Yvonne Katz, formerly supt. of Beaverton OR and Spring Branch TX school districts, embarrassing retiring Westview High principal Len Case.

Dan Wieden talks about the night he wrote "Just do It" to a fascinated Wesview High School Media Studies class in 2001.

TSPC director Vickie Chamberlain conspires with OEA attorney Tom Doyle

TSPC director Vickie Chamberlain conspires with OEA attorney Tom Doyle
Chamberlain's three-and-a-half year manipulation of teacher discipline case conceals misconduct of Linda Borquist and Hollis Lekas of the Beaverton School District while interfering with the outcome of a federal lawsuit in support of an attorney formerly employed by the Beaverton School District, Nancy Hungerford.

Oregon ALJ Andrea Sloan collaborates with TSPC director Vickie Chamberlain & OEA atty Tom Doyle

Oregon ALJ Andrea Sloan collaborates with TSPC director Vickie Chamberlain & OEA atty Tom Doyle
"First of its kind in Oregon" decision helps unethical lawyers manipulate federal law suit after Beaverton administrators violated teacher employment contract

Signing a confession to conceal misconduct and influence a federal law suit

Signing a confession to conceal misconduct and influence a federal law suit
Tom Doyle of the OEA collaborates with OAH lawyers and Vickie Chamberlain of the TSPC

TSPC director Vickie Chamberlain makes finding based on secret "first of its kind" hearing

TSPC director Vickie Chamberlain makes finding based on secret "first of its kind" hearing
Chamberlain's delay protects Nancy Hungerford, former attorney for the Beaverton Schools, who colluded with attorneys for the OEA and the state of Oregon to violate a teacher contract and deny due process in a federal civil suit.

Confederation of Oregon School Administrators

Leadership Academy for Beginning Principals
July 18, 19 and 20, 2007
Linfield College

The Faculty:

Linda Borquist, Academy Coordinator

Victor Musial, Field Operations Director, OSEA

Colin Cameron, Director of Professional Development,COSA

Jill O'Neil, Principal, Beaverton Middle School - OMLA President

Vickie Chamberlain, Executive Director, TSPC

Kris Olsen, Principal, McMinnville High School - OASSA President

Matt Coleman, Principal, Westview High School

Shannon Priem, Communication Services Director, OSBA

Vickie Fleming, Superintendent, Redmond SD 2J

Perla Rodriguez, Principal, Cornelius Elementary School - OMLA President

Shawna Harris, Field Representative, OSEA

Nanci Schneider, NWREL

Craig Hawkins, Communications Director, COSA

Valerie Sebesta, Oregon Education Association

Sally Leet, Principal, Oak Grove Elementary School - OESPA Past President

Brian Traylor, Principal, Corvallis Elementary School - OESPA President

Holly Lekas, Regional Administrator, Beaverton SD 48 Joe Wehrili, OSBA

Michael Carter, Superintendent, Rainier SD 13

Philip McCullum, Director Administrative Licensure, University of Oregon

Authentic evaluation legally dated

Authentic evaluation legally dated
signed by retiring principal Len Case

Post-dated Westview High School evaluation 2002-03

Post-dated Westview High School evaluation 2002-03
Entered fraudulently at Fair Dismissal Appeals Board hearing: Malcolm Dennis (forced resignation; secrecy agreement) and Chris Bick, signing principals

Beaverton School District's racial issues? Solved with a half million dollars (of public education money) for "secrecy agreements"

The Oregonian (Portland, Oregon)
January 10, 2005 Monday


Summary: In the $120,000 deal, the district admits a custodian was called a racial slur but denies other allegations

The Beaverton School District has agreed to pay $120,000 to settle a discrimination lawsuit by an African American former custodian, after admitting in a court filing that a co-worker called the man a racial epithet.

District administrators agreed in December to pay nearly $80,000, including $10,000 in gross back wages, to James Sanders and $40,000 in fees to his lawyer, Thomas Steenson. As part of the settlement, the district denied Sanders' allegations against three other co-workers.

The settlement, drawn from the district's $1.55 million insurance reserve fund, did not require school board approval, said Linda Borquist, an assistant superintendent.

Board member Ann Jacks said Tuesday evening that district lawyers had briefed the board on the case but had never discussed possible settlement amounts.

"It's not an insignificant sum or an insignificant issue," Jacks said. "I'd like, in the future, to be a little more active in this."

Board approval is necessary only if the settlement amount exhausts the reserve fund, which is set aside during the budget process and requires a transfer from the general fund, said Janice Essenberg, district administrator for budget services.

Because the district's insurance policy covers liability claims greater than $500,000, board approval would be required only in rare cases involving hundreds of thousands of dollars. Large settlements can be entered into without board approval, unlike contracts, which require a board vote if they are worth more than $50,000.

In neighboring Portland, the school board must approve all settlements greater than $25,000.

Sanders, who was fired in October 2003, sued the district in June, saying his boss, Ron Strasser, Aloha High School's head custodian, had used racially derogatory terms and threatened him. Sanders cited other instances of harassment, but did not name the co-workers involved or describe the offenses in his lawsuit.

Sanders met twice with Anthony Rosilez, then the district administrator overseeing custodians, and submitted two written complaints describing the harassment between November 2002 and August 2003, according to court filings by Sanders and the school district.

In a June 29 court filing, the district denied all of Sanders' accusations except one. The district admitted that a co-worker called Sanders a "spear chucker" in August 2003. In the same filing, the district denied workers used other racially insensitive terms.

Borquist declined to identify the co-worker accused of using the term. She said the employee, who was disciplined for the incident, no longer works for the district.

The district initially responded to Sanders' complaints by giving him the cell and home phone numbers of Rosilez so he could report any further harassment immediately, Borquist said.

The district also offered Sanders a place on its "Diversity Committee," an employee group that supports and embraces a diverse work force, she said.

"We take any report of harassment or discrimination very seriously," Borquist said.

At Sanders' request, the district held a training session in January 2003 for custodial staff to review anti-discrimination policies and reporting procedures.

Sanders' suit names as defendants Mark Moser, the district's administrator for classified personnel, Art Heckel, a former Aloha High School vice principal, and Strasser, Sanders' direct supervisor.

The district investigated Sanders' allegations against the three men and found no wrongdoing, Borquist said.

Heckel, now a vice principal at Westview High School, and Moser still work for the district.

Strasser retired in September. District officials said his retirement was unrelated to the lawsuit.

Anitha Reddy: 503-294-5954; anithareddy@news.oregonian.com

2009 Letter from Camellia Osterink, Beaverton School District's replacement for Nancy "Pass-the-Trash" Hungerford

May 1, 2009

Camellia Osterink
Beaverton Public Schools
Beaverton, OR

Ms. Osterink

I am in receipt of your letter dated Aril 9th. It is threatening and inappropriate; I believe it is the second document of questionable legality you have sent to me.

