroid disease;

1 alumni (22-year-old) with environmentally induced melanoma;

2 current teachers with environmentally induced melanoma;

1 teacher hospitalized from an environmentally-induced rash;

1 current student with an environmentally-induced rash lasting several months

innumerable cases of headaches; persistent rashes; daily migraines; infertility issues; hair loss; immune issues; respiratory issues; and diabetes.

See United States District Court’s Order Denying the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District’s Motion for Summary Judgment

Order denying summary judgment

U.S. District Court Judge Percy Anderson rejected the Santa Monica-Malibu School District’s latest attempt to prevent a trial over its failure to protect public school students and teachers from cancer-causing chemicals known as PCBs.

Judge Anderson denied the school district’s motion for summary judgment despite its cynical strategy of restricting PCB testing to bolster its defense against a federal Citizen Suit that seeks a court order compelling the removal of hazardous PCBs from Malibu public schools. The suit seeks no monetary damages. Trial is scheduled for May 17, 2016 in Los Angeles.

The school district has taken the preposterous position that there is no evidence that PCBs exist on its campuses outside of precise areas that have already tested positive, and it has refused testing of any other areas — even of adjacent classrooms built at the same time; even of adjacent windows or doors installed at the same time. PCBs were commonly used in construction materials including window and door caulking until PCBs were completely banned by Congress.

The school district argues that rather than investigate or remove similar caulk to that which tested above legal limits, its application of so-called “Best Management Practices” (essentially wiping surfaces with wet rags) is sufficient, despite it being a violation of Federal law – a law created because Congress determined that PCBs are an unacceptable risk to human health.

Judge Anderson wrote in his ruling: “[T]he District’s own testing has shown PCBs in excess of 50 ppm [parts-per-million] in multiple rooms in six different buildings on the Malibu Campus, 70% of the rooms tested by the District contained PCBs in excess of 50 ppm, 28 out of 32 samples taken by the district contained PCBs above 50 ppm, with most above 100,000 ppm, many of the buildings on the Malibu Campus were built prior to 1979, and caulk and other materials containing PCBs were used in schools built from the 1950s through the 1970s.”

The court also found evidence, from affidavits from custodians, that the school district was not even implementing the promised “Best Management Practices” supposedly designed to reduce levels of toxic exposure in classrooms.

Judge Anderson concluded: “In reviewing the admissible evidence, and drawing reasonable inferences from that evidence, the Court concludes that triable issues of fact exist concerning the continued ‘use’ of PCBs at the Malibu Campus despite the remediation work performed to date by the District. The Court additionally concludes that evidence suggesting that the District has failed to implement and consistently employ BMPs as contemplated by the EPA’s approvals calls into question the amount of deference the Court should give to the District’s purported compliance with the EPA’s guidelines and approvals. For all of the foregoing reasons, the Court denies Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment.”

The Citizen Suit, to enforce Federal law, was brought by America Unites for Kids, on behalf of parents, and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), representing teachers.

“We are ready to go to trial as the evidence, sworn testimony and scientific research will reveal the truth — that Malibu public school classrooms are laden with illegal levels of cancer-causing chemicals that must be removed.”

“It is incomprehensible that in the past two years the district has spent $10 million to mislead parents and the court about the existence of PCBs rather than be honest and work with the parents to remove PCBs and make our public schools safe.” said Jennifer deNicola, a Malibu High School parent who heads America Unites for Kids.

“We hope this ruling convinces the district to end its scorched earth legal approach and embrace a solution which puts the health of students, teachers and staff in the forefront,” stated PEER Senior Counsel Paula Dinerstein, noting that the overwhelming percentage of the district’s own test results show illegal levels of PCBs. “The district’s legal bills already dwarf what it would have cost to clean up all three campuses – and we haven’t even gone to trial yet.”

The Citizen’s Suit was filed after the school district refused to remove toxic PCBs at an estimated cost of $750,000 to $1.5 million. The district’s legal bills to fight removal and the Citizen’s Suit have now hit at least $3.38 million. When consultants and other PCB related costs are factored in, the tab exceeds $10 million.

See attached Order:

Order denying summary judgment

Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District’s Timeline

See letter to Sandra Lyon and the SMMUSD’s Board of Education dated Oct. 7, 2013 from AMPS, Malibu High PTSA, The Shark Fund, The Boys & Girls Club of Malibu, members of the Malibu High School Site Council, & Malibu Special Education Demanding that the SMMUSD take Steps to Keep Our Children and Teachers Safe:

525375b700692.pdf

In January 2014, SMMUSD staff raised concerns about PCB exposure in Malibu High School and Middle School (MHS) and Juan Cabrillo Elementary School (JCS) after three teachers reported thyroid cancer diagnoses.

See letter to Sandra Lyon from 12 teachers at Malibu High School:

http://www.peer.org/assets/docs/ca/1_13_14_teacher_letter.pdf

1_13_14_teacher_letter-2

The City of Malibu through Resolution No. 14-58 requests that the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) conduct further source testing for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) at all Malibu school campuses and in all rooms. Every inch of caulking does not need to be tested to verify there are PCBs. It is reasonable and based on standard building practices is responsible to assume that all like caulking in the same building contains PCBs. 

See City of Malibu’s September 23, 2014 Resolution No. 14-58 below:

9_23_14_Malibu_City_Council_Resolution

Despite the October 2013, January 2014 letters and City of Malibu passing this Resolution, the SMMUSD refuses to relocate its students and teachers and administer any further testing, even turning down the offer of Malibu parent and supermodel Cindy Crawford to personally pay for the tests. The EPA, in the Oct, 31st, 2014 approval, made very clear that PCBs over 50ppm cannot be left in place. PCBs are not like lead paint and asbestos; they are not chemically the same nor are they handled by EPA the same way.

The SMMUSD is misleading the public with false statements to try and justify their choice to keep exposing Malibu children to cancerous, toxic PCBs. 

On Tuesday, December 16th, 2014, the SMMUSD ordered a “special” cleaning of the classrooms prior to Environ testing the dust and air. They asked teachers to remove all items from all surfaces so they can send a “special” crew to remove dust from surfaces; the same surfaces that Environ will be wipe testing hours later.

This renders PCB results meaningless. The goal of wipe and air testing is to see what the students and staff have been exposed to for the past 4 months. However, if they clean it hours before testing then any evidence of PCB exposure is removed.  Click Here to see email

Special-Cleaning-12-16-2014

This was done to guarantee the results are below EPA guidelines. Sadly, these test results will be nothing more than a PR move by the district to reassure parents and waste taxpayer dollars.

Moreover, EPA guidance may have been compromised by the following actions.

The SMMUSD’s Superintendent Sandra Lyon sought the assistance of the California Association of School Administrators to lobby the EPA to not enforce PCB source testing and remediation in Malibu schools.

Thereafter, on August 1, 2014 Laura Preston, legislative advocate for the California Association of School Administrators, sent an email to Jared Blumenfeld, EPA Region 9 Administrator, in which she revealed that her organization had been working with Superintendent Sandra Lyon for several months on the PCB issue in Malibu schools. She expressed that her office had also met with the offices of all of our state and federal elected officials, including the California Governor’s office about this issue.

This email suggested that Blumenfeld’s actions could give the appearance of “preferential treatment “ to Malibu. Preston said that: “…any preferential treatment to the community of Malibu will give the appearance that an affluent largely white community will receive preferential treatment. This can easily become a civil rights issue for all of us.” (see email below)

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/california-association-of-school-administrators-email-to-epa.pdf\

See America Unites for Kids October 29, 2015 letter to Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District’s Superintendent Sandra Lyon concerning new PCB test results showing widespread PCB contamination at Malibu High School:
See New PCB Test Results from Malibu High School:

America Unites for Kids Seeks Retraction from the Santa Monica Malibu Classroom Teachers Association for Misleading, Libelous and Inaccurate Statements Concerning PCB Contamination in Malibu Schools

See America Unites for Kids November 23, 2015 letter to SMMCTA:

Letter to SMMCTA Sarah Braff

 

The SMMUSD has spent approx. $8 million dollars on lawyers and environmental expenditures rather than $100 per caulk test. Superintendent Sandra Lyon told the board at the December 11, 2014 board meeting that the District has approval to spend $600+ per hour and the use of Pillsbury Law Firm as legal counsel, and now the SMMUSD Board has given her carte blanche permission to spend unlimited amounts of money to protect their decisions. See list of SMMUSD expenditures to date: $8,000,000 and rising!
11200986_700561446719884_1823505260638714771_o

July 15, 2015
Aug 12, 2015

http://malibuunites.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Purchase-Orders-Approved-at-Board-Meetings2.pdf

Malibu Schools Drain $8 Million From SMMUSD In Legal Fees

For details, go to:

http://www.smmirror.com/articles/News/Malibu-Schools-Drain-8-Million-From-SMMUSD-In-Legal-Fees/45152

Just what is the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District spending so much money to hide from the public?

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District appears to be more interested in attempting to limit their exposure to liability from a toxic tort complaint, rather than to just simply comply with the TSCA, and protect its students and teachers from this continuing harm.

 

The TSCA suit seeks no monetary damages. Trial is scheduled for May 17, 2016 in Los Angeles.

Other Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Litigation, and Errors in Judgment:

There are many other troubling issues with the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District.

  1. Superintendent Sandra Lyon ordered the use of Fumitoxins and Strychnine on Saturday, Aug 22, 2015 at Malibu High School, Juan Cabrillo and Webster Elementary schools despite hundreds of letters from parents in protest.

Her reckless actions put kids and wildlife at risk.

See link to America Unites For Kids Freedom of Information Act request dated Aug 22, 2015:

Freedom Of Info Act Dec 22-1

See link to Malibu Parent’s letter to Superintendent Sandra Lyon and Published in the Malibu Times on September 4, 2015:

Malibu Parent’s Letter: Protecting Children

http://www.malibutimes.com/opinion/article_fcd1df0e-51c4-11e5-b14c-f35d240585b1.html?mode=story

Malibu Parent Stacie Cox’ Public Comment about Superintendent Sandra Lyon:

An empathetic and confident leader would make all her decisions based on how to best protect children, and not make decisions based on legally what she can get away with. You seem to act on false information, archaic ideals, and without a conscience. Your behavior is unconscionable and you should be ashamed of yourself.”

Rodenticide use at Malibu Schools Rouses Call for District Separation

See Malibu Times Article here:

http://www.malibutimes.com/news/article_09817ee0-4bb1-11e5-b2b0-7f6db2b94b50.html

See City of Malibu Brochure Re: Poison Free Malibu:

BROCHURE%20Wildlife_antiPoison%20final_201403211343153527

2. The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Classroom Teachers Association Urges SMMUSD Officials to Consider the Well-being of its Children and Staff

Santa Monica Teacher’s Public Comment:

“Genevieve Szafran
I am a teacher at John Adams middle School. My classroom has been between 86 and 88 degrees every day since school started. I have not been provided with a fan and I’m using two of my own. It is unbearable . I have been suffering from heat exhaustion. My symptoms include nausea, dizziness and an inability to focus. My students are unable to concentrate. This is not a new issue. It is hot for at least 3 months out of every school year since I started working for SMMUSD 15 years ago. This is unacceptable.”

Dr. Henry Kirolos, a UCLA physician who specializes in preventive and primary care said that one of his patients is a John Adams Middle School teacher who reported that her students couldn’t focus in her hot classroom.

Kirolos added that it’s difficult to teach when students are loosening their shirt collars, fanning themselves and wiping sweat off their faces during instruction time.

He cited a scholarly article by Glen I. Earthman regarding the impact of school conditions on academic performance, which points to a study that determined optimal classroom temperatures to be between 68 and 74 degrees Fahrenheit.

“If children are hot and sweaty inside the classroom, they’re not going to be able to concentrate,” Kirolos said. “It’s not conducive to learning.”

See link to Santa Monica Daily Press New Article dated September 16, 2015:
Concerns over classroom temps heat up

3. Student v Wendy Wax Gellis & Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District:

This lawsuit alleges that the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis are criminally liable for violations of California Penal Code § 11166 and 11172(a) et seq. for filing a knowingly false child abuse report with child services and the police.

Santa Monica Dispatch Article Concerning Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Retaliatory Acts Against Students and Parents by Filing False Claims of Child Abuse with the Department of Children & Family Services.

See link to News Article here:http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2009/01/smmusd-vs-student/

The lawsuit alleges that an example of retaliatory action by the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis taken against this family includes knowingly and maliciously filing a false child rape and domestic violence allegation with the local law enforcement and with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in retaliation for parent’s exercise of their federally protected right to bring claims against the SMMUSD before the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

The family alleges that on December 18, 2013, SMMUSD employee named Wendy Wax Gellis made a knowingly false referral to the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and to local law enforcement that parent raped her own son. The allegations were determined by all investigating agencies to be unfounded.

For details of this pending Federal lawsuit go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/santa-monica-dispatch-article-concerning-smmusds-retaliatory-acts-against-students-and-parents-by-filing-false-claims-of-child-abuse-with-the-department-of-children-family-services/

4. Student v Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District:

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 13-55665 & District Court No. 2:12-cv-03059-SVWPJW

For details of this SMMUSD litigation, go to:

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Did Not Act “Reasonably” When It Chose To Conduct An IEP Meeting Without the Parents’ Presence

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/student-vs-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-re-the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-did-not-act-reasonably-when-it-chose-to-conduct-an-iep-meeting-without-pa/

*Legal Fees in the amount of $215,000 were approved by the SMMUSD’s Board of Education on June 29, 2015.