I am forwarding a copy of it, with this response, to Cindy Shultz, the person who manages communications for Robert E. Jones, a federal judge. I am also sending Ms. Shultz a copy of the settlement document you created and had delivered to me by a Beaverton teacher, Hanna Vaandering, currently employed by the OEA. I do not believe Ms. Shultz was informed that you were practicing law in federal court in the summer of 2007 (I have a dated email from Tom Doyle, OEA lawyer. saying he had read and approved this new contract--a year after the other was signed).

I am also forwarding your letter and my response to Robert Hermann, the Washington County District Attorney. You have accused me of violating a “trespass status” that is without merit--you have no evidence that I have behaved inappropriately on public property. You are creating a false public impression and further damaging my reputation in an attempt to shelter public officials who have behaved unethically.

Mr. Hermann’s daughter Nicole was working in my classroom for several hours (on video highlights for her college application) on the day before I drove to the HR office where Ms. Lekas locked me out of my place of work and gave me written directions to have nothing to do with anyone or anything related to Westview High School.

The next day, Lekas called my wife to inquire about my missing semester grades, then fired me for that, too.

You represent people who have used public resources in a way that continues to damage my reputation and my career. Your predecessors, the Hungerford Family lawyers, are bullies who practice legal and moral relativism in pursuit of personal gain. In 2005, Nancy Hungerford appeared before every public school administrator in Oregon and lied about my work with Craig Crandall and his family. Even after your bosses had replaced her, Nancy Hungerford continued to discredit me publicly; her daughter Jennifer lied to a federal judge (Robert E. Jones) in 2007 to conceal BSD adminstrators' misconduct. With the support of the OEA attorney (Tom Doyle) who had been assigned to me, Hungerford withheld a settlement check for over a year while Doyle manipulated me, colluding with Vickie Chamberlain of the TSPC in an effort to force me to sign "stipulations" to undocumented, unsubstantiated allegations. When I refused, I was subjected to years of harassment and my license was taken as a result of a secret hearing with a judge whom I still have never met.

Any findings by the FDAB panel or the TSPC director are tainted by these illegal processes ("first of its kind in Oregon," according to Doyle). The TSPC director, Chamberlain, is a political crony of unethical Beaverton officials. The intent of these people has been to smear my reputation to conceal their misconduct and your letter represents an unfortunate continuity in that process.

I do not wish to belabor the points, but a) my mother was dying, b) I had been cheated out of .4 FTE and c) I had asked to resign. Linda Borquist was able to conceal three years of my work with her son while she destroyed my reputation in the community and my ability to earn a living. I am going to continue to work to clear my record. I am sure Beaverton taxpayers will have less need of legal services for their schools when the district’s leaders are able to be candid and honest about their conduct.

What I said to Jerome Colonna and Dr. Tom Greene was, “She may have even deserved the part.” It was a legitimate concern.

Please do not send any more messages to members of my family. You represent an organization that has shown very little respect for the dignity of classroom teachers—perhaps now is a good time to begin.

Don Bellairs, teacher

To: Scott Fletcher, Lewis and Clark Grad School (on why penguins shouldn't teach sparrows to fly) Mar 29, 2010

A brief discourse on the inappropriate placement of Gail Vangorder, former Westview High School assistant principal for "technology"

Dear Mr. Fletcher,
Today I am posting this letter to you on a blog called “Teaching in the Shadow of the Swoosh.” Like you and most of the teachers to whom I have copied this message, I grew up when people talked to each other instead of using technology as a medium to communicate. I am eager to meet with you at your earliest convenience about a philosophical difference I have with your department.

I respect your position and the depth of your experience and do not presume to tell you how to do your job. Regarding the matter about which I write, however, I feel you may have been deceived and I am obligated to help you see some light.

One of your instructors, Gail Vangorder, was my supervisor in the state’s largest high school, Westview, for five years. While Ms. Vangorder was under the supervision of Len Case, Westview’s founding principal, she was restrained from doing me much professional damage, but she still made it very difficult for me and many Westview teachers (particularly the deaf and black teachers—I am not making this up). Ms. Vangorder showed a lot of favoritism for the well-to-do…it’s how she got—and kept--her job in Beaverton.

Long story short: Within months of Mr. Case’s retirement in 2003, Ms. Vangorder was again allowing the technology “director” she supervised (a recent Westview grad with no college experience) to tamper with equipment I was using in class without informing me first. The effect of this behavior, aside from being unprofessional and disrespectful, was to make it difficult for me to hold students accountable for assignments and to assign grades. Ms. Vangorder, having never actually taught children, was oblivious to this fact—she was a “control” person (droit du signeur)—primarily because she was in a job for which she was unqualified.

When I complained about her treatment of my classes, she was able to convince our school librarian to sign a bogus sexual harassment complaint that was then used by ruthless lawyers to lock me out of my building in January 2004. I was "shelved" until I was allowed to answer these charges six months later at a malonymous Fair Dismissal Appeals Board hearing--after school was out for the summer. My mother was dying during those six months—she had taught special ed in central Kentucky for 35 years.

The sex charges were thrown out in June but “insubordination” remained. I lost my job, my dignity and a fair amount of good will I had worked to earn in the community…Then I was put through a wringer for three and ½ more years by these same lawyers--who have connections to both the OEA (who provided my “advocate”) and to the Teacher Standards and Practices Commission which, if you follow state education news, is best known for “passing-the-trash” deals which place pedophiles back in the classroom, secretly.

I am a hillbilly by birth and constitution. l had been cheated out of great deal of salary by Vangorder and had asked to quit. To cover her incompetence, Mrs. Vangorder launched a despicable sneak attack that has altered the trajectory of my life.

In the aftermath of my ordeal, Vangorder has left public secondary education and has resurfaced in your school, apparently charged with the responsibility of training teachers. Pardon my silly metaphor, but this is akin to hiring penguins to teach sparrows to fly.

I am working hard with the current OEA president, Gail Rasmussen, to clear my name. I am afraid that Ms. Vangorder’s selection as a faculty member at your school is so utterly distasteful to me that I am using what little influence I have to expose her. I do not wish to distract you from your important tasks…frankly, my effort is serving your students and your faculty...you know the long-term danger of rotten fruit in the barrel.

I am eager to meet with you to discuss this matter. I assure you I am driven to expose Vangorder—she is a liar and a misfit.

But I respect the efforts that real educators make and do not wish to create problems. Please let me know how I can further my mission without disrupting yours terribly.