See link to the June 29, 2015 Board of Education Minutes: Re: Attorney’s Fee Settlement in the amount of $215,000

http://www.smmusd.org/brd1415/min062915_spmtg.pdf

See Related case:

DREW BALAGUER, REINA ROBERTS, and MARK BALAGUER v. SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 2:14-cv-06823-CBM-MRW

THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS CREATED A TWO-TRACK EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM THAT EXCLUDES MANY STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES FROM MATRICULATING INTO A FOUR YEAR COLLEGE PROGRAM

For details, go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-has-created-a-two-track-educational-system-that-excludes-many-students-with-disabilities-from-completing-courses-offering-a-to-g-grading-thus-precludin/

5. Other Superintendent Sandra Lyon’s Errors in Judgment:

“SANTA MONICA TEACHER WAS RIGHT, SUPERINTENDENT WAS VERY, VERY WRONG”

April 07, 2014|By Robin Abcarian (LA Times Reporter)

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/07/local/la-me-ra-santa-monica-teacher-was-right-20140407

http://patch.com/california/santamonica/fire-sandra-lyons

https://www.change.org/p/sandra-lyon-and-smmusd-school-board-an-apology-from-superintendent-sandra-lyon-to-mark-black-for-throwing-him-and-all-teachers-under-the-bus-as-well-as-for-making-a-biased-inflammatory-response-to-mark-s-heroic-classroom-actions

6. Severe Bullying at Malibu High School and Superintendent Sandra Lyon’s Ratification of the Conduct:

http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2014/02/victim-becomes-villain-in-malibu-controversy/

For details of this pending litigation, go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/severe-bullying-at-malibu-high-school-the-smmusds-ratification-of-the-conduct/

IMAG0391

Student vs. Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) et al

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT COMPLAINT

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

LIST THE FULL NAME AND JOB TITLE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS AT SMMUSD (AND/OR MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL) RESPONSIBLE AMENDING/REVERSING CANCELING AND OR OTHERWISE MODIFYING THE DISCIPLINARY SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT SEBASTIAN SARTORIUS ISSUED IN OR AROUND NOVEMBER 2012.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

SANDRA LYON, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

7. PCBS REMOVED FROM SANTA MONICA SCHOOLS BUT LEFT IN MALIBU SCHOOLS

Superintendent Sandra Lyon cares more about protecting landfills than protecting children and teachers.

http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/pcbs-removed-from-santa-monica-schools-but-left-in-malibu.html

8. WHISTLEBLOWER PARENT DISCLOSES DRUG AND ALCOHOL PROBLEMS ON MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL’S BASEBALL TEAM

For details, go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/05/05/whistleblower-parent-discloses-drug-and-alcohol-problem-on-malibu-high-school-baseball-team/

9. STUDENT vs. MARK KELLY & THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Re: Disability Discrimination

Plaintiffs allege that Mark Kelly’s conduct in baiting student was so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,” Mintz, 905 P.2d at 563. Mark Kelly’s knowledge that the plaintiff is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress by reason of some physical or mental condition rises to both extreme and outrageous conduct.”  (“eggshell plaintiff” principle)

Some students may have vulnerabilities which necessitate a greater degree of caution on the part of school districts and their employees. In M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist., supra,

Abuse of Power

The extreme and outrageous conduct may take place in the course of a relationship in which the defendant holds authority or other power over the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s interests. If the authority — such as police officers, school authorities, landlords, and collecting creditor — abuse their positions in some extreme manner, they may be liable to the plaintiff for IIED.

10. PROFESSOR MICHAEL CHWE vs. SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Directed to Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Ordering Compliance with the California Public Records Act

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/verified-petition-for-writ-of-mandate-di-72936/

See pdf attachment of Professor Michael Chwe’s Public Records Act lawsuit against the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District:

dwt20110223

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Was Ordered to Release their Investigation Report Concerning the Sexual Harrasment of its Students by their Teachers

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-d-42102/

See pdf attachment to the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District’s landmark ruling in Professor Chwe’s lawsuit against the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District:

B231787-1

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, ruled  that “Marken occupies a position of trust and responsibility as a classroom teacher, and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether and how the District enforces its sexual harassment policy. . . . the public’s interest in disclosure of this information—the public’s right to know—outweighs Marken’s privacy interest in shielding the information from disclosure.”

In Baez v. Superior Court, 2008 WL 5394067 (Cal. Ct. App.) the defense representing the Burbank Unified School District asserted attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine as grounds for refusing to turn over the file from a investigation report.
The Second District Court of Appeal ordered production of the Sandhu investigative file, holding that disclosure was essential for fair adjudication of the action. (Baez v. Superior Court, 2008 WL 5394067 (Cal. Ct. App.).) Case Number B208294  Description: Petition granted by opinion

See link: http://chwe.net/safety/failures.html

See pdf attachment:

SMMUSD IRRESPONSIBILITY ENDANGERS OUR CHILDREN

 

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Superintendent Sandra Lyon should be fired for not adequately protecting the School District’s students and teachers.

For details, go to:

ITS TIME TO FIRE SUPERINTENDENT SANDRA LYON

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/it-is-time-to-fire-the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-districts-superintendent-sandra-lyon/

See pdf copy:

IT’S TIME TO FIRE SMMUSD’S SUPERINTENDENT SANDRA LYON

See link to Change.org Petition:

https://www.change.org/p/the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-s-board-of-education-it-s-time-to-fire-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-s-superintendent-sandra-lyon

Email the Santa Monica Unified School District’s Board of Education:

brd@smmusd.org

Oscar de la Torre
odelatorre@smmusd.org
Dr. Jose Escarce
jescarce@smmusd.org
Craig Foster
cfoster@smmusd.org
Maria Leon-Vazquez
mlvazquez@smmusd.org
Laurie Lieberman
President
llieberman@smmusd.org
Ralph Mechur
Vice President
rmechur@smmusd.org
Dr. Richard
Tahvildaran-Jesswein
rtahvildaranjesswein@smmusd.org

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Classroom Teachers Association Urges SMMUSD Officials to Consider the Wellbeing of its Children and Staff

See Malibu High School Teachers begging the Santa Monica Unified School Board of Education to care about the well being of its teachers and students

See Santa Monica Teacher’s Public Comment:

“Genevieve Szafran
I am a teacher at John Adams middle School. My classroom has been between 86 and 88 degrees every day since school started. I have not been provided with a fan and I’m using two of my own. It is unbearable . I have been suffering from heat exhaustion. My symptoms include nausea, dizziness and an inability to focus. My students are unable to concentrate. This is not a new issue. It is hot for at least 3 months out of every school year since I started working for SMMUSD 15 years ago. This is unacceptable.”

Dr. Henry Kirolos, a UCLA physician who specializes in preventive and primary care said that one of his patients is a John Adams Middle School teacher who reported that her students couldn’t focus in her hot classroom.

Kirolos added that it’s difficult to teach when students are loosening their shirt collars, fanning themselves and wiping sweat off their faces during instruction time.

He cited a scholarly article by Glen I. Earthman regarding the impact of school conditions on academic performance, which points to a study that determined optimal classroom temperatures to be between 68 and 74 degrees Fahrenheit.

“If children are hot and sweaty inside the classroom, they’re not going to be able to concentrate,” Kirolos said. “It’s not conducive to learning.”

The SMMUSD has literally spent over $8 million dollars on attorneys fees and consultants, and they just do not care enough about the health and safety of their students and staff. 

See link:  Purchase-Orders-Approved-at-Board-Meetings2

See link to Santa Monica Daily Press News Article dated September 16, 2015:

Concerns over classroom temps heat up

Other SMMUSD Litigation, and Errors in Judgment:

There are many other troubling issues with the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District.

1. Student v Wendy Wax Gellis & Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District:

This lawsuit alleges that the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis are criminally liable for violations of California Penal Code § 11166 and 11172(a) et seq. for filing a knowingly false child abuse report with child services and the police.

Santa Monica Dispatch Article Concerning Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Retaliatory Acts Against Students and Parents by Filing False Claims of Child Abuse with the Department of Children & Family Services.

See link to News Article here: http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2009/01/smmusd-vs-student/

The lawsuit alleges that an example of retaliatory action by the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis taken against this family includes knowingly and maliciously filing a false child rape and domestic violence allegation with the local law enforcement and with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in retaliation for parent’s exercise of their federally protected right to bring claims against the SMMUSD before the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

The family alleges that on December 18, 2013, SMMUSD employee named Wendy Wax Gellis made a knowingly false referral to the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and to local law enforcement that parent raped her own son. The allegations were determined by all investigating agencies to be unfounded.

For details of this pending Federal lawsuit go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/santa-monica-dispatch-article-concerning-smmusds-retaliatory-acts-against-students-and-parents-by-filing-false-claims-of-child-abuse-with-the-department-of-children-family-services/

2. Student v SMMUSD:

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 13-55665 & District Court No. 2:12-cv-03059-SVWPJW

For details of this SMMUSD litigation, go to:

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Did Not Act “Reasonably” When It Chose To Conduct An IEP Meeting Without the Parents’ Presence

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/student-vs-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-re-the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-did-not-act-reasonably-when-it-chose-to-conduct-an-iep-meeting-without-pa/

*Legal Fees in the amount of $215,000 were approved by the SMMUSD’s Board of Education on June 29, 2015.

See link to the June 29, 2015 Board of Education Minutes: Re: Attorney’s Fee Settlement in the amount of $215,000

http://www.smmusd.org/brd1415/min062915_spmtg.pdf

3. Other Superintendent Sandra Lyon’s Errors in Judgment:

“SANTA MONICA TEACHER WAS RIGHT, SUPERINTENDENT WAS VERY, VERY WRONG”

April 07, 2014|By Robin Abcarian (LA Times Reporter)

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/07/local/la-me-ra-santa-monica-teacher-was-right-20140407

http://patch.com/california/santamonica/fire-sandra-lyons

https://www.change.org/p/sandra-lyon-and-smmusd-school-board-an-apology-from-superintendent-sandra-lyon-to-mark-black-for-throwing-him-and-all-teachers-under-the-bus-as-well-as-for-making-a-biased-inflammatory-response-to-mark-s-heroic-classroom-actions

4. Severe Bullying at Malibu High School and Superintendent Sandra Lyon’s Ratification of the Conduct:

http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2014/02/victim-becomes-villain-in-malibu-controversy/

For details of this pending litigation, go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/severe-bullying-at-malibu-high-school-the-smmusds-ratification-of-the-conduct/

IMAG0391Student vs. Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) et al

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT COMPLAINT

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

LIST THE FULL NAME AND JOB TITLE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS AT SMMUSD (AND/OR MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL) RESPONSIBLE AMENDING/REVERSING CANCELING AND OR OTHERWISE MODIFYING THE DISCIPLINARY SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT SEBASTIAN SARTORIUS ISSUED IN OR AROUND NOVEMBER 2012.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

SANDRA LYON, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

5. PCBS REMOVED FROM SANTA MONICA SCHOOLS BUT LEFT IN MALIBU SCHOOLS

Superintendent Sandra Lyon cares more about protecting landfills than protecting children and teachers.

http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/pcbs-removed-from-santa-monica-schools-but-left-in-malibu.html

6. AMERICA UNITES FOR KIDS & PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY vs.

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division – Los Angeles)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15-cv-02124-PA-AJW

See link to America Unites for Kids & PEER’s Complaint against the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/document-52.pdf

Shame on you and the district for continuing to attempt to bamboozle the parents and spending our hard earned tax dollars on lawyers and PR and outrageous and ineffective testing.

7.  THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS FAILED ITS AFRICAN AMERICAN, HISPANIC, DISABLED & ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS AT MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL, SANTA MONICA HIGH SCHOOL & JOHN MUIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/the-santa-monia-malibu-unified-school-districts-caaspp-results-has-failed-its-african-american-hispanic-economically-disadvantaged-students-at-santa-monica-high-school-john-muir-element/

8. NOVEMBER 2015 UPDATE ON CURRENT HEALTH ISSUES WITH STUDENTS AND TEACHERS AT MALIBU SCHOOLS

  • 6 teachers with thyroid cancer;
  • 3 alumni  (28-year-old)with thyroid cancer;
  • 1 current student with thyroid disease, possible thyroid cancer
  • 25 teachers with thyroid disease (including 14 of 30 Malibu Middle School teachers);
  • 9 alumni in their 20s with thyroid disease;
  • 1 alumni (22-year-old) with environmentally induced melanoma;
  • 2 current teachers with environmentally induced melanoma;
  • 1 teacher hospitalized from an environmentally-induced rash;
  • 1 current student with an environmentally-induced rash lasting several months
  • innumerable cases of headaches; persistent rashes; daily migraines; infertility issues; hair loss; immune issues; respiratory issues; and diabetes.

There is a statistically significant “relationship” between spending your days at Malibu High School and Thyroid Cancer

For details, go to: https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/there-is-a-statistically-significant-relationship-between-spending-your-days-at-mhs-and-thyroid-cancer/

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District appears to be more interested in attempting to limit their exposure to liability from a toxic tort complaint, rather than to just simply comply with the TSCA, and protect its students and teachers from this continuing harm.

9. The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District is also spending an outrageous amount of money on litigation.

See link and list of just some of the SMMUSD’s expenditures to date:

Purchase-Orders-Approved-at-Board-Meetings2

11200986_700561446719884_1823505260638714771_o

July 15, 2015
Aug 12, 2015

Over $6,500,000 has been spent on lawyers and consultants thus far and still rising!

10. The City of Malibu Unanimously Passes a Resolution to Form an Independent Malibu Unified School District

See link to Resolution here: CC150916_Item-1

11. Superintendent Sandra Lyon ordered the use of Fumitoxins and Strychnine on Saturday, Aug 22, 2015 at Malibu High School, Juan Cabrillo and Webster Elementary schools despite hundreds of letters from parents in protest.

Her reckless actions put kids and wildlife at risk.

See link to America Unites For Kids Freedom of Information Act request dated Aug 22, 2015:

Freedom Of Info Act Dec 22-1

See link to Malibu Parent’s letter to Superintendent Sandra Lyon and Published in the Malibu Times on September 4, 2015:

Malibu Parent’s Letter: Protecting Children

http://www.malibutimes.com/opinion/article_fcd1df0e-51c4-11e5-b14c-f35d240585b1.html?mode=story

Malibu Parent Stacie Cox’ Public Comment about Superintendent Sandra Lyon:

An empathetic and confident leader would make all her decisions based on how to best protect children, and not make decisions based on legally what she can get away with. You seem to act on false information, archaic ideals, and without a conscience. Your behavior is unconscionable and you should be ashamed of yourself.”

12. DREW BALAGUER, REINA ROBERTS, and MARK BALAGUER v. SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case No.: 2:14-cv-06823-CBM-MRW

THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS CREATED A TWO-TRACK EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM THAT EXCLUDES MANY STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES FROM MATRICULATING INTO A FOUR YEAR COLLEGE PROGRAM

For details, go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-has-created-a-two-track-educational-system-that-excludes-many-students-with-disabilities-from-completing-courses-offering-a-to-g-grading-thus-precludin/

See Complaint here: document-142

See Plaintiffs’ Motion To Compel Further Responses here: document-143

“Plaintiffs ask this court to issue an order (3) compelling (a) Dr. Woolverton to respond to questions raised about documents produced by the Defendant which she previously refused to (upon the advice of counsel) to answer of the grounds that such questions sought information protected by attorney-client privilege; and (b) Ms. Keleher to respond to similar questions which she also refused to answer upon the advice of counsel.

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Superintendent Sandra Lyon should be fired for not adequately protecting the School District’s students and teachers from this continuing harm.

It’s time to fire Superintendent Sandra Lyon

Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District’s Superintendent Sandra Lyon Ordered the Use of Fumitoxins and Strychnine at Malibu High School, Juan Cabrillo and Webster Elementary Schools Despite Hundreds of Letters From Parents in Protest

Malibu Parent’s Letter: Protecting Children

http://www.malibutimes.com/opinion/article_fcd1df0e-51c4-11e5-b14c-f35d240585b1.html?mode=story

I am the mother of a child in the TK class and a new Webster parent.

It sickens me to think my husband and I moved to Malibu specifically to have our child attend a wonderful public school like Webster and that already after her first 48 hours of attending the school, we had to pull her out because of your poor decisions regarding the unnecessary use of rodenticides on the campus.

No child should be breathing in these chemicals or accidentally exposed, but she of all children cannot take the risk of being exposed to these chemicals due to being asthmatic and highly sensitive to environmental allergens.

We moved to Malibu under the assumption we were putting our tax dollars toward a school that was both high quality in education and a safe place for children. Instead, already a couple of days into the school year, our experience has been spoiled. Malibu is a health conscious community, and you being the superintendent should know that and be respectful of the wishes of our city and our philosophies. 

An empathetic and confident leader would make all her decisions based on how to best protect children, and not make decisions based on legally what she can get away with. You seem to act on false information, archaic ideals, and without a conscience. Your behavior is unconscionable and you should be ashamed of yourself. 

You act more like a CEO of a chemical company than a superintendent. How many lawsuits and violations do you have against you? You are supposed to be serving the public, not using our money to legally defend your indefensible actions. Have you ever thought that maybe all this chaos your face is of your own making? 

We are not looking for minimum protection, we are looking for maximum protection. These are our children — do you understand this?

Once again, you have poisoned precious humans with cancer-causing agents and seem to have not one regret. A child’s development and toxic exposure have no do-overs, and education and raising children are about teaching by example. Both Santa Monica and Malibu deserve a leader who walks her talk and teaches our children through her actions by standing for the principles and values of the communities to which she serves.

Stacie Cox

See America Unites for Kids link to Change.org’s Petition:

Petitioning SMMUSD Board of Education and Superintendent Sandra Lyon

Stop Poisoning our Children and our Environment

https://www.change.org/p/smmusd-board-of-education-and-superintendent-sandra-lyon-stop-poisoning-our-children-and-our-environment?recruiter=92014425&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-md-no_src-custom_msg&fb_ref=Default

See America Unites For Kids Freedom of Information Act request dated Aug 22, 2015:

Freedom Of Info Act Dec 22-1

Other SMMUSD Litigation, and Errors in Judgment:

There are many other troubling issues with the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District.

1. Student v Wendy Wax Gellis & SMMUSD:

This lawsuit alleges that the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis are criminally liable for violations of California Penal Code § 11166 and 11172(a) et seq. for filing a knowingly false child abuse report with child services and the police.

Santa Monica Dispatch Article Concerning Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Retaliatory Acts Against Students and Parents by Filing False Claims of Child Abuse with the Department of Children & Family Services.

See link to News Article here: http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2009/01/smmusd-vs-student/

The lawsuit alleges that an example of retaliatory action by the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis taken against this family includes knowingly and maliciously filing a false child rape and domestic violence allegation with the local law enforcement and with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in retaliation for parent’s exercise of their federally protected right to bring claims against the SMMUSD before the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

The family alleges that on December 18, 2013, SMMUSD employee named Wendy Wax Gellis made a knowingly false referral to the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and to local law enforcement that parent raped her own son. The allegations were determined by all investigating agencies to be unfounded.

For details of this pending Federal lawsuit go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/santa-monica-dispatch-article-concerning-smmusds-retaliatory-acts-against-students-and-parents-by-filing-false-claims-of-child-abuse-with-the-department-of-children-family-services/

2. Student v SMMUSD:

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 13-55665 & District Court No. 2:12-cv-03059-SVWPJW

For details of this SMMUSD litigation, go to:

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Did Not Act “Reasonably” When It Chose To Conduct An IEP Meeting Without the Parents’ Presence

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/student-vs-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-re-the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-did-not-act-reasonably-when-it-chose-to-conduct-an-iep-meeting-without-pa/

*Legal Fees in the amount of $215,000 were approved by the SMMUSD’s Board of Education on June 29, 2015.

See link to the June 29, 2015 Board of Education Minutes: Re: Attorney’s Fee Settlement in the amount of $215,000

http://www.smmusd.org/brd1415/min062915_spmtg.pdf

3. Other Superintendent Sandra Lyon’s Errors in Judgment:

“SANTA MONICA TEACHER WAS RIGHT, SUPERINTENDENT WAS VERY, VERY WRONG”

April 07, 2014|By Robin Abcarian (LA Times Reporter)

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/07/local/la-me-ra-santa-monica-teacher-was-right-20140407

http://patch.com/california/santamonica/fire-sandra-lyons

https://www.change.org/p/sandra-lyon-and-smmusd-school-board-an-apology-from-superintendent-sandra-lyon-to-mark-black-for-throwing-him-and-all-teachers-under-the-bus-as-well-as-for-making-a-biased-inflammatory-response-to-mark-s-heroic-classroom-actions

4. Severe Bullying at Malibu High School and Superintendent Sandra Lyon’s Ratification of the Conduct:

http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2014/02/victim-becomes-villain-in-malibu-controversy/

For details of this pending litigation, go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/severe-bullying-at-malibu-high-school-the-smmusds-ratification-of-the-conduct/

IMAG0391Student vs. Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) et al

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT COMPLAINT

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

LIST THE FULL NAME AND JOB TITLE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS AT SMMUSD (AND/OR MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL) RESPONSIBLE AMENDING/REVERSING CANCELING AND OR OTHERWISE MODIFYING THE DISCIPLINARY SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT SEBASTIAN SARTORIUS ISSUED IN OR AROUND NOVEMBER 2012.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

SANDRA LYON, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

5. PCBS REMOVED FROM SANTA MONICA SCHOOLS BUT LEFT IN MALIBU SCHOOLS

Superintendent Sandra Lyon cares more about protecting landfills than protecting children and teachers.

http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/pcbs-removed-from-santa-monica-schools-but-left-in-malibu.html

6. AMERICA UNITES FOR KIDS & PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY vs.

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division – Los Angeles)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15-cv-02124-PA-AJW

See link to America Unites for Kids & PEER’s Complaint against the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/document-52.pdf

Shame on you and the district for continuing to attempt to bamboozle the parents and spending our hard earned tax dollars on lawyers and PR and outrageous and ineffective testing.

7.  THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS FAILED ITS AFRICAN AMERICAN, HISPANIC, DISABLED & ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS AT MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL, SANTA MONICA HIGH SCHOOL & JOHN MUIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/the-santa-monia-malibu-unified-school-districts-caaspp-results-has-failed-its-african-american-hispanic-economically-disadvantaged-students-at-santa-monica-high-school-john-muir-element/

8. NOVEMBER 2015 UPDATE ON CURRENT HEALTH ISSUES WITH STUDENTS AND TEACHERS AT MALIBU SCHOOLS

  • 6 teachers with thyroid cancer;
  • 3 alumni  (28-year-old)with thyroid cancer;
  • 1 current student with thyroid disease, possible thyroid cancer
  • 25 teachers with thyroid disease (including 14 of 30 Malibu Middle School teachers);
  • 9 alumni in their 20s with thyroid disease;
  • 1 alumni (22-year-old) with environmentally induced melanoma;
  • 2 current teachers with environmentally induced melanoma;
  • 1 teacher hospitalized from an environmentally-induced rash;
  • 1 current student with an environmentally-induced rash lasting several months
  • innumerable cases of headaches; persistent rashes; daily migraines; infertility issues; hair loss; immune issues; respiratory issues; and diabetes.

There is a statistically significant “relationship” between spending your days at Malibu High School and Thyroid Cancer

For details, go to: https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/there-is-a-statistically-significant-relationship-between-spending-your-days-at-mhs-and-thyroid-cancer/

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District appears to be more interested in attempting to limit their exposure to liability from a toxic tort complaint, rather than to just simply comply with the TSCA, and protect its students and teachers from this continuing harm.

9. The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District is also spending an outrageous amount of money on litigation.

See list of just some of the SMMUSD’s expenditures to date:

11200986_700561446719884_1823505260638714771_o

See link to the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District’s Most Recent List of Expenditures relating to the Toxic Substances Control Act Violation Lawsuit (TSCA):

Over $6,500,000 has been spent on lawyers and consultants thus far and still rising!

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Superintendent Sandra Lyon should be fired for not adequately protecting the School District’s students and teachers from this continuing harm.

10. The City of Malibu Unanimously Passes a Resolution to Form an Independent Malibu Unified School District

See link to Resolution here: CC150916_Item-1

11. DISTRICT ERROR CAUSES TEACHER WITH THYROID CANCER TO REMAIN IN TOXIC CLASSROOM

Defendant’s Calamity of Errors Validates Plaintiff’s PCB Lawsuit

For details, go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/09/25/the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-districts-error-causes-teacher-with-thyroid-cancer-to-remain-in-toxic-classroom/

See map:

incorrect-PE-rooms-remediated

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Superintendent Sandra Lyon should be fired for not adequately protecting the School District’s students and teachers from all of this continuing harm.

It’s time to fire Superintendent Sandra Lyon

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s SPECIAL EDUCATION SETTLEMENTS FROM NOVEMBER 2013 TO DECEMBER 2015

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District

Board of Education

SPECIAL EDUCATION SETTLEMENTS

Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2)

1. DN-1001-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1001-13/14 was as follows:
a) Legal Costs: $16,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $16,000. It was moved by Mr. Mechur,
seconded by Mr. Patel, and voted 6/0 (Mr. de la Torre was absent) to approve the
settlement case.

2. DN-1002-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1002-13/14
was as follows:
a) Legal Costs: $14,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $14,000. It was moved by Mr. Mechur,
seconded by Mr. Patel, and voted 6/0 (Mr. de la Torre was absent) to approve the
settlement case.

3. DN-1003-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1003-13/14 was as follows:
a) Legal Costs: $6,500
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $6,500.
It was moved by Mr. Mechur, seconded by Mr. Patel, and voted 6/0 (Mr. de la Torre
was absent) to approve the settlement case.

4. DN-1004-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1004-13/14 was as follows:
a) Parent Reimbursement: $38,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $38,000. It was moved by Dr. Escarce,
seconded by Mr. de la Torre, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

5. DN-1006-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1006-13/14 was as follows:
a) Parent Reimbursement: $19,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $19,000. It was moved by Ms. Lieberman,
seconded by Mr. Allen, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

6. DN-1007-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1007-13/14 was as follows:
a) Parent Reimbursement: $13,600
b) Legal Cost: $15,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $28,600. It was moved by Mr. Mechur,
seconded by Dr. Escarce, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

7. DN-1008-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1008-13/14 was as follows:
a) Parent Reimbursement: $60,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $60,000. It was moved by Mr. Mechur,
seconded by Dr. Escarce, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

8. DN-1009-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1009-13/14 was as follows:
a) Legal Cost: $5,500
b) Parent Reimbursement: $7,500
The amended total cost for this case is not to exceed $13,000. It was moved by Mr.
Mechur, seconded by Dr. Escarce, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

9. DN-1005-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1005-13/14 was as follows:
a) LegalCost: $5,000
b)Parent Reimbursement: $17,789.48
The total cost for this case is not to exceed$ 22,789.48. It was moved by Dr. Escarce,
seconded by Ms. Lieberman, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

10. Student vs. SMMUSD, OAH Case No. 2013051152
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Eileen M. Cohn, determined on December 23, 2013 that the
SMMUSD must reimburse parents for all of their tuition costs for a Non-Public School (NPS)
along with reimbursement for all tutoring expenses.
These amounts exceed $56,970.99 in tuition reimbursement thus far, and does not include
approx. $70,000 in attorneys fees. This tuition will need to be reimbursed for 3-4 more years as well.