Don Bellairs, teacher

Jennifer Jordan, Westview High librarian, signs false sexual harassment charge to help Beaverton administrators violate an employment contract

To Jennifer Jordan, Westview High School librarian who, after being approached by Gail Vangorder several times, consented to sign a sexual harassment complaint in January 2004 to help Beaverton administrators violate the conditions of my employment contract and damage my ability to earn a living…

May 2009


I am writing you because I am working very hard to achieve some change in the way teachers are treated in the system I have been exposed to for several years.

Your sexual harassment charge was crucial to the people who fired me in the middle of the school year five years ago—without it, I was merely insubordinate and people who knew the truth about my conflicts could have defended me. Without your complaint, they could not have locked me out of the building, then told my students I refused to turn in my grades and sabotaged their college admissions. Without your complaint, they could not have made me worry and wait for six months, through a long winter and spring--until the school year was out--before I was able to prove your charges were false and malicious.

My mother was dying, Jennifer. I was also fired for missing a meeting while moving my mother to Oregon the previous summer—Mr. Colonna was given a long list of my offenses to sign by the same lawyers who helped you prepare to testify against me.

Not many people would do what you did. I never said or did anything to you that justified your contribution to my public humiliation. You permitted nasty lawyers to smear my name in bogus defense of what?--while my mother was dying.

Remember, you never ever said a word to me about any of those incidents. You allowed unethical people to talk you into something improper and immoral. My family was punished by your conduct. I was your colleague--I had set up your editing station a few months before—and you never said a word to me about any discomfort.

About three years after I was fired, I was still being played along by the union lawyer and harassed by Linda Borquist’s friends at the TSPC. I began to get up in the middle of the night and organize all of the testimony from my FDAB “hearing.” You remember that? A panel of volunteer teachers and principals became judges who listened to my former administrators lie about my work history. Linda Borquist, Holly Lekas, Gail Vangorder, Malcolm Dennis and Mike Chamberlain were allowed to give false testimony and use fraudulent documents. But you were the crucial ingredient—you provided them with a “sexual” charge. Ms. Lekas told me on the day she locked me out of my job that your complaint was a “red flag” and she, Ms. Vangorder and Mr. Dennis were justified in calling in many of my female students and ask them pointed questions about my conduct.

Always protecting those kids, Ms. Lekas, Ms. Vangorder and Mr. Dennis…

I have felt a lot of anger and hatred since this happened. Mike Sanderson knows I actually asked Linda Borquist to help me quit three months before they fired me, three months before your sneak attack. But I have never been angry at you, really. It is easy to tell from reading the transcripts that you were used by your bosses…exploited by people using public money to conceal their activities.

You are a victim like me. The evidence is in the documents I have attached to this message. You were an integral part of three days in June 2004 when my career was taken from me.

The people who persuaded you to sign your complaint against me have behaved unethically and continue to be sheltered by a system that cheats teachers. All of those people who advised you were being paid with public money—some are still on the Beaverton payroll. I hope to have those people held accountable; we are in an era of heightened accountability in government.

1. Beaverton administrators have had the ability to spend up to a ½ million dollars at a time of the public’s money to hush something up (re: Mac Dennis). This sort of policy is telling the public they can’t handle the truth.
2. Beaverton administrators have been able to work improperly with union officials who are being paid by money taken from teachers’ salaries. These union officials cooperate unethically with school administrators and are not held accountable for their misrepresentation of teachers.
3. Beaverton administrators have been able to violate state laws regarding teacher discipline and have been able to improperly influence the behavior of state employees (The TSPC investigator who helped Beaverton administrators string out my case for years, Susan Nisbet, was fired for improper conduct).
4. On a positive note, members of the Beaverton board have created sexual harassment policies to prevent administrators from using false sexual charges by compliant staff members to smear their contractual employees.

My goal is to create public interest in the secrecy agreement policy. I am hopeful that a lot of reform occurs—my ordeal has lasted as long as the second Iraq War and has created health issues for my wife and me, as well as contributing to my mother’s anguish at her death.

I did not deserve what happened to me… and no one else does, either.

Please address a letter to the School Board, explaining the circumstances around your decision to file a complaint against me about the three situations spanning two months in the fall of ’03 where you were “uncomfortable” (even though you did not share your discomfort with me). Board members should be informed of Ms. Lekas’ role in your decision, as well as Mr. Chamberlain’s and any other administrator who may still be employed by the district.
I am hopeful that I can teach again someday—although there are parts that I sure don’t miss.

Teaching is difficult even when people are working together.

I would be grateful if you would send me a copy of your letter. I am not seeking revenge or restitution, just truth. As a professional educator, you know how important that is.

Don Bellairs

PS You will possible get an opportunity to read more of this as we go forward..