11. DN-1002-14/15 (Special Education)

Legal Fees: $70,000

The total cost for this case is not to exceed $70,000. It was moved by Ms. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Patel, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

12. DN-1003-14/15 (Special Education)

Parent Reimbursement: $ 5,000/month (11/1/14 through 7/31/15)

The total cost for this case is not to exceed $45,000. It was moved by Ms. Lieberman, seconded by Dr. Tahvildaran-Jesswein, and voted 5/0 (Dr. Escarcewas absent) to approve the settlement case.

13. DN-1004-14/15 (Special Education)

Educational Evaluation Services: $11,485

Legal Fees: $TBD as per OAH Case No. 2014040578

It was moved by Ms. Lieberman, seconded by Dr. Tahvildaran-Jesswein, and voted 5/0 (Dr. Escarce was absent) to approve the settlement case.

14. DN-1005-14/15 (Special Education)

Parent Reimbursement: $2,200/month during school year (through 2019-2020 or whenever the student graduates from high school, whichever comes first) It was moved by Ms. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Mechur, and voted 6/0 (Mr. de la Torre was absent) to approve the settlement case.

May 21, 2015

15. DN-1006-14/15 (Special Education)

Parent reimbursement (legal fees & other related costs): $9,000

The total cost for this case is not to exceed $9,000

It was moved by Mr. Mechur, seconded by Ms. Lieberman, and voted 6/0 (Ms. Leon-Vazquez was absent) to approve the settlement case.

16. DN-1007-14/15 (Special Education)

Parent Reimbursement (educational placement & services): $55,000

The total cost for this case is not to exceed $55,000. It was moved by Dr. Tahvildaran-Jesswein, seconded by Mr. Foster, and voted 6/0(Ms. Leon-Vazquez was absent) to approve the settlement case.

JUNE 29, 2015

17. STUDENT vs. SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Case No. 13-55665
District Court No. 2:12-cv-03059-SVWPJW

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT VIOLATED A STUDENT’S RIGHTS TO A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION WHEN IT CONDUCTED AN IEP MEETING WITHOUT THE PARENTS’ PRESENCE

*Legal Fees in the amount of $215,000 were approved by the SMMUSD’s Board of Education on June 29, 2015.

See June 29, 2015 Board of Education Minutes: Re: Attorney’s Fee Settlement in the amount of $215,000

http://www.smmusd.org/brd1415/min062915_spmtg.pdf

DN-1009-14/15 (Special Education)
Legal fees & other related costs: $215,000
It was moved by Mr. Mechur, seconded by Ms. Lieberman, and voted 6/0 (Ms.Leon-Vazquez was absent) to approve the settlement case. Ayes: 6 (Lieberman, Escarce, de la Torre, Foster, Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Mechur)

See the Related United States District Court Case under Case No. 2:14-cv-06823-CBM-MRW

DREW BALAGUER, REINA ROBERTS, and MARK BALAGUER v. SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

See Case No. 2:14-cv-06823-CBM-MRW Complaint here: document-142

See Plaintiffs’ Case No. 2:14-cv-06823-CBM-MRW Motion To Compel Further Responses here: document-143

“Plaintiffs ask this court to issue an order (3) compelling (a) Dr. Woolverton to respond to questions raised about documents produced by the Defendant which she previously refused to (upon the advice of counsel) to answer of the grounds that such questions sought information protected by attorney-client privilege; and (b) Ms. Keleher to respond to similar questions which she also refused to answer upon the advice of counsel

See Case No. 2:14-cv-06823-CBM-MRW Notice of Settlement here: document-141

DN-1002-15/16 (Special Education)
(postponed from 11/19/15)
Legal fees: $137,500
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $137,500. It was moved by Ms. Leon-Vazquez, seconded by Mr. Foster, and voted 6/0 (Dr. Escarce was absent) to approve the settlement case.

For details, go to:

THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS CREATED A TWO-TRACK EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM THAT EXCLUDES MANY STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES FROM MATRICULATING INTO A FOUR YEAR COLLEGE PROGRAM

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-has-created-a-two-track-educational-system-that-excludes-many-students-with-disabilities-from-completing-courses-offering-a-to-g-grading-thus-precludin/

September 2, 2015

18. DN-1001-15/16 (Special Education)

Attorney fees: $26,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $26,000. It was moved by Mr. De la Torre, seconded byMs. Leon-Vazquez, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case. Ayes: 7
October 1, 2015
19. DN-1002-15/16 (Special Education) TBD

20. DN-1003-15/16 (Special Education)

Legal fees $5,000
21. DN-1004-15/16 (Special Education)
Parent reimbursement: $25,000
The new total cost for this case is not to exceed
$31,000
 
22. DN-1005-15/16 (Special Education) TBD
Parent reimbursement: $30,000
The new total cost for this case is not to exceed $36,000
October 15, 2015

23. DN-1006-15/16 (Special Education)

Legal fees: $ 34,500

Family reimbursement: $552

December 10, 2015
24. DN-1002-15/16 (Special Education)
(postponed from 11/19/15)
Legal fees: $137,500
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $137,500. It was moved by Ms. Leon-Vazquez, seconded by Mr. Foster, and voted 6/0 (Dr. Escarce was absent) to approve the settlement case.
25. DN-1007-15/16 (Special Education)
Parent reimbursement: $16,920
Legal fees: $4,410
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $21,330.
It was moved by Ms. Leon-Vazquez, seconded by Mr. Foster, and voted 6/0 (Dr. Escarce was absent) to approve the settlement case. Ayes: 6 (Lieberman, de la Torre, Leon- Vazquez, Foster, Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Mechur)
26. DN-1008-15/16 (Special Education)
Parent reimbursement: $18,500
Legal fees: $24,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $42,500.
It was moved by Ms. Leon-Vazquez, seconded by Mr. Foster, and voted 6/0 (Dr.
Escarce was absent) to approve the settlement case.

See pdf attachment: Re: Minutes from November 2013 to May 2015:

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education Meeting MINUTES NOVEMBER 2013 TO MAY 2015

Below is how the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District treats some of its Special Education families.

See link to Santa Monica Dispatch Article Concerning Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Retaliatory Acts Against Students and Parents by filing false claims of child abuse with the Department of Children and Family Services:

http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2009/01/smmusd-vs-student/

SMMUSD vs. Student

By Debra Shepherd

Good evening Council members. I am the parent of a child in general education and a child who requires special education services. I am also a member of the Working Group.

Although the non-disclosure agreements are no longer being used to my knowledge, the environment that brought about the use of those agreements still exists.

When a problem arises, there does not seem to be an ability to resolve the problem without input from the attorneys. Since November of 2008, the District has been more adversarial toward my family by threatening me with due process litigation at tax payers’ expense. The SMMUSD refuses to even acknowledge that my daughter has an autism spectrum disorder despite multiple pages of detailed assessments from UCLA in a school setting that have been a part of my child’s records for the last 4 years.

The District is also attempting to take needed services and accommodations out of my child’s educational program. I had to fight for two years for my daughter to receive occupational therapy services.

My extended family has also traveled thousands of miles to help me with these issues. The SMMUSD would rather spend thousands of tax payer dollars suing me than pay for a needed assessment for my child or provide her with a free and appropriate education as mandated by law.

I thought that we had reached our lowest point in the journey when school staff filed a false report against me with child services in retaliation against me for hiring an attorney. My youngest child is still not recovered from the trauma of that incident. I am also disturbed by the number of families of color that have left the district. When families of color complain about how they are treated by the district, their address is verified. This whole situation has taken a toll on my health and the well-being of my family.

See Link to Other SMMUSD Retaliatory Acts and Pending Litigation:

Student v Wendy Wax Gellis & SMMUSD:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/santa-monica-dispatch-article-concerning-smmusds-retaliatory-acts-against-students-and-parents-by-filing-false-claims-of-child-abuse-with-the-department-of-children-family-services/

The lawsuit alleges that an example of retaliatory action by the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis taken against this family includes knowingly and maliciously filing a false child rape and domestic violence allegation with the local law enforcement and with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in retaliation for parent’s exercise of their federally protected right to bring claims against the SMMUSD before the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

The family alleges that on December 18, 2013, SMMUSD employee named Wendy Wax Gellis made a knowingly false referral to the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and to local law enforcement that parent raped her own son. The allegations were determined by all investigating agencies to be unfounded.

See link to Malibu Times Article Entitled

“School Woes”

http://www.malibutimes.com/opinion/article_37232886-0af6-11e5-9805-c79129c3012e.html

See SMMUSD District Parent’s comment:

beachshopgirl posted at 12:07 pm on Mon, Jun 8, 2015.

The SMMUSD has an inordinate amount of due process cases (16 this school term). That would be the norm for a district five times this size. If they go that hard against the parents of children with disabilities that should tell everyone else something. The District will never stop fighting this lawsuit from all indications, regardless of the insane conclusion that is bound to occur. It’s pathetic that they are willing to burn down the village in an effort to avoid repairing it. It’s time for a new Board of Education, a new Superintendent and a new Director of Special Education Services. We need people in leadership that understand that tax dollars are not monopoly money and that this is not a private parts measuring contest.

The SMMUSD’s Adversarial Posturing is Costing the SMMUSD Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars and Causing Unnecessary Harm to These Special Education Families

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Did Not Act “Reasonably” When It Chose To Conduct An IEP Meeting Without the Parents’ Presence

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

STUDENT vs. SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Case No. 13-55665
District Court No. 2:12-cv-03059-SVWPJW

THE DISTRICT COURT HELD THAT THE SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT VIOLATED A STUDENT’S RIGHTS TO A FREE APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EDUCATION WHEN IT CONDUCTED AN IEP MEETING WITHOUT THE PARENTS’ PRESENCE

A. Excluding A Student’s Parents From An IEP Meeting Is A Per Se Denial Of A Free Appropriate Public Education

B. The District Did Not Act “Reasonably” When It Chose To Conduct The IEP Meeting Without Student’s Parents

The 9th Circuit COURT Affirmed the District Court’s Ruling:

The district court properly concluded that the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s failure to include student’s parents at an IEP meeting was a procedural violation of the IDEA. The IDEA’s implementing regulations require that parents participate in meetings concerning the formulation of an Individualized Education Program (IEP) and the educational placement of their child. See 34 C.F.R. § 300.501(b).

An agency can make a decision without the parents only if it is unable to obtain their participation, which was not the case here. See id. § 300.501(c)(4); Shapiro ex rel. Shapiro v. Paradise Valley Unified Sch. Dist. No. 69, 317 F.3d 1072, 1078 (9th Cir. 2003) superseded on other grounds by 20 U.S.C. § 1414(d)(1)(B).

The District has not shown that it was required to meet before the end of the 2009-10 school year to formulate an IEP for the 2010-11 school year. Therefore, it was not faced with “the situation of complying with one procedural requirement of the IDEA or another.” Doug C. v. Hawaii Dep’t of Educ., 720 F.3d 1038, 1046 (9th Cir. 2013).

The district court properly concluded the procedural violation denied student a free appropriate public education in the 2010-11 school year. See Doug C., 720 F.3d at 1044-47; Amanda J. ex rel. Annette J. v. Clark Cnty. Sch. Dist., 267 F.3d 877, 892 (9th Cir. 2001).

“Procedural violations that interfere with parental participation in the IEP formulation process undermine the very essence of the IDEA.” Amanda J., 267 F.3d at 892.

Proceeding without the child’s parents cannot be justified by the scheduling unavailability of District employees; the attendance of parents at IEP Team meetings “must take priority over other members’ attendance.” Doug C., 720 F.3d at 1045; see also Shapiro, 317 F.3d at 1078 (holding a school district may not “simply prioritize[] its representatives’ schedules over that of [the] parents”.

Furthermore, even if student’s parents already had decided to enroll their child at Westview School, their exclusion was not permissible. See Anchorage Sch. Dist. v. M.P., 689 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2012)

The IDEA, its implementing regulations, and our case law all emphasize the importance of parental involvement and advocacy, even when the parents’ preferences do not align with those of the educational agency.

AFFIRMED

*Legal Fees in the amount of $215,000 were approved by the SMMUSD Board of Education on June 29, 2015.

Before: FISHER, BEA and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.
Appellant’s joint motion to continue deadline for motion requesting attorney’s fees, filed June 25, 2015, is granted. The request for attorney’s fees shall be filed on or before July 29, 2015. See Appellant’s Joint Motion: Document-88

See June 29, 2015 Court Order: document-87

See June 29, 2015 Board of Education Minutes: Re: Attorney’s Fee Settlement in the amount of $215,000:

http://www.smmusd.org/brd1415/min062915_spmtg.pdf

DN-1009-14/15 (Special Education)
Legal fees & other related costs: $215,000
It was moved by Mr. Mechur, seconded by Ms. Lieberman, and voted 6/0 (Ms.Leon-Vazquez was absent) to approve the settlement case. Ayes: 6 (Lieberman, Escarce, de la Torre, Foster, Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Mechur)
See the January 20, 2012 OAH decision under OAH No. 2011070262. document-147
See United States District Court Judge Stephen Wilson’s November 28, 2012 Ruling reversing the January 20, 2012 OAH decision under OAH No. 2011070262. document-145

See Parent’s United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Brief: Document-47-2

See United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Order Affirming the District Court’s Ruling: Document-69

See the Related United States District Court Case under Case No. 2:14-cv-06823-CBM-MRW

DREW BALAGUER, REINA ROBERTS, and MARK BALAGUER v. SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT,

See Case No. 2:14-cv-06823-CBM-MRW Complaint here: document-142

See Plaintiffs’ Case No. 2:14-cv-06823-CBM-MRW Motion To Compel Further Responses here: document-143

“Plaintiffs ask this court to issue an order (3) compelling (a) Dr. Woolverton to respond to questions raised about documents produced by the Defendant which she previously refused to (upon the advice of counsel) to answer of the grounds that such questions sought information protected by attorney-client privilege; and (b) Ms. Keleher to respond to similar questions which she also refused to answer upon the advice of counsel

See Case No. 2:14-cv-06823-CBM-MRW Notice of Settlement here: document-141

DN-1002-15/16 (Special Education)
(postponed from 11/19/15)
Legal fees: $137,500
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $137,500. It was moved by Ms. Leon-Vazquez, seconded by Mr. Foster, and voted 6/0 (Dr. Escarce was absent) to approve the settlement case.

For details, go to:

THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS CREATED A TWO-TRACK EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM THAT EXCLUDES MANY STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES FROM MATRICULATING INTO A FOUR YEAR COLLEGE PROGRAM

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-has-created-a-two-track-educational-system-that-excludes-many-students-with-disabilities-from-completing-courses-offering-a-to-g-grading-thus-precludin/

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District

Board of Education

SPECIAL EDUCATION SETTLEMENTS

November 2013 to December 2015

Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2)

1. DN-1001-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1001-13/14 was as follows:
a) Legal Costs: $16,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $16,000. It was moved by Mr. Mechur,
seconded by Mr. Patel, and voted 6/0 (Mr. de la Torre was absent) to approve the
settlement case.

2. DN-1002-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1002-13/14
was as follows:
a) Legal Costs: $14,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $14,000. It was moved by Mr. Mechur,
seconded by Mr. Patel, and voted 6/0 (Mr. de la Torre was absent) to approve the
settlement case.

3. DN-1003-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1003-13/14 was as follows:
a) Legal Costs: $6,500
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $6,500.
It was moved by Mr. Mechur, seconded by Mr. Patel, and voted 6/0 (Mr. de la Torre
was absent) to approve the settlement case.

4. DN-1004-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1004-13/14 was as follows:
a) Parent Reimbursement: $38,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $38,000. It was moved by Dr. Escarce,
seconded by Mr. de la Torre, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

5. DN-1006-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1006-13/14 was as follows:
a) Parent Reimbursement: $19,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $19,000. It was moved by Ms. Lieberman,
seconded by Mr. Allen, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

6. DN-1007-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1007-13/14 was as follows:
a) Parent Reimbursement: $13,600
b) Legal Cost: $15,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $28,600. It was moved by Mr. Mechur,
seconded by Dr. Escarce, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

7. DN-1008-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1008-13/14 was as follows:
a) Parent Reimbursement: $60,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $60,000. It was moved by Mr. Mechur,
seconded by Dr. Escarce, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

8. DN-1009-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1009-13/14 was as follows:
a) Legal Cost: $5,500
b) Parent Reimbursement: $7,500
The amended total cost for this case is not to exceed $13,000. It was moved by Mr.
Mechur, seconded by Dr. Escarce, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

9. DN-1005-13/14 (Special Education)
The substance of settlement agreement in case No. DN-1005-13/14 was as follows:
a) Legal Cost: $5,000
b)Parent Reimbursement: $17,789.48
The total cost for this case is not to exceed$ 22,789.48. It was moved by Dr. Escarce,
seconded by Ms. Lieberman, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

10. Student vs. SMMUSD, OAH Case No. 2013051152
Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Eileen M. Cohn, determined on December 23, 2013 that the
SMMUSD must reimburse parents for all of their tuition costs for a Non-Public School (NPS)
along with reimbursement for all tutoring expenses.
These amounts exceed $56,970.99 in tuition reimbursement thus far, and does not include
approx. $70,000 in attorneys fees. This tuition will need to be reimbursed for 3-4 more years as well.

11. DN-1002-14/15 (Special Education)

Legal Fees: $70,000

The total cost for this case is not to exceed $70,000. It was moved by Ms. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Patel, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case.

12. DN-1003-14/15 (Special Education)

Parent Reimbursement: $ 5,000/month (11/1/14 through 7/31/15)

The total cost for this case is not to exceed $45,000. It was moved by Ms. Lieberman, seconded by Dr. Tahvildaran-Jesswein, and voted 5/0 (Dr. Escarcewas absent) to approve the settlement case.

13. DN-1004-14/15 (Special Education)

Educational Evaluation Services: $11,485

Legal Fees: $TBD as per OAH Case No. 2014040578

It was moved by Ms. Lieberman, seconded by Dr. Tahvildaran-Jesswein, and voted 5/0 (Dr. Escarce was absent) to approve the settlement case.

14. DN-1005-14/15 (Special Education)

Parent Reimbursement: $2,200/month during school year (through 2019-2020 or whenever the student graduates from high school, whichever comes first) It was moved by Ms. Lieberman, seconded by Mr. Mechur, and voted 6/0 (Mr. de la Torre was absent) to approve the settlement case.

15. DN-1006-14/15 (Special Education)

Parent reimbursement (legal fees & other related costs): $9,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $9,000
It was moved by Mr. Mechur, seconded by Ms. Lieberman, and voted 6/0 (Ms. Leon-Vazquez was absent) to approve the settlement case.

16. DN-1007-14/15 (Special Education)

Parent Reimbursement (educational placement & services): $55,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $55,000. It was moved by Dr. Tahvildaran-Jesswein, seconded by Mr. Foster, and voted 6/0(Ms. Leon-Vazquez was absent) to approve the settlement case.

17. See June 29, 2015 Board of Education Minutes: Re: Attorney’s Fee Settlement in the amount of $215,000:

http://www.smmusd.org/brd1415/min062915_spmtg.pdf

DN-1009-14/15 (Special Education)
Legal fees & other related costs: $215,000
It was moved by Mr. Mechur, seconded by Ms. Lieberman, and voted 6/0 (Ms.Leon-Vazquez was absent) to approve the settlement case. Ayes: 6 (Lieberman, Escarce, de la Torre, Foster, Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Mechur)
September 2, 2015

18. DN-1001-15/16 (Special Education)

Attorney fees: $26,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $26,000. It was moved by Mr. De la Torre, seconded byMs. Leon-Vazquez, and voted 7/0 to approve the settlement case. Ayes: 7
October 1, 2015
19. DN-1002-15/16 (Special Education) TBD

20. DN-1003-15/16 (Special Education)
Legal fees $5,000
21. DN-1004-15/16 (Special Education)
Parent reimbursement: $6,000
22. DN-1005-15/16 (Special Education)
Parent reimbursement: $6,000
October 15, 2015

23. DN-1006-15/16 (Special Education) TBD

December 10, 2015
24. DN-1002-15/16 (Special Education)
(postponed from 11/19/15)
Legal fees: $137,500
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $137,500. It was moved by Ms. Leon-Vazquez, seconded by Mr. Foster, and voted 6/0 (Dr. Escarce was absent) to approve the settlement case.
25. DN-1007-15/16 (Special Education)
Parent reimbursement: $16,920
Legal fees: $4,410
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $21,330.
It was moved by Ms. Leon-Vazquez, seconded by Mr. Foster, and voted 6/0 (Dr. Escarce was absent) to approve the settlement case. Ayes: 6 (Lieberman, de la Torre, Leon- Vazquez, Foster, Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Mechur)
26. DN-1008-15/16 (Special Education)
Parent reimbursement: $18,500
Legal fees: $24,000
The total cost for this case is not to exceed $42,500.
It was moved by Ms. Leon-Vazquez, seconded by Mr. Foster, and voted 6/0 (Dr.
Escarce was absent) to approve the settlement case.

Below is how the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District treats some of its Special Education families.

See link to Santa Monica Dispatch Article Concerning Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Disrict’s Retaliatory Acts Against Students and Parents by filing false claims of child abuse with the Department of Children and Family Services:

http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2009/01/smmusd-vs-student/

SMMUSD vs. Student

By Debra Shepherd

Good evening Council members. I am the parent of a child in general education and a child who requires special education services. I am also a member of the Working Group.

Although the non-disclosure agreements are no longer being used to my knowledge, the environment that brought about the use of those agreements still exists.

When a problem arises, there does not seem to be an ability to resolve the problem without input from the attorneys. Since November of 2008, the District has been more adversarial toward my family by threatening me with due process litigation at tax payers’ expense. The SMMUSD refuses to even acknowledge that my daughter has an autism spectrum disorder despite multiple pages of detailed assessments from UCLA in a school setting that have been a part of my child’s records for the last 4 years.

The District is also attempting to take needed services and accommodations out of my child’s educational program. I had to fight for two years for my daughter to receive occupational therapy services.

My extended family has also traveled thousands of miles to help me with these issues. The SMMUSD would rather spend thousands of tax payer dollars suing me than pay for a needed assessment for my child or provide her with a free and appropriate education as mandated by law.

I thought that we had reached our lowest point in the journey when school staff filed a false report against me with child services in retaliation against me for hiring an attorney. My youngest child is still not recovered from the trauma of that incident. I am also disturbed by the number of families of color that have left the district. When families of color complain about how they are treated by the district, their address is verified. This whole situation has taken a toll on my health and the well-being of my family.

See links to other litigation relating to other SMMUSD Retaliatory Acts:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/santa-monica-dispatch-article-concerning-smmusds-retaliatory-acts-against-students-and-parents-by-filing-false-claims-of-child-abuse-with-the-department-of-children-family-services/

See link to Malibu Times Article Entitled “School Woes”

http://www.malibutimes.com/opinion/article_37232886-0af6-11e5-9805-c79129c3012e.html

See SMMUSD District Parent’s comment:

beachshopgirl posted at 12:07 pm on Mon, Jun 8, 2015.

The SMMUSD has an inordinate amount of due process cases (16 this school term). That would be the norm for a district five times this size. If they go that hard against the parents of children with disabilities that should tell everyone else something. The District will never stop fighting this lawsuit from all indications, regardless of the insane conclusion that is bound to occur. It’s pathetic that they are willing to burn down the village in an effort to avoid repairing it. It’s time for a new Board of Education, a new Superintendent and a new Director of Special Education Services. We need people in leadership that understand that tax dollars are not monopoly money and that this is not a private parts measuring contest.

The SMMUSD’s Adversarial Posturing is Costing the SMMUSD Hundreds of Thousands of Dollars and Causing Unnecessary Harm to These Special Education Families.

Santa Monica Dispatch Article Concerning Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Retaliatory Acts Against Students and Parents by Filing False Claims of Child Abuse with the Department of Children & Family Services

Santa Monica Dispatch Article Concerning Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School Disrict’s Retaliatory Acts Against Students and Parents by filing false claims of child abuse with the Department of Children and Family Services.

See pdf copy of News Article here: SANTA MONICA DISPATCH ARTICLE CONCERNING SMMUSD RETALIATORY ACTS AGAINST STUDENTS AND PARENTS-1-1

2009

  1. SMMUSD vs. Student

By Debra Shepherd

Good evening Council members. I am the parent of a child in general education and a child who requires special education services. I am also a member of the Working Group.

Although the non-disclosure agreements are no longer being used to my knowledge, the environment that brought about the use of those agreements still exists.

When a problem arises, there does not seem to be an ability to resolve the problem without input from the attorneys. Since November of 2008, the District has been more adversarial toward my family by threatening me with due process litigation at tax payers’ expense. The SMMUSD refuses to even acknowledge that my daughter has an autism spectrum disorder despite multiple pages of detailed assessments from UCLA in a school setting that have been a part of my child’s records for the last 4 years.

The District is also attempting to take needed services and accommodations out of my child’s educational program. I had to fight for two years for my daughter to receive occupational therapy services.

My extended family has also traveled thousands of miles to help me with these issues. The SMMUSD would rather spend thousands of tax payer dollars suing me than pay for a needed assessment for my child or provide her with a free and appropriate education as mandated by law.

I thought that we had reached our lowest point in the journey when school staff filed a false report against me with child services in retaliation against me for hiring an attorney. My youngest child is still not recovered from the trauma of that incident. I am also disturbed by the number of families of color that have left the district. When families of color complain about how they are treated by the district, their address is verified. This whole situation has taken a toll on my health and the well-being of my family.

2014

United States District Court for the Central District of California lawsuit:

      2. Student v Wendy Wax Gellis & Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District:

Fast forward to 2014, and this time the SMMUSD is once again being accused in Federal Court of the exact same form of retaliatory conduct against another family specifically because of their advocacy on behalf of their child. The family alleges that the SMMUSD’s common plan was/is to intentionally harass and retaliate against the Plaintiffs for their currently pending tort complaint and for their multiple OCR complaints.