Excerpts from J. Jordan testimony FDAB June 2004
Q. In the interest of time here, I'm probably going to move fairly fast. During year '02-03 Mr. Bellairs was an activities director for the building; correct?
A. Correct.
Q. And as a consequence of being named activities director, did he interact with you or was he in the library space more often?
A. I would say yes, more often. He had more freedom within the building or he had more free time. I don't know which. But, yes, he was in the library more often.
Q. Did you have interaction with him when he was in the library?
A. Yes.
Q. Of what sort?
A. In retrospect, it is because he wanted something from me or something that I had in the library. Just him being there -- I think he just got used to being there. It became uncomfortable.
Q. You said because he wanted something from you. What kinds of things did he want when he was there?
A. Either equipment or perhaps a better working computer. Oftentimes, many, many mornings, he'd come in first thing and want to know if the coffee was on, if I'd made coffee for him, if we had any treats. The treats came from volunteers usually that volunteer with us in the library. They were brought in, and he would simply help himself to those. But it's usually because he wanted something, so he'd schmooze up to me, warm up to me and try to win me over with that.
Q. Did he ever make a comment to you when there weren't any sweets around?
A. Yes, he did.
Q. What was that comment?
A. Something to the effect of, "Can you put a little sweetness in this for me?" or "Can you sweeten it up for me?"
Q. Did that comment cause you any note?
A. Well, I remembered it. It wasn't appropriate. It wasn't -- it was around other staff members, and I think there may have been students present. It wasn't a professional thing to say.
Q. Were there any times when you were uncomfortable with his physical presence around you?
A. Yes. Part of his initial charm I think with everyone was that he liked to get to know people. He was
a real touchy-feely person. That became cloying. It became -- well, I grew to hate it. It no longer endeared itself to me, and I know to other people in the building. But, yes, the longer he was around me in the library, it increased.
Q. Was there a time in the fall of 2003 when he came up to you while you were walking down the hall?
A. Yes.
Q. What happened?
A. I was leaving or I was trying to leave. It was right as school was recessing, and students and teachers were in the hallway coming in the opposite correction. I was trying to leave to avoid getting caught in the buses, as I had a meeting outside the building. I don't know where he came from, but he came up and put his arm around me. It was a hug much more intimate than he'd ever given before. It was very close and very -- it was very uncomfortable, very close.
Q. What did you do?
A. I immediately tried to shrink away. I'm short, so I thought I could kind of maybe weasel out of it or kind of shrink away from him. The harder I tried to get out from underneath his clutch, the harder he clutched me. It just became more intense. During the course of this embrace, because that's what it more or less ended up as,
he wanted -- he asked me if I would like to start ascandal. Let's get tongues wagging. Could we have an affair. I said, "I don't think so." And at that point I wanted to slap him, but there was so many people
around, and I didn't want to get into any kind of embarrassing situation. I didn't want to get his anger going at me. I just finally just really jerked away, and I was able to leave, to get away from him.
Q. How did you -- what did you do after that when you were in the building in terms of Mr. Bellairs?
A. That same day?
Q. No.
A. I tried -- well, the very next day -- well, actually that evening I went and discussed the situation with my husband. He said I needed to at least speak to my administrator about it, that I probably didn't need to file some kind of complaint, but I needed to let somebody know that that had occurred. I was embarrassed. I didn't want anyone that may have seen us to misconstrue the facts, because I didn't provoke it. So the next day, after discussing the incident with my husband, I talked with Gail VanGorder. She said -- she didn't write anything down, but she said that she no longer handled Don, that she would pass on the
information to Mike Chamberlain. She offered some suggestions on what I should do if it happened again. Then I briefly let the two girls that I work with up in the library know that I didn't want to be in the same room with Don, that I didn't want to be in a position that could be misconstrued. I tried not to give them too many facts, but I had to give them some foundation -- their names were Sherry and Nancy -- so
they knew that if Don were to come in to the library, I didn'twant to be alone, or if they saw him come in, that they agreed that they would come into that room where I was so that I wasn't going to be alone with him.
Q. Did you tell Gail VanGorder that you wanted to file a formal complaint and proceed with a complaint at that point in time?
A. No. I didn't.
Q. Were there times when Mr. Bellairs asked you out to dinner before or after this incident?
A. There was one before, yes.
Q. And was there a time after?
A. Actually, during the course of that incident in the hallway, yes, he did.
Q. What did you tell him?
A. I said, "No. I don't think so."
Q. What had been your response earlier when he
A. I'm not quite sure what the verbiage was, but I know I said no. He knew I was married. I knew he was married. I mean, it was just so far out of anything that I would have ever considered.
Q. Was there a time then later -- this incident in the hallway, can you place it somewhere in a time period?
A. It was on a Monday. I remember it was Monday because I was going to the district librarians meeting, and because we have them on Mondays. I believe it was in November, the second Monday in November.
Q. Was there a later time when there was another situation where you had physical contact with him or he had physical contact with you? And this one I think was in the library.
A. Yes. It was in December. I eat lunch up there with another couple of people in our back room. I was eating lunch. I sit on a chair with wheels. And he comes swooping in and puts his arm around me. And I didn't want anything to do with it. And the harder I tried to get away, scoot away on my chair, the more -- I ended up next to the wall just cowering, and I was continuing my conversation with my lunchmates, slinking away. I was flattened up against the wall. Finally, he took that as a hint and left.
Q. Was there any conversation that you remember?
A. I don't remember any. I think there was, but I can't remember what was said.
Q. Did you make any statements to your lunchmates or did you go on as though --
A. I said something to my lunchmates, yes.
Q. What did you say, if you remember?
A. I said, "You saw that?" And they said, "Yes, we did."
Q. Was that all that was said?
A. That was all that was said.
Q. After that was there another episode that involved a statement by Mr. Bellairs that made you uncomfortable?
A. Yes. That was in December also. Well, there was actually a couple. Which one are we on?
Q. Any of them.
A. There was one where he was in the library, and we were at the front desk. I don't know what he'd come in for, but Sherry saw that he had come in and she was standing right next to me. There was a thread on his shoulder. I said, "You need to take the thread off your shoulder." He said something, well, with a horrible sexual connotation to me. Sherry took it the same way. It was, "If you could pull it from my behind," or "if you
could pull the thread from behind me."
Q. What made you feel that it had sexual connotations?
A. Just the way he said it.
Q. Tone of voice?
A. Tone of voice. Sort of his body movements, yes.
Q. Do you remember how you responded to that?
A. I just walked away.
Q. Do you know whether -- you said there may have been other situations. Do you remember anything else?
A. There was another one. Again, we were at the counter. Sherry was standing there. There were also other students about. He came over to me, and he said, "Would you mind going over to the photocopy machine," which is housed in the library," and ask the young lady that's standing over there to cover up? She's not particularly good looking, and I'm not enjoying looking at her."
Q. Was the young lady a student?
A. A student, yes. So, yes, indeed I went over there and I did
ask her to cover up.
Q. He made that statement in front of other people and students?
A. Yes.
Q. In your account I'm understanding that you never directly said to Mr. Bellairs, "Take your hands off me," or something to that effect. Is that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Can you explain why not?
A. Well, I felt my nonverbal communication was strong enough, the force of which I tried to pull away. It was all nonverbal. I just felt that I was doing everything I could nonverbally. I didn't want -- did
not want to get into any kind of verbal confrontation with him because I had seen his anger.
Q. Where had you seen his anger?

State-sponsored theft

Jerome Colonna and Beaverton School Board cover up Westview High School mismanagement

Hollis Lekas, Beaverton School district administrator: Notes at termination meeting Jan 2004, the day before semester grades were due...

Jerome Colonna refusing to meet August 2009

Jerome Colonna follows advice of former Beaverton HR directors Linda Borquist and Hollis Lekas and signs list of false charges used to terminate a teacher's employment contract illegally.

The Beaverton School District's former lawyer, Nancy Hungerford, used her association with Tom Doyle, the OEA attorney appointed to "advocate" for the teacher and with Vickie Dhamberlain, the director of Oregon's teacher licensing division (TSPC), to sabotage the teacher's defense and damage his reputation and ability to earn a living.

Doyle made $60K manipulating the OEA member. He continues to "represent" teacher0s for the"union."

Mr. Colonna and Beaverton School Board members continue to spend a lot of education money to conceal improper conduct of administrative staff.

From: Senator Suzanne Bonamici (on oversight of the TSPC) March 25, 2010

From: Sen Bonamici
To: Don Bellairs
Cc: Betsy Hammond ; "gail.rasmussen@oregoned.org" ; Rep Harker ; Sen Hass ; "jerome_colonna@beavton.k12.or.us" ; "leeann_larsen@beavton.k12.or.us" ; "Sarah_Smith@beavton.k12.or.us" ; Sen Winters
Sent: Thu, March 25, 2010 5:32:20 PM
Subject: RE: "First of it's kind" legal decision by ALJ Andrea Sloan to cover up OEA and TSPC misconduct

I do take my job seriously, but I am not your attorney. If you were not satisfied with the decision of the Administrative Law Judge, there was a process to follow. That process is explained in the very email you attached to this most recent email you sent to me and others. Additionally, as I understand it, you did appeal your dismissal and that case was heard and decided by the Oregon Court of Appeals. http://www.publications.ojd.state.or.us/A125893.htm You don't accept that decision, which you have made clear, but your recourse was to appeal it further in the court system.

Don, I am not able to go back and undo the decisions of the Administrative Law Judge and the Court of Appeals. As far as I can discern, this is not a policy issue but rather your dissatisfaction with decisions that did not go in your favor. I know this has been difficult for you but there is not anything I can do to change the results.

Kind regards,

Senator Suzanne Bonamici
District 17: NW Portland, Beaverton, Washington County
900 Court St. NE, S-403
Salem, OR 97403
503-986-1717 (Capitol)
District Address:
PO Box 990
Beaverton, OR 97075
503-627-0246 (District)

To: Sen Bonamici
Cc: gail.rasmussen@oregoned.org; jerome_colonna@beavton.k12.or.us; linda@leslieconsult.com; Sarah_Smith@beavton.k12.or.us; sarah_boly@beavton.k12.or.us; bud_moore@beavton.k12.or.us; Betsy Hammond ; Rep Harker ; Sen Hass ;

Subject: Re: "First of it's kind" legal decision by ALJ Andrea Sloan to cover up OEA and TSPC misconduct

Ms. Bonamici,
Thank you for taking the time to reply. I do not wish to offend you, but what has happened to me is, I believe, what poisons people's feelings about government. In your response, you sound like a...lawyer.

I have substantial evidence that I have been and continue to be treated improperly by state officials and you tell me to...hire a lawyer.

I had asked to quit my (state-licensed) job and instead was fired by sneak attack and appointed an attorney by the OEA who would manipulate me through several courts. I suppose I should have sensed the betrayal before consenting to the federal contract, but my years of experience getting teenagers to turn things in on time did not prepare me for the cruel way in which my character and record would be attacked by the high-paid attorneys for the Beaverton School District. My time with kids was more about how to believe in yourself and support others so I was not really ready for the way Tom Doyle, my "lawyer," would manipulate me while I trusted and depended on him.
While my mother was dying. I hate to keep going there, ma'am, but you cannot imagine what a distraction it was to be pissed on by Nancy Hungerford while I was trying to care of a woman who was losing her ability to breathe.
Sexual harassment as a sneak-attack tactic...That is sickness. Below-the-belt. Even if I had done a lousy job for the Beaverton community (which I didn't)....Even if I had done the things the TSPC director has charged me with so many years later (I didn't).

I had been cheated out of 20K as Activities Director and, three months before my dismissal, had asked the associate superintendent for help in quitting...I was, at the the time of my dismissal, working with her son for the third consecutive year, a fact that was CONCEALED DURING MY FAIR DISMISSAL APPEALS BOARD HEARING...

(A hearing that took place six months after I was locked out of my place of work--delayed, I was told, because a Beaverton administrator was on vacation in Morocco.)

Did I mention my mother was having trouble breathing?

So, if as a lawyer, you are telling me that justice was served in my case and, short of following procedures which (to me) look exactly like the ones previously used to exploit and cheat me, that I should move on--I understand and accept your lawyerly suggestion.

But if, as an elected official--pledged to represent constituents from the potential of an abusive government--you are saying that you have looked into my situation and are comfortable that 1) the 3 1/2 years of investigation by Vickie Chamberlain, 2) Tom Doyle's conflict of interest as an OEA attorney and 3) the strange behavior of Elizabeth Denecke and Andrea Sloan of the OAH after I refused to sign false charges--if you are saying you have investigated those incidents and feel, in your role as overseer, that I have been treated properly, then we have a political disagreement.

And if, as a human being, you are saying that I don't deserve to be treated the same as others, then we have a philosophical disconnect.

By refusing to act on my behalf, regardless of your reasoning, you are neglecting your professional responsibility. I was abused by government officials who were intentionally concealing the improper behavior of certain public school administrators in violating (first) my right to employment and (second) my right to due process of law.

I am told one takes an oath to do your job.

In closing, I am eager to clear my name. Droit du signeur is what destroys public school ans other public institutions. The Oregon Fair Dismissal and Appeals Board process I ws forced to endure in June 2004 was an exercise in legal misconduct. The ongoing effort by Ms. Chamberlain and other state officials to conceal that misconduct (and intentionally influence a federal case in the process) is, I believe, criminal behavior.

I appreciate the time you have spent with your response to my email. My regards to Mr. Atkins.

Accountability and oversight start with leadership, Senator.

Sincerely, Don Bellairs, teacher

The Backstory: Linda Borquist's explanation (under oath) of why my contract was broken...

June 2004 FDAB hearing at NW Regional Educational Service District.
The lawyer hired by the OEA, Tom Doyle, was 1 hour late to represent the OEA member. The FDAB hearing itself was delayed until the LAST DAY of the SECOND SEMESTER, even though the teacher was terminated on the LAST DAY of the FIRST SEMESTER.

Testifying: Linda Borquist, then asst supt in charge of Beaverton HR. (Her chief asst. was Hollis Lekas and the two of them shared a reception area with Janet Hogue, then-CEO of the Beaverton Education Foundation, a fundraising non-profit focused on getting bond measures passed.)