The family alleges that an example of retaliatory action by the SMMUSD taken against this family includes knowingly and maliciously filing a false child rape and domestic violence allegation with the local law enforcement and with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in retaliation for parent’s exercise of their federally protected right to bring claims against the SMMUSD before the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

The family alleges that on December 18, 2013, SMMUSD employee named Wendy Wax Gellis made a knowingly false referral to the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and to local law enforcement that parent raped her own son. The allegations were determined by all investigating agencies to be unfounded.

The content of Gellis’ report to DCFS was defamatory, reckless, false, and not made in good faith and was for intentional retaliatory purposes as a result of Parents federally protected advocacy on behalf of their child.

The family alleges that Wendy Wax Gellis knowingly lied about the alleged victims absence from school on December 18, 2013, when in fact he was present and available to be spoken to. Gellis used as pretext the fabricated story of a student with a history of habitual lying and psychological issues. This same student had even fabricated her own attempted suicide at school and was suspended for doing so, all of which Gellis was aware of.

The California Suspected Child Abuse Report Form specifically asks the mandated reporter to summarize what they OBSERVED or what the victim said to mandated Reporter. (“What victim(s) said/what the mandated reporter observed/what person accompanying the victim(s) said/similar or past incidents involving the victim(s) or suspect”) Wendy Wax Gellis intentionally chose not to observe or hear anything from the alleged victim solely so she could cause all of the Plaintiffs’ emotional harm.

This filing was a blatant abuse of process as Wendy Wax Gellis and the SMMUSD never observed anything and heard nothing from the alleged victim prior to making this retaliatory report to child services and the police.

The family alleges that the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis knew exactly what they were doing when they intentionally chose not to speak to the alleged victim and caused all of the family great duress by forcing them to be subjected to the intrusive investigations of both the Police and DCFS.

The family alleges that the SMMUSD and its employees are criminally liable for violations of California Penal Code § 11166 and 11172(a) et seq. for filing a knowingly false child abuse report with child services and the police. A mandated reporter’s immunity is limited to child abuse claims that are based upon a reasonable suspicion and does not provide immunity for those who show a reckless disregard for the truth of the matters asserted.

The family continues to fear that the SMMUSD and staff will continue to take further retaliatory actions against them.

3. STUDENT vs. MARK KELLY & THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Disability Discrimination

Plaintiffs allege that Mark Kelly’s conduct in baiting student was so outrageous in character and so extreme in degree, as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency,” Mintz, 905 P.2d at 563. Mark Kelly’s knowledge that the plaintiff is peculiarly susceptible to emotional distress by reason of some physical or mental condition rises to both extreme and outrageous conduct.”  (“eggshell plaintiff” principle)

Some students may have vulnerabilities which necessitate a greater degree of caution on the part of school districts and their employees. In M.W. v. Panama Buena Vista Union School Dist., supra,

Abuse of Power

The extreme and outrageous conduct may take place in the course of a relationship in which the defendant holds authority or other power over the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s interests. If the authority — such as police officers, school authorities, landlords, and collecting creditor — abuse their positions in some extreme manner, they may be liable to the plaintiff for IIED.

4. PROFESSOR MICHAEL CHWE vs. SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Directed to Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Ordering Compliance with the California Public Records Act

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/verified-petition-for-writ-of-mandate-di-72936/

See pdf attachment of Professor Michael Chwe’s Public Records Act lawsuit against the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District:

dwt20110223

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Was Ordered to Release their Investigation Report Concerning the Sexual Harrasment of its Students by their Teachers

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-d-42102/

See pdf attachment to the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District’s landmark ruling in Professor Chwe’s lawsuit against the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District:

B231787-1

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, ruled  that “Marken occupies a position of trust and responsibility as a classroom teacher, and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether and how the District enforces its sexual harassment policy. . . . the public’s interest in disclosure of this information—the public’s right to know—outweighs Marken’s privacy interest in shielding the information from disclosure.”

In Baez v. Superior Court, 2008 WL 5394067 (Cal. Ct. App.) the defense representing the Burbank Unified School District asserted attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine as grounds for refusing to turn over the file from a investigation report.
The Second District Court of Appeal ordered production of the Sandhu investigative file, holding that disclosure was essential for fair adjudication of the action. (Baez v. Superior Court, 2008 WL 5394067 (Cal. Ct. App.).) Case Number B208294  Description: Petition granted by opinion

See pdf attachment:

SMMUSD IRRESPONSIBILITY ENDANGERS OUR CHILDREN

See link to many other troubling issues with the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District:

http://chwe.net/safety/failures.html

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District demonstrates a consistent pattern of evading responsibility for child safety. The SMMUSD has refused to answer questions about teachers who have sexually abused and sexually harassed children, failed to inform parents when their children have been victims of potentially criminal harassment, destroyed evidence concerning harassment of children, asked parents to destroy emails and not talk to each other about teacher sexual harassment of children, removed evidence of child abuse from its own records, impugned the testimony of its own employees who report child abuse, ordered teacher’s aides to not talk to parents, tried to intimidate students and parents, tried to mislead parents about their legal rights, publicly misrepresented its own legal obligations, and violated California state law.

1. In November 2011, the parents of four children accused Jennifer Becker, Juan Cabrillo Elementary special education teacher, of abusing their children. Four teacher’s aides witnessed these actions and the case is being investigated by the Los Angeles County Special Victims Bureau. SMMUSD administrators responded to only one of the many reported incidents and ignored the others. Sara Woolverton, SMMUSD special education director, told parents that the four teacher’s aides are not credible because they are committing a “mutiny.” http://chwe.net/safety/becker/

2. In May 2011, two Santa Monica HS students on the wrestling team locked an African American teammate to a locker, shouting “Slave for sale” and displaying a noose. They are currently being investigated on hate crime charges. Santa Monica HS administrators failed to inform the victim’s mother of the incident, tried to intimidate the victim by telling him that the wrestling program might be canceled, and destroyed cell phone pictures taken by other students of the noose. http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2011/06/smmusd-said-to-deny-civil-rights-of-students/

3. Ari Marken, Santa Monica HS teacher, sexually harassed a thirteen-­‐year-­‐old girl in December 2008. The SMMUSD has refused to release any information about Mr. Marken’s violation, in violation of California state law, and illegally delayed its response in order to allow Mr. Marken to try to stop or further delay the release of this information. http://chwe.net/safety/marken/

4. Thomas Beltran, former Lincoln MS teacher, was convicted in December 2008 of sexually molesting eleven Lincoln students over a period of more than ten years. However, a student complained about Mr. Beltran two years earlier, in March 2006. Even though this March 2006 complaint was serious enough to deserve a police investigation, the SMMUSD removed all records of this complaint and claimed complete ignorance after Mr. Beltran was arrested. The SMMUSD has refused to answer any questions about its handling of the March 2006 complaint. http://chwe.net/safety/beltran/

5. Carl Hammer, former Santa Monica HS band director, was convicted of a felony involving a fourteen-­‐year-­‐old girl in June 2005. After he was fired from his position in the SMMUSD, he continued to be paid by the Santa Monica HS band program to write musical arrangements for the band, using money from parent donations, with the full knowledge of SMMUSD administrators. No SMMUSD staff member has ever taken responsibility for re-­‐hiring Dr. Hammer after his conviction. http://chwe.net/safety/hammer/

6. Mike Hearn, former Santa Monica HS assistant coach, was convicted in October 2005 on nine sex-­‐related felony charges involving two 15-­‐year-­‐old Santa Monica HS students and another 17-­‐year-­‐old girl. http://chwe.net/safety/hearn/smdp100605a.pdf

On May 21, 2008, ten parents wrote a letter to SMMUSD Supt. Dianne Talarico asking 14 questions about the SMMUSD’s handling of the case of Lincoln MS teacher Thomas Beltran, who was later convicted of sexually molesting eleven Lincoln students over a period of more than ten years. On May 30, 2008, Supt. Talarico responded saying that “The active investigation status of this case prohibits the district from responding to many of your questions at this time.” We never received a further response. On September 2, 2010, long after the criminal case against Mr. Beltran was resolved, I wrote to Superintendent Tim Cuneo asking for the district to now answer our questions. Supt. Cuneo never responded. http://chwe.net/safety/beltran/chwe20080521.pdf

On December 7, 2010, over 150 SMMUSD parents wrote a letter to Supt. Tim Cuneo and Santa Monica HS principal Dr. Hugo Pedroza asking for information about Mr. Ari Marken, a Santa Monica HS teacher who was found by the SMMUSD to have sexually harassed a thirteen-year-old ninth grade girl in one of his geometry classes. Supt. Cuneo and Dr. Pedroza did not respond. (http://chwe.net/safety/marken/). The parents of the girl have never been given any information about the results of the SMMUSD investigation apart from this letter saying that Mr. Marken violated SMMUSD policy 5145.7. However on January 24, 2012, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, ruled  that “Marken occupies a position of trust and responsibility as a classroom teacher, and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether and how the District enforces its sexual harassment policy. . . . the public’s interest in disclosure of this information—the public’s right to know—outweighs Marken’s privacy interest in shielding the information from disclosure.” See http://chwe.net/safety/marken/marken.pdf

The SMMUSD has destroyed evidence concerning harassment of children

Several Santa Monica HS students took cell phone pictures of the noose in the wrestling team practice room. These pictures were essential evidence, as the display of a noose to terrorize another person is a specific crime under California Penal Code section 11411. However, without reporting the matter to the police, Santa Monica HS administrators confiscated students’ phones and destroyed the pictures. http://chwe.net/safety/wrestling/smdp20110617.pdf

The SMMUSD has asked parents to destroy emails and not talk to each other about teacher sexual harassment of children

On August 31, 2010, SMMUSD Supt. Tim Cuneo sent a memo to parents asking them to destroy an email which Mr. Patrick DeCarolis, attorney for the 13-year-old girl sexually harassed by Mr. Marken, sent to parents on August 30, 2010, asking for help and information. This email was communication entirely between private citizens. Supt. Cuneo felt that he had the authority to write: “Please destroy all copies of the email and do not forward it or discuss the content of the email with others.” http://chwe.net/safety/marken/cuneo20100831.pdf

The SMMUSD removed evidence of child abuse from its own records

In March 2006, an eighth-grade Lincoln MS student made a written complaint about Thomas Beltran, two years before he was arrested for sexually molesting students. However, on May 8, 2008, after Mr. Beltran’s arrest, Asst. Supt. Mike Matthews said that “this is all new to us” and said that there were no complaints about Mr. Beltran in his personnel file. One might expect that a handwritten student letter about a possibly abusive teacher would be among the most sensitive and crucial of all records kept by a school district. On February 28, 2011, SMMUSD attorneys wrote that the district did not have a copy of the student’s letter. http://chwe.net/safety/beltran/aalrr20110228.pdf

The SMMUSD has impugned the testimony of its own employees who report child abuse

On October 22, 2011, teacher’s aides in the special education classroom at Cabrillo ES informed parents that the special education teacher Jennifer Becker was abusing their children. On October 28, 2011, the parents of four students met with SMMUSD director for special education Sara Woolverton. At this meeting, Dr. Woolverton stated that the four teacher’s aides were not credible and not trustworthy, and were committing a “mutiny” because Ms. Becker was making them work. http://chwe.net/safety/becker/

The SMMUSD has ordered teacher’s aides to not talk to parents

Melissa Winder, teacher’s aide in the Cabrillo ES special education class, states that Bekah Dannelly, SMMUSD special education coordinator, visited the special education classroom to order the teacher’s aides to not talk, text, or call the parents of the special education students.

The SMMUSD has tried to intimidate students and parents

After the hate crime incident involving two members of the wrestling team, Santa Monica HS H House principal Leslie Wells told the victim that “The incident could get the whole wrestling program canceled.” The victim did not tell his mother about the incident, reportedly because he did not want “to make a big deal out of it.”

On September 8, 2010, I wrote Supt. Cuneo asking specifically whether parents are legally obligated to destroy Mr. DeCarolis’s email. In his reply on September 9, 2010, Supt. Cuneo wrote: “The further dissemination of inaccurate information, which may include slanderous accusations, comes with it legal risk or liability. As such, the District response to the recipients about the information did not mince words in describing the seriousness of further dissemination.” Supt. Cuneo did not make any specific claim that anyone said anything slanderous. His response was nothing more than an attempt to intimidate.

The agreement between the SMMUSD and the Santa Monica Malibu Classroom Teachers Association states that if a student or parent wants to file a complaint against a teacher, the teacher can request a meeting. However, “if the complainant refuses to attend the meeting, the complaint shall neither be placed in the unit member’s personnel file nor utilized in any evaluation, assignment, or disciplinary or dismissal action against the unit member.” This policy is a license for intimidation. Very few children, or even adults, would be courageous enough to make a complaint against a teacher knowing that they would have to then meet the teacher face to face.

The SMMUSD has tried to mislead parents about their legal rights

After Supt. Tim Cuneo asked parents to destroy and not talk about an email sent to them by Mr. Patrick DeCarolis concerning Mr. Ari Marken’s sexual harassment of a 13-year-old girl. One must conclude that the SMMUSD is willing to intentionally mislead parents. Of course no parent is legally obligated to destroy any emails, regardless of implications for the district. The SMMUSD has no business telling parents what they can and cannot talk about. See Chwe email to SMMUSD Superintendent dated September 8, 2010. http://chwe.net/safety/marken/chwe20100908.pdf

The SMMUSD has publicly misrepresented its own legal obligations

After over 150 parents wrote a letter on December 7, 2010 to Supt. Tim Cuneo and Santa Monica HS principal Dr. Hugo Pedroza asking for information about the SMMUSD’s finding that Mr. Ari Marken had sexually harassed a 13-year-old girl, Supt. Cuneo stated in a newspaper interview that the SMMUSD could not legally disclose details about the case. However, in its court filings, the SMMUSD admits that they are legally required to release this information. http://chwe.net/safety/marken/aalrr20111029.pdf

The SMMUSD has violated California state law

Under California Penal Code 11165.7, school personnel are legally required to report suspected child abuse to police. In the case of the alleged abuses in the special education classroom at Cabrillo ES, no one reported Ms. Becker’s actions to the police until the parents, informed by the teacher’s aides, reported it themselves.

The SMMUSD delayed in order to allow Mr. Marken to try to obtain a court order to stop the release of the records, ignoring the California Supreme Court ruling in Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) that “the exclusive procedure for litigating the issue of a public agency’s obligation to disclose records to a member of the public” is a lawsuit initiated by the person requesting the records. http://ag.ca.gov/publications/summary_public_records_act.pdf

By not releasing the records concerning Mr. Marken’s violation, the SMMUSD is in violation of long-standing case law, including AFSCME Employees v. Regents of University of California (1978), which establishes that records concerning the actions of public employees who have been disciplined must be disclosed to the public. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1592245.html

The agreement between the SMMUSD and the Santa Monica Malibu Classroom Teachers Association states that if a student or parent wants to file a complaint against a teacher, no record of the complaint will be kept unless the student or parent agrees to a meeting with the teacher. This violates the California Code of Regulations Title 5, Section 4621, which states that “local policies shall ensure that complainants are protected from retaliation and that the identity of a complainant alleging discrimination remain confidential as appropriate.”

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/smmusd-irresponsibility-endangers-our-children.pdf

These are not the actions of an altruistic educational Agency, but rather these are the actions of a few bad apples at the SMMUSD, all of whom truly believe that they can just keep abusing process and get away with it.

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT’S (SMMUSD) IRRESPONSIBILITY ENDANGERS OUR CHILDREN

PROFESSOR MICHAEL CHWE vs. SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate Directed to Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Ordering Compliance with the California Public Records Act

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/verified-petition-for-writ-of-mandate-di-72936/

See pdf attachment of Professor Michael Chwe’s Public Records Act lawsuit against the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District:

dwt20110223

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Was Ordered to Release their Investigation Report Concerning the Sexual Harrasment of its Students by their Teachers

http://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-d-42102/

See pdf attachment to the Court of Appeals of the State of California, Second Appellate District’s landmark ruling in Professor Chwe’s lawsuit against the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District:

B231787-1

The Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, ruled  that “Marken occupies a position of trust and responsibility as a classroom teacher, and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether and how the District enforces its sexual harassment policy. . . . the public’s interest in disclosure of this information—the public’s right to know—outweighs Marken’s privacy interest in shielding the information from disclosure.”

See link:

http://chwe.net/safety/failures.html

See pdf attachment:

SMMUSD IRRESPONSIBILITY ENDANGERS OUR CHILDREN

The attached Declarations from two Malibu High School teachers includes evidence from 33 other Malibu High School teachers that the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) is not complying with their Best Management Practices (BMPs) and is in violation of the EPA Region 9’s guidelines.

Malibu Schools have illegal level of PCBs

See pdf copies of the Declarations from two Malibu High School Teachers:

DECLARATION OF MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER NUMBER ONE

DECLARATION OF MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER NUMBER TWO

See Video of Malibu High School Teacher’s Plea to the SMMUSD’s Board of Education for PCB-free Classrooms:

See YouTube Video here:

https://youtu.be/UYn6RZA0l9k

See Declaration from Malibu High School Teacher Carla Bowman Smith declaring that Malibu High School’s condition is horrific, and is infested with rats, feces and urine:

DECLARATION OF MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER CARLA BOWMAN SMITH

Declaration of renowned PCB Expert Dr. David Carpenter confirming that PCBs at Malibu High School greatly exceed legal limits under the TSCA, and inhalation of PCB vapors constitutes a continuous hazard to teachers and students:

See pdf copy of Dr. David Carpenter’s Declaration:

DECLARATION OF RENOWNED PCB EXPERT DR. DAVID CARPENTER

The Honorable Judge Percy Anderson ruled that Malibu High School & Juan Cabrillo Elementary have illegal levels of PCBs.

The court found the SMMUSD to be in violation of Federal Law:

The Toxic Substance Control Act

The court ordered the district to remove all PCBs by 2019.

This ruling confirms how unconscionable the School District has been to spend $13 million to avoid complying with federal law

See Court Order here:

AMERICA UNITES FOR KIDS vs. SMMUSD RE COURT GRANTS INJUNCTIVE RELIEF TO PLAINTIFF 2 15 cv 02124 PA-AJW

POINTS: FROM JUDGE PERCY ANDERSON:

“The Court concludes, based on common sense, that it is highly likely that the same products were used to construct each of the buildings on the Malibu Campus. As a result, for the buildings completed at the Malibu Campus prior to 1979, and at which certain locations have been tested and found to contain caulk with PCBs in excess of 50 ppm, it is more likely than not that caulk containing PCBs in excess of 50 ppm remain in “use” at the Malibu Campus in areas that have not been tested or repaired.”

JUDGE PERCY ANDERSON ORDERED THAT:

“Defendants are hereby permanently enjoined from using any office, classroom, or other structure at Juan Cabrillo Elementary School (‘JCES’) and Malibu Middle and High School (‘MHS’) (collectively the ‘Malibu Campus’) constructed prior to 1979 in which students, teachers, administrators, or staff are regularly present after December 31, 2019, unless all window and door systems and surrounding caulk at any such location has been replaced.”

CURRENT HEALTH ISSUES WITH STUDENTS AND TEACHERS AT MALIBU SCHOOLS

6 teachers with thyroid cancer;
4 alumni (28-year-old) with thyroid cancer;
1 current student with thyroid disease, possible thyroid cancer
25 teachers with thyroid disease (including 14 of 30 Malibu Middle School teachers);
10 alumni in their 20s with thyroid disease;
1 alumni (22-year-old) with environmentally induced melanoma;
2 current teachers with environmentally induced melanoma;
1 teacher hospitalized from an environmentally-induced rash;
1 current student with an environmentally-induced rash lasting several months
innumerable cases of headaches; persistent rashes; daily migraines; infertility issues; hair loss; immune issues; respiratory issues; and diabetes.

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District demonstrates a consistent pattern of evading responsibility for child safety. The SMMUSD has refused to answer questions about teachers who have sexually abused and sexually harassed children, failed to inform parents when their children have been victims of potentially criminal harassment, destroyed evidence concerning harassment of children, asked parents to destroy emails and not talk to each other about teacher sexual harassment of children, removed evidence of child abuse from its own records, impugned the testimony of its own employees who report child abuse, ordered teacher’s aides to not talk to parents, tried to intimidate students and parents, tried to mislead parents about their legal rights, publicly misrepresented its own legal obligations, and violated California state law.

1. In November 2011, the parents of four children accused Jennifer Becker, Juan Cabrillo Elementary special education teacher, of abusing their children. Four teacher’s aides witnessed these actions and the case is being investigated by the Los Angeles County Special Victims Bureau. SMMUSD administrators responded to only one of the many reported incidents and ignored the others. Sara Woolverton, SMMUSD special education director, told parents that the four teacher’s aides are not credible because they are committing a “mutiny.” http://chwe.net/safety/becker/

2. In May 2011, two Santa Monica HS students on the wrestling team locked an African American teammate to a locker, shouting “Slave for sale” and displaying a noose. They are currently being investigated on hate crime charges. Santa Monica HS administrators failed to inform the victim’s mother of the incident, tried to intimidate the victim by telling him that the wrestling program might be canceled, and destroyed cell phone pictures taken by other students of the noose. http://www.santamonicadispatch.com/2011/06/smmusd-said-to-deny-civil-rights-of-students/

3. Ari Marken, Santa Monica HS teacher, sexually harassed a thirteen-­‐year-­‐old girl in December 2008. The SMMUSD has refused to release any information about Mr. Marken’s violation, in violation of California state law, and illegally delayed its response in order to allow Mr. Marken to try to stop or further delay the release of this information. http://chwe.net/safety/marken/

4. Thomas Beltran, former Lincoln MS teacher, was convicted in December 2008 of sexually molesting eleven Lincoln students over a period of more than ten years. However, a student complained about Mr. Beltran two years earlier, in March 2006. Even though this March 2006 complaint was serious enough to deserve a police investigation, the SMMUSD removed all records of this complaint and claimed complete ignorance after Mr. Beltran was arrested. The SMMUSD has refused to answer any questions about its handling of the March 2006 complaint. http://chwe.net/safety/beltran/

5. Carl Hammer, former Santa Monica HS band director, was convicted of a felony involving a fourteen-­‐year-­‐old girl in June 2005. After he was fired from his position in the SMMUSD, he continued to be paid by the Santa Monica HS band program to write musical arrangements for the band, using money from parent donations, with the full knowledge of SMMUSD administrators. No SMMUSD staff member has ever taken responsibility for re-­‐hiring Dr. Hammer after his conviction. http://chwe.net/safety/hammer/

6. Mike Hearn, former Santa Monica HS assistant coach, was convicted in October 2005 on nine sex-­‐related felony charges involving two 15-­‐year-­‐old Santa Monica HS students and another 17-­‐year-­‐old girl. http://chwe.net/safety/hearn/smdp100605a.pdf

On May 21, 2008, ten parents wrote a letter to SMMUSD Supt. Dianne Talarico asking 14 questions about the SMMUSD’s handling of the case of Lincoln MS teacher Thomas Beltran, who was later convicted of sexually molesting eleven Lincoln students over a period of more than ten years. On May 30, 2008, Supt. Talarico responded saying that “The active investigation status of this case prohibits the district from responding to many of your questions at this time.” We never received a further response. On September 2, 2010, long after the criminal case against Mr. Beltran was resolved, I wrote to Superintendent Tim Cuneo asking for the district to now answer our questions. Supt. Cuneo never responded. http://chwe.net/safety/beltran/chwe20080521.pdf

On December 7, 2010, over 150 SMMUSD parents wrote a letter to Supt. Tim Cuneo and Santa Monica HS principal Dr. Hugo Pedroza asking for information about Mr. Ari Marken, a Santa Monica HS teacher who was found by the SMMUSD to have sexually harassed a thirteen-year-old ninth grade girl in one of his geometry classes. Supt. Cuneo and Dr. Pedroza did not respond. (http://chwe.net/safety/marken/). The parents of the girl have never been given any information about the results of the SMMUSD investigation apart from this letter saying that Mr. Marken violated SMMUSD policy 5145.7. However on January 24, 2012, the Court of Appeal of the State of California, Second Appellate District, ruled  that “Marken occupies a position of trust and responsibility as a classroom teacher, and the public has a legitimate interest in knowing whether and how the District enforces its sexual harassment policy. . . . the public’s interest in disclosure of this information—the public’s right to know—outweighs Marken’s privacy interest in shielding the information from disclosure.” See http://chwe.net/safety/marken/marken.pdf

The SMMUSD has destroyed evidence concerning harassment of children

Several Santa Monica HS students took cell phone pictures of the noose in the wrestling team practice room. These pictures were essential evidence, as the display of a noose to terrorize another person is a specific crime under California Penal Code section 11411. However, without reporting the matter to the police, Santa Monica HS administrators confiscated students’ phones and destroyed the pictures. http://chwe.net/safety/wrestling/smdp20110617.pdf

The SMMUSD has asked parents to destroy emails and not talk to each other about teacher sexual harassment of children

On August 31, 2010, SMMUSD Supt. Tim Cuneo sent a memo to parents asking them to destroy an email which Mr. Patrick DeCarolis, attorney for the 13-year-old girl sexually harassed by Mr. Marken, sent to parents on August 30, 2010, asking for help and information. This email was communication entirely between private citizens. Supt. Cuneo felt that he had the authority to write: “Please destroy all copies of the email and do not forward it or discuss the content of the email with others.” http://chwe.net/safety/marken/cuneo20100831.pdf

The SMMUSD removed evidence of child abuse from its own records

In March 2006, an eighth-grade Lincoln MS student made a written complaint about Thomas Beltran, two years before he was arrested for sexually molesting students. However, on May 8, 2008, after Mr. Beltran’s arrest, Asst. Supt. Mike Matthews said that “this is all new to us” and said that there were no complaints about Mr. Beltran in his personnel file. One might expect that a handwritten student letter about a possibly abusive teacher would be among the most sensitive and crucial of all records kept by a school district. On February 28, 2011, SMMUSD attorneys wrote that the district did not have a copy of the student’s letter. http://chwe.net/safety/beltran/aalrr20110228.pdf

The SMMUSD has impugned the testimony of its own employees who report child abuse

On October 22, 2011, teacher’s aides in the special education classroom at Cabrillo ES informed parents that the special education teacher Jennifer Becker was abusing their children. On October 28, 2011, the parents of four students met with SMMUSD director for special education Sara Woolverton. At this meeting, Dr. Woolverton stated that the four teacher’s aides were not credible and not trustworthy, and were committing a “mutiny” because Ms. Becker was making them work. http://chwe.net/safety/becker/

The SMMUSD has ordered teacher’s aides to not talk to parents

Melissa Winder, teacher’s aide in the Cabrillo ES special education class, states that Bekah Dannelly, SMMUSD special education coordinator, visited the special education classroom to order the teacher’s aides to not talk, text, or call the parents of the special education students.