FDAB June 2004:
7 Q. Ms. Borquist, I'd like you to take a look at the
8 dismissal notice itself, Exhibit D-1 there in the white
9 binder. Let me ask you this: Did the district attempt to
10 terminate Mr. Bellairs in 1999 for the incident that
11 happened in 1999 relating to Ms. Lass and the parent,
12 Mr. Williams?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did the district attempt to terminate
15 Mr. Bellairs in February of 2003 for the confrontation
16 with Mr. Ali?
17 A. No.
18 Q. Did the district attempt to terminate
19 Mr. Bellairs in May or June of 2003?
20 A. No.
21 Q. And how about October of 2003?
22 A. No.
23 Q. How about December of 2003?
24 A. I'm trying to think of where -- what was the
25 incident? Oh, the sexual harassment complaint. No.
Bolam & Associates
1 Q. At what point did the district make a decision
2 that Mr. Bellairs' actions merited -- constituted neglect
3 of duty?
4 A. Probably a compilation of all those things and
5 the rapid succession in which they were happening. We had
6 had many conferences by then. We were putting things
7 directly -- putting things in his personnel file. We were
8 putting them in writing. We were telling him that we were
9 going -- that this was all going to lead to dismissal. We
10 put that twice in two letters, and I met with him on the
11 16th of October and told him. Then we had the sexual
12 harassment complaint at the end of January.
13 It was looking at how many times does a person
14 have to be told. That's when we kind of all were shaking
15 our heads and putting the information together and saying,
16 "My gosh. Look at all the instances. We have told him
17 that the next thing is going to be dismissal. It is time
18 the pull the plug." So we had the meeting on the 26th to
19 give any airing of any other information that we might
20 need to know about before we made that decision, and then
21 we made the decision.
22 Q. Okay. So I know notice in the dismissal notice
23 it says that each of these actions constitutes neglect of
24 duty: the '99, the 2003 --
25 A. Uh-huh.
Bolam & Associates
1 Q. So is it only by virtue of the fact that all of
2 these incidents together -- is it the fact of all of the
3 incidents together that merits discipline -- termination,
4 I should say?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. The 1998 incident -- 1999 incident, I should
7 say, that doesn't merit termination; correct?
8 A. It could have, I suppose. In retrospect, you
9 know, I wish we would have taken other action at that
10 point, when we look at how many times a person was told
11 and how many times they weren't a learner. But it was our
12 hope that Mr. Bellairs would learn. He had some good
13 teaching qualities. He was in a high need area. Media
14 and production are high need areas of expertise. I think
15 all of his administrators really hoped that he would take
16 heed and note and conform to the standards. In
17 retrospect, I could look at any of the incidents in and of
18 themselves and think there was a neglect of duty.
19 Q. And that merits termination?
20 A. Possibly. I wish -- you know, when I look back
21 and I look at probationary years, there were certainly
22 some things that were red flags in the probationary years.
23 But I guess that the administrator really wanted to give
24 Don a continuing chance, and we thought that the behaviors
25 were correctable.
Bolam & Associates
1 Q. Okay. So, once again, I'm just going back to
2 the notice. It sounds like you're saying that this notice
3 is based upon all of these incidents?
4 A. Uh-huh. That's why we put them all in the
5 letter together.
6 Q. But that the district would terminate based on
7 each individual one also if --
8 A. I didn't say that. I said, you know, in
9 retrospect we possibly could have. But, again, our stance
10 is to always give as much direction and opportunity to
11 grow and learn as a learning institution that we possibly
12 can. This was just too many times.
13 Q. Would your recommendation have been the same if
14 there was just the one incident on January 14th with the
15 superintendent?
16 A. The January 14th with the superintendent was
17 really nonconsequential to our decision. Those staff
18 conversations I think -- I'm getting kind of confused
19 about what was said earlier. But I think we talked about
20 that that was a time when it's open conversation.
21 It was only because it was a direct violation of
22 the October 16th memo or directive that Mike Chamberlain
23 had given that it became an issue. It wasn't what he said
24 so much as how he chose to hang on to this particular
25 family and continue to portray them, when he was told by
Bolam & Associates
1 Mike that if he had any issues of concern about kids or
2 families or anything else, to talk to his supervisor.
3 Q. So it wasn't, you're saying, what he said, but
4 how he said it?
5 A. No. I mean, actually, it was what he said in
6 terms of the particular family.
7 Q. So it was what he said?
8 A. But it wasn't, because the staff conversation
9 does allow for that. We had another very outspoken person
10 who said a lot more than Don. He received absolutely no
11 reprimand for that piece. But he didn't have a directive
12 in his file that directed him not to do that kind of
13 stuff.
14 Q. So Don could have said what he said with no
15 repercussions but for the fact that he had been directed
16 not to say that?
17 A. Correct.
18 Q. It wasn't how he was saying it, but it was the
19 fact that he was saying something about a parent or
20 student; and the fact he was saying something about a
21 parent or student is what you regard as being in violation
22 of the directive?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I believe you testified that that incident
25 overall would not have formed the basis for termination
Bolam & Associates
1 all on its own?
2 A. No. It would not.
3 Q. Okay. Now, by that incident I'm talking
4 about -- you have what you say is a letter of directive
5 from October, and then whatever happened in January, on
6 January 14th at that meeting, that's what I'm referring
7 to. If all that was the same, and he said the same exact
8 thing, and he had that alleged directive, the district
9 would not have taken any disciplinary action?
10 A. If everything else was great, he had no other
11 problems, we hadn't talked to him before, he had no other
12 directives in his file, no other instances, no, we would
13 not have taken action for dismissal.
14 Q. All right. So, in fact, that incident doesn't
15 form the basis for the termination decision? Isn't that
16 what you're telling me?
17 A. Not solely by itself it does not.
18 Q. Not even as part of the larger picture?
19 A. As part of the larger picture, certainly, or we
20 wouldn't have included all these. Everything that we put
21 in the dismissal letter is a piece of the dismissal.
22 Q. Okay. Yet that incident does not even merit
23 discipline is what you're telling me?
24 A. Not -- you asked me if it warranted dismissal.
25 That is how I understood it. This incident by itself with
Bolam & Associates
1 no other incidents attached to it, I would say that it
2 does not. But in a series of things, what I referred to
3 before as bites of the apple, it certainly does.
4 Q. Okay. So the district's -- I hope I'm not
5 misunderstanding. Please correct me if I am.
6 A. I will.
7 Q. But the district is saying that the incident
8 that happened on January 14th would have merited
9 discipline, but not termination?
10 A. If it was isolated in and of itself, which, you
11 know, I don't have a basis of reference for, because, you
12 know, I don't know how I would have looked at it. But the
13 fact is that we had a series of same types of behavior.
14 That's why it got our attention. That's why he had a
15 directive in his file not to do it. So, you know, in and
16 of itself -- you're trying to ask me to separate something
17 as a singular incident outside of this whole series. I'm
18 not too sure I can do that.
19 Q. I think that it's -- I don't think it's
20 unreasonable to ask if the allegations against
21 Mr. Bellairs, that allegation -- there's several in this
22 notice -- if that one is considered to merit discipline by
23 the district or not, and I'm not sure what you're telling
24 me.
25 MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: I'm going to object.
Bolam & Associates
1 I think the question has been asked and answered. I think
2 that this witness has said that this incident alone.
3 wouldn't have been the basis for dismissal, which was the
4 question. And she said that she doesn't know whether it
5 would have been the basis for any discipline in the
6 absence of all of these other surrounding facts. I really
7 believe we're spinning our wheels here in terms of how
8 many times we have gone over the same ground.
9 MR. DOYLE: I have not -- Ms. Hungerford
10 testified very eloquently. I've not heard this witness
11 tell me if it's -- if this is -- if this action, if this
12 activity on January 14th, would have resulted in any
13 discipline if it had just been this incident.
14 MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: I think she said she
15 didn't know.
16 MR. DOYLE: May I rephrase the question?
17 MR. SMITH: Rephrase the question. Yes,
18 please.
20 Q. Would you consider what Mr. Bellairs did on
21 January 14th all by itself to be a violation of the
22 district policies?
23 A. In terms of his being directed, I would consider
24 it a violation.
25 Q. Okay. Now, if you have a teacher violating
Bolam & Associates
1 district policies, would you discipline that teacher?
2 A. Probably we would have a conversation with the
3 person. Our intent is to not hammer somebody and take
4 them to the highest level when you mention discipline for
5 this incident and dismissal for this incident. We would
6 probably take that person aside, bring them in and say,
7 "You know, what you said during that meeting was
8 inappropriate, because what I had asked you to do was to
9 do this. Now, do you understand again what I mean by
10 that?" In all honestly, that's probably what we would
11 have done if it were the only time that we had talked to
12 that individual.
13 Q. I think you've testified before that being sat
14 down with and told what to do and told don't do that again
15 is disciplinary. I think that's your testimony from
16 before. That sounds like a disciplinary -- that you're
17 saying, yes, there would be --
18 MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: I'm going to object.
19 I don't think that was her testimony.
20 THE WITNESS: It was not.
22 Q. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth. Is
23 that a disciplinary -- would that be grievable? Is that
24 discipline?
25 A. Is what discipline?
Bolam & Associates
1 Q. What you just said you would do in response to
2 Mr. Bellairs' actions on January 14.
3 MR. SMITH: Hold up here for a minute. We
4 have an objection.
5 Do you want to rephrase the question and I'll
6 give Ms. Hungerford a chance to object to the new
7 rephrase?
9 Q. On January 14, 2004, Mr. Bellairs engaged in
10 some conduct that I believe you've testified the district
11 regarded as a violation of its policies; is that correct?
12 A. No. What I testified to is that in this
13 incident, with his directive in his October 16th letter
14 the directed him not to talk about those kinds of things
15 in the manner that he did, that's what he violated. He
16 did not violate anything by speaking out against what he
17 perceived were some -- whatever things he wanted to say
18 about the district. That isn't a violation. What it was
19 a violation of was that directive in the letter of October
20 16th.
21 Q. Okay. And violating the directive is against
22 district policy; isn't that right?
23 A. It is.
24 Q. Okay. So I'm trying just to make sure I
25 understand, and I think this is a reasonable question.
Bolam & Associates
1 Your counsel will tell me if it's not. Did you regard
2 Mr. Bellairs' actions on January 14, 2004, as being in
3 violation of the district policy? Now, I understand
4 there's a policy that requires following directives. I
5 include that policy when I say in violation of district
6 policy.
7 A. Yes. He did not follow the directive.
8 Q. Okay. Would your recommendation have been the
9 same, i.e. termination, if the January 14th incident had
10 not happened?
11 A. I believe so, yes.
12 Q. I'll ask the same question in regard to the
13 Jennifer Jordan notes. Everything else being the same,
14 would you have taken -- everything else falling away, if
15 it was just the allegations of Ms. Jordan, would you have
16 taken the same action to recommend termination?
17 A. Probably not. It was a series, as I've stated
18 many times. It was the whole series in the dismissal
19 letter, otherwise we would have just taken one incident
20 and made it pretty simple. It was the bites of the apple,
21 the number of times of the same kinds of behavior that we
22 were addressing.
23 Q. Okay. Would you have recommended any sort of
24 discipline based upon the allegation and the investigation
25 done by the district in regard to the Jennifer Jordan
Bolam & Associates
1 notes?
2 MS. LINDA HUNGERFORD: Standing alone?
4 Q. Standing alone.
5 A. Well, since Mr. Bellairs or you did not give us
6 anything else to look at in terms of that allegation, we
7 probably would have done more talking to other witnesses
8 or other kinds of things that we might have been able to
9 ferret out.
10 If we're going to go forward with a dismissal,
11 since I've never in my 12 years sat around a table like
12 this, we're going to make darn sure our dismissal can
13 stand and that we have our evidences (sic) lined up.
14 So you're asking me to conjecture about one
15 incident, would we have looked further. You know, we
16 didn't look any further in that particular one incident
17 because we had a whole series of incidents we'd already
18 documented, already talked with him, already put letters
19 in the file. We already thought we addressed it. When we
20 got down to the last items, it was just more of the same.
21 So when I looked at the totality of it since the
22 1998-99 school year, when I looked at the totality of how
23 many times has this teacher been told to change his
24 behavior, that's what made me have the determination that
25 this was a dismissal, that absolute defiance of what we
Bolam & Associates
1 had put in writing and told him and I had personally told
2 him was going to be the next step.
3 Q. So I believe you've testified that if it was
4 just standing alone, the allegations by Jennifer Jordan,
5 you probably would have done more investigation and then
6 would have determined whether some sort of discipline was
7 warranted?
8 A. Well, you know, conjecturing about a sexual
9 harassment thing really is difficult, as you know if
10 you've worked with them before. Since it didn't happen, I
11 don't really feel that I would like to sit here and
12 conjecture what I might have done or should have done or
13 something when that isn't what my judgment was based on.
14 My judgment was based on the series. And to pull out one
15 incident and say would you have done, should you have
16 done, that's conjecturing on my part.
17 I always try to look at trying to be ethical and
18 factual and make sure that I'm addressing the situation
19 that I have before me. I don't try to conjecture or make
20 up things or think about other stuff that may or may not
21 be related. I had enough evidences (sic), as I've stated
22 in this dismissal letter, that I had no choice but to move
23 forward to dismissal because he certainly wasn't getting
24 the picture. So to pull this apart as an individual case
25 and conjecture about what I would do, I just don't think
Bolam & Associates
1 that's a fair question that I can answer.
2 Q. But I believe you've actually already said that
3 each of these incidents would merit some -- could
4 potentially merit termination?
5 A. No. I said it could warrant dismissal, not --
6 I'm sorry. It could warrant discipline.
7 Q. But not termination?
8 A. Not in and of themselves necessarily.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. I don't think -- I think I keep getting twisted
11 around in my testimony.

12 Q. So the testimony now is that each of these
13 incidents separated out would not warrant termination;
14 it's only by the fact that they're combined together in
15 this series, you called bites of the apple, that you're
16 recommending termination?
17 A. You're asking me to conjecture about each of
18 these in and of itself when it wasn't in and of itself.
19 My recommendation for dismissal to the superintendent was
20 based on all of these incidents.
21 As you can see, we didn't discipline -- we
22 didn't terminate on each of these as they happened. We
23 didn't do it. But we did when we looked at a whole and
24 how many times he had been told. That's the fact. I'm
25 conjecturing if you want me to take it apart piece by
Bolam & Associates
1 piece, because that isn't life and that isn't what
2 happened.
3 MR. SMITH: I think we're kind of stuck in a
4 rut here.
5 MR. DOYLE: We'll move on.
6 MR. SMITH: Okay.
8 Q. I just want to ask about your investigation.
9 You made a comment that you probably should have done more
10 investigation or would have done --
11 A. If it was singular.
12 Q. -- into the Jordan allegation.
13 A. If it was a standalone and that's what I was
14 going to base my termination on, that one incident only,
15 and you both sat there and gave us nothing else to
16 investigate, I probably would have looked -- if I was
17 going to sit here and defend it, I probably would have
18 looked a little bit more if it was the only incident that
19 I was bringing forward on termination.
20 Q. For instance, talking to the witness that
21 Ms. Jordan mentioned in her statement?
22 A. I believe that was done.
23 Q. Can you point to me in the October 2003 letter
24 what directive Mr. Bellairs violated on January 14, 2004?
25 MR. SMITH: Do you have the exhibit number?
Bolam & Associates
1 MR. DOYLE: I will get to the exhibit number.
2 I was stalling. D-18.
3 THE WITNESS: Bottom of page 2: "You are
4 officially instructed, Donald, to comply with Standards
5 2.2 c., 2.3 a. and e., and 3.2 e. and f. For standard 3.2
6 f. you are instructed to first communicate with me any
7 concerns you have with staff and/or parents so that
8 letters or e-mails are appropriate. In addition you are
9 instructed to see your immediate supervisor, Mike
10 Chamberlain, when you have a potential conflict with a
11 staff member or parent."
13 Q. Okay. You say he violated what part of that
14 statement?
15 A. Specifically the last part, the potential
16 conflict with the parent. Mrs. Hogue was a parent.
17 Mr. Hogue was a parent
18 Q. So there's three sentences there. The second
19 sentence says for Standard 3.2 f., and that looks like it
20 relates to letters or e-mails. You don't allege that on
21 January 14, 2004, Mr. Bellairs sent a letter or e-mail
22 that violated this order, do you?
23 A. No. Not that I'm aware of.
24 Q. So it's the next sentence: You are instructed
25 to first see your immediate supervisor when you have
Bolam & Associates
1 potential conflict with a staff member or parent?
2 A. Uh-huh.
3 Q. What is a potential conflict?
4 A. Something that you disagree with that they've
5 done that you're going to spout off about or display
6 publicly or talk about in a derogatory fashion.
7 Q. So a potential conflict to you includes saying
8 something about a parent -- sorry -- saying something
9 about that -- I guess mentioning a student in general or
10 saying something derogatory about a student?
11 A. Well, in this particular case it is that there
12 was a picture, I understand, in the newspaper with this
13 particular student, and it was insinuated that this
14 student only got the part in the play because of her
15 parents' influence and support of the school district.
16 Then there's some offhanded comment that was, Well, maybe
17 she deserved it, maybe she got it anyway, or something
18 like that. But it was a direct derogatory comment about a
19 family and that their family somehow got it through other
20 than the merits of the daughter.
21 Q. You consider that to be a conflict with a
22 parent?
23 A. I sure would if my family were portrayed in that
24 manner that they were getting special treatment because of
25 something that I did.
Bolam & Associates
1 Q. Were there any parents at this meeting? I mean
2 other than people who are faculty and also parents.
3 A. Not that I'm aware of.
4 Q. Okay. So I believe there are some notes on
5 Exhibit D-21 from that faculty meeting. Now, I assume it
6 was based upon these notes that you have an understanding
7 of what was said?
8 A. No. Actually, I talked to Mike Chamberlain.
9 Q. You weren't actually at the faculty meeting?
10 A. I was not.
11 Q. Did you review these notes in addition to
12 talking with Mr. Chamberlain?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Is the statement that you believe violated that
15 directive written down here on these notes?
16 A. (Reviewing document.) It's the last statement.
17 Well, it's actually the last couple statements. Kaitlyn
18 Hogue, which is a student -- was a student at the school.
19 And who knows, she may have -- it's in quotes what Don
20 said was, "And who knows, she may have deserved the part
21 in the fall play," which insinuated she may have gotten it
22 by other means other than by her own actions. And then
23 the, "Clearly making a connection to Mr. Hogue speaking to
24 the faculty about fundraising, his wife as president of
25 BEF, the equity concern regarding where dollars raised go,
Bolam & Associates
1 and their daughter getting a lead in the fall play."
2 Q. Okay. Now, I see one statement there that's in
3 quotes: "And who knows, she may have deserved the part in
4 the fall play." That's the only quote in here; right? It
5 looks like it's Mr. Chamberlains thoughts on what was --
6 A. I think it's an accurate reflection of what he
7 heard.
8 Q. Did Mr. Chamberlain relay to you any other
9 quotes or anything like that of what Mr. Bellairs said
10 that you regard as a violation of the October directive?
11 A. Not in terms of quotes. He relayed what he
12 said, but did not put anything in quotes other than that
13 one thing.
14 Q. What else did Mr. Chamberlain tell you besides
15 what's in these notes?
16 A. Basically these notes.
17 Q. Okay. So there's nothing else Mr. Chamberlain
18 told you that you based your termination recommendation on
19 other than what's in these notes?
20 A. And the fact -- the reminder that he had talked
21 to Mr. Bellairs specifically, and I have talked to
22 Mr. Bellairs specifically about letting the Hogue stuff
23 rest. That was October 17th. That was right after the
24 October 16th letter. So both of us had talked to him
25 specifically about the Hogues and specifically about not
Bolam & Associates
1 defaming kids in a public meeting or in a public forum or
2 any kind of forum.
3 Q. Okay. So, once again, I'm just trying to make
4 sure that I understand that the only statement -- verbatim
5 statement that you know of that Mr. Bellairs actually said
6 is, "And who knows, she may have deserved the part in the
7 fall play"?
8 A. The only verbatim, but certainly relaying the
9 conversation that was -- this other information that was
10 shared.
11 Q. Mr. Chamberlain gave you the gist?
12 A. It was more than the gist. I mean, he relayed
13 the conversation to me. The only -- there's a difference
14 between a quote -- if I put down a quote, I'm saying
15 absolutely exactly what the person said.
16 Q. To make sure it's accurate?
17 A. Well, and then I may have information that I
18 relay about a conversation that is going to be absolutely
19 100 percent accurate, but I may not put it in that
20 person's exact words. There is a difference between a
21 quote and being relayed in the conversation. To me a
22 quote is exactly what the person said. Relaying the
23 conversation would