The SMMUSD has tried to intimidate students and parents

After the hate crime incident involving two members of the wrestling team, Santa Monica HS H House principal Leslie Wells told the victim that “The incident could get the whole wrestling program canceled.” The victim did not tell his mother about the incident, reportedly because he did not want “to make a big deal out of it.”

On September 8, 2010, I wrote Supt. Cuneo asking specifically whether parents are legally obligated to destroy Mr. DeCarolis’s email. In his reply on September 9, 2010, Supt. Cuneo wrote: “The further dissemination of inaccurate information, which may include slanderous accusations, comes with it legal risk or liability. As such, the District response to the recipients about the information did not mince words in describing the seriousness of further dissemination.” Supt. Cuneo did not make any specific claim that anyone said anything slanderous. His response was nothing more than an attempt to intimidate.

The agreement between the SMMUSD and the Santa Monica Malibu Classroom Teachers Association states that if a student or parent wants to file a complaint against a teacher, the teacher can request a meeting. However, “if the complainant refuses to attend the meeting, the complaint shall neither be placed in the unit member’s personnel file nor utilized in any evaluation, assignment, or disciplinary or dismissal action against the unit member.” This policy is a license for intimidation. Very few children, or even adults, would be courageous enough to make a complaint against a teacher knowing that they would have to then meet the teacher face to face.

The SMMUSD has tried to mislead parents about their legal rights

After Supt. Tim Cuneo asked parents to destroy and not talk about an email sent to them by Mr. Patrick DeCarolis concerning Mr. Ari Marken’s sexual harassment of a 13-year-old girl. One must conclude that the SMMUSD is willing to intentionally mislead parents. Of course no parent is legally obligated to destroy any emails, regardless of implications for the district. The SMMUSD has no business telling parents what they can and cannot talk about. See Chwe email to SMMUSD Superintendent dated September 8, 2010. http://chwe.net/safety/marken/chwe20100908.pdf

The SMMUSD has publicly misrepresented its own legal obligations

After over 150 parents wrote a letter on December 7, 2010 to Supt. Tim Cuneo and Santa Monica HS principal Dr. Hugo Pedroza asking for information about the SMMUSD’s finding that Mr. Ari Marken had sexually harassed a 13-year-old girl, Supt. Cuneo stated in a newspaper interview that the SMMUSD could not legally disclose details about the case. However, in its court filings, the SMMUSD admits that they are legally required to release this information. http://chwe.net/safety/marken/aalrr20111029.pdf

The SMMUSD has violated California state law

Under California Penal Code 11165.7, school personnel are legally required to report suspected child abuse to police. In the case of the alleged abuses in the special education classroom at Cabrillo ES, no one reported Ms. Becker’s actions to the police until the parents, informed by the teacher’s aides, reported it themselves.

The SMMUSD delayed in order to allow Mr. Marken to try to obtain a court order to stop the release of the records, ignoring the California Supreme Court ruling in Filarsky v. Superior Court (2002) that “the exclusive procedure for litigating the issue of a public agency’s obligation to disclose records to a member of the public” is a lawsuit initiated by the person requesting the records. http://ag.ca.gov/publications/summary_public_records_act.pdf

By not releasing the records concerning Mr. Marken’s violation, the SMMUSD is in violation of long-standing case law, including AFSCME Employees v. Regents of University of California (1978), which establishes that records concerning the actions of public employees who have been disciplined must be disclosed to the public. http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1592245.html

The agreement between the SMMUSD and the Santa Monica Malibu Classroom Teachers Association states that if a student or parent wants to file a complaint against a teacher, no record of the complaint will be kept unless the student or parent agrees to a meeting with the teacher. This violates the California Code of Regulations Title 5, Section 4621, which states that “local policies shall ensure that complainants are protected from retaliation and that the identity of a complainant alleging discrimination remain confidential as appropriate.”

http://chwe.net/safety/failures.html

Other SMMUSD Litigation, and Errors in Judgment:

There are many other troubling issues with the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District.

1. Student v Wendy Wax Gellis & SMMUSD:

This lawsuit alleges that the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis are criminally liable for violations of California Penal Code § 11166 and 11172(a) et seq. for filing a knowingly false child abuse report with child services and the police.

Santa Monica Dispatch Article Concerning Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Retaliatory Acts Against Students and Parents by Filing False Claims of Child Abuse with the Department of Children & Family Services.

See link to News Article here: SANTA MONICA DISPATCH ARTICLE CONCERNING SMMUSD RETALIATORY ACTS AGAINST STUDENTS AND PARENTS-1-1

The lawsuit alleges that an example of retaliatory action by the SMMUSD and Wendy Wax Gellis taken against this family includes knowingly and maliciously filing a false child rape and domestic violence allegation with the local law enforcement and with the Los Angeles County Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS) in retaliation for parent’s exercise of their federally protected right to bring claims against the SMMUSD before the United States Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR).

The family alleges that on December 18, 2013, SMMUSD employee named Wendy Wax Gellis made a knowingly false referral to the Los Angeles Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), and to local law enforcement that parent raped her own son. The allegations were determined by all investigating agencies to be unfounded.

For details of this pending Federal lawsuit go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2014/08/25/santa-monica-dispatch-article-concerning-smmusds-retaliatory-acts-against-students-and-parents-by-filing-false-claims-of-child-abuse-with-the-department-of-children-family-services/

2. Student v SMMUSD:

9th Circuit Court of Appeals Case No. 13-55665 & District Court No. 2:12-cv-03059-SVWPJW

For details of this SMMUSD litigation, go to:

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Did Not Act “Reasonably” When It Chose To Conduct An IEP Meeting Without the Parents’ Presence

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/06/04/student-vs-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-re-the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-did-not-act-reasonably-when-it-chose-to-conduct-an-iep-meeting-without-pa/

*Legal Fees in the amount of $215,000 were approved by the SMMUSD’s Board of Education on June 29, 2015.

See link to the June 29, 2015 Board of Education Minutes: Re: Attorney’s Fee Settlement in the amount of $215,000

http://www.smmusd.org/brd1415/min062915_spmtg.pdf

3. Other Superintendent Sandra Lyon’s Errors in Judgment:

“SANTA MONICA TEACHER WAS RIGHT, SUPERINTENDENT WAS VERY, VERY WRONG”

April 07, 2014|By Robin Abcarian (LA Times Reporter)

http://articles.latimes.com/2014/apr/07/local/la-me-ra-santa-monica-teacher-was-right-20140407

http://patch.com/california/santamonica/fire-sandra-lyons

https://www.change.org/p/sandra-lyon-and-smmusd-school-board-an-apology-from-superintendent-sandra-lyon-to-mark-black-for-throwing-him-and-all-teachers-under-the-bus-as-well-as-for-making-a-biased-inflammatory-response-to-mark-s-heroic-classroom-actions

4. Severe Bullying at Malibu High School and Superintendent Sandra Lyon’s Ratification of the Conduct:

SEVERE BULLYING AT MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL AND SMMUSD SUPERINTENDENT SANDRA LYON’S RATIFICATION OF THE CONDUCT-1

For details of this pending litigation, go to:

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2014/08/24/severe-bullying-at-malibu-high-school-the-smmusds-ratification-of-the-conduct/

IMAG0391

Student

vs.

Sebastian Dane Sartorius; Jordan Clarke;

Marcia Clarke; Douglas Clarke (aka Merlin Clarke);

Brooke Sartorius & Tina Sartorius

 

LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT COMPLAINT

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

LIST THE FULL NAME AND JOB TITLE OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS AT SMMUSD (AND/OR MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL) RESPONSIBLE AMENDING/REVERSING CANCELING AND OR OTHERWISE MODIFYING THE DISCIPLINARY SUSPENSION OF DEFENDANT SEBASTIAN SARTORIUS ISSUED IN OR AROUND NOVEMBER 2012.

RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 13:

SANDRA LYON, SUPERINTENDENT OF THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT.

5. PCBS REMOVED FROM SANTA MONICA SCHOOLS BUT LEFT IN MALIBU SCHOOLS

Superintendent Sandra Lyon cares more about protecting landfills than protecting children and teachers.

http://www.peer.org/news/news-releases/pcbs-removed-from-santa-monica-schools-but-left-in-malibu.html

AMERICA UNITES FOR KIDS & PUBLIC EMPLOYEES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL RESPONSIBILITY vs.

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA (Western Division – Los Angeles)

CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:15-cv-02124-PA-AJW

See link to America Unites for Kids & PEER’s Complaint against the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/document-52.pdf

6. Superintendent Sandra Lyon ordered the use of Fumitoxins and Strychnine on Saturday, Aug 22, 2015 at Malibu High School, Juan Cabrillo and Webster Elementary schools despite hundreds of letters from parents in protest.

Her reckless actions put kids and wildlife at risk. The Fumitoxin Tablet warning label says that re-occupancy cannot occur for a minimum of 72 hours, but based on the weather in Malibu, more likely 5 days. Sandra Lyon told parents that in 48 hours kids could return to the fields.

See America Unites For Kids Freedom of Information Act request dated Aug 22, 2015:

Freedom Of Info Act Dec 22-1

Malibu Parent’s Letter: Protecting Children

http://www.malibutimes.com/opinion/article_fcd1df0e-51c4-11e5-b14c-f35d240585b1.html?mode=story

Malibu Parent Stacie Cox’ Public Comment about Superintendent Sandra Lyon:

An empathetic and confident leader would make all her decisions based on how to best protect children, and not make decisions based on legally what she can get away with. You seem to act on false information, archaic ideals, and without a conscience. Your behavior is unconscionable and you should be ashamed of yourself.”

See America Unites for Kids link to Change.org’s Petition:

Petitioning SMMUSD Board of Education and Superintendent Sandra Lyon

Stop Poisoning our Children and our Environment

https://www.change.org/p/smmusd-board-of-education-and-superintendent-sandra-lyon-stop-poisoning-our-children-and-our-environment?recruiter=92014425&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_facebook_responsive&utm_term=des-md-no_src-custom_msg&fb_ref=Default

7. America Unites Accuses the SMMUSD of Secret Cleaning

Shame on you and the district for continuing to attempt to bamboozle the parents and spending our hard earned tax dollars on lawyers and PR and outrageous and ineffective testing.

8.  THE SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS FAILED ITS AFRICAN AMERICAN, HISPANIC, DISABLED & ECONOMICALLY DISADVANTAGED STUDENTS AT MALIBU HIGH SCHOOL, SANTA MONICA HIGH SCHOOL & JOHN MUIR ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/09/13/the-santa-monia-malibu-unified-school-districts-caaspp-results-has-failed-its-african-american-hispanic-economically-disadvantaged-students-at-santa-monica-high-school-john-muir-element/

9. DECEMBER 2015 UPDATE ON CURRENT HEALTH ISSUES WITH STUDENTS AND TEACHERS AT MALIBU SCHOOLS

• 6 teachers with thyroid cancer;

• 4 alumni (28-year-old)with thyroid cancer;

• 1 current student with thyroid disease, possible thyroid cancer

• 25 teachers with thyroid disease (including 14 of 30 Malibu Middle School teachers);

• 10 alumni in their 20s with thyroid disease;

• 1 alumni (22-year-old) with environmentally induced melanoma;

• 2 current teachers with environmentally induced melanoma;

• 1 teacher hospitalized from an environmentally-induced rash;

• 1 current student with an environmentally-induced rash lasting several months

• innumerable cases of headaches; persistent rashes; daily migraines; infertility issues; hair loss; immune issues; respiratory issues; and diabetes.

There is a statistically significant “relationship” between spending your days at Malibu High School and Thyroid Cancer.

For details, go to: https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/06/24/there-is-a-statistically-significant-relationship-between-spending-your-days-at-mhs-and-thyroid-cancer/

“There is no safe level of PCBs. All they do is cause harm. They increase the risk of a great number of diseases, and the one that’s of most significance in a school is that they’re known to reduce cognitive function — learning and memory. And that’s the last thing you want in a school.” David O. Carpenter, M.D., director of the Institute for Health and the Environment at the University at Albany.

10. The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Classroom Teachers Association Urges SMMUSD Officials to Consider the Wellbeing of its Children and Staff

https://lawofficesofbarryfagan.wordpress.com/2015/09/21/the-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-districts-classroom-teachers-association-urges-smmusd-officials-to-consider-the-wellbeing-of-its-children-and-staff/

Santa Monica Teacher’s Public Comment:

“Genevieve Szafran

I am a teacher at John Adams middle School. My classroom has been between 86 and 88 degrees every day since school started. I have not been provided with a fan and I’m using two of my own. It is unbearable . I have been suffering from heat exhaustion. My symptoms include nausea, dizziness and an inability to focus. My students are unable to concentrate. This is not a new issue. It is hot for at least 3 months out of every school year since I started working for SMMUSD 15 years ago. This is unacceptable.” 16 September 2015 20:20  See link: http://smdp.com/concerns-classroom-temps-heat/150774

11. See link to the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District’s Most Recent List of Expenditures relating to the Toxic Substances Control Act Violation Lawsuit (TSCA):

Over $6,500,000 spent so far and still rising!

http://malibuunites.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Purchase-Orders-Approved-at-Board-Meetings2.pdf

Purchase-Orders-Approved-at-Board-Meetings2

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District appears to be more interested in attempting to limit their exposure to liability from a toxic tort complaint, rather than to just simply comply with the TSCA, and protect its students and teachers from this continuing harm.

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Superintendent Sandra Lyon should be fired for not adequately protecting the School District’s students and teachers from this continuing harm.

For details, go to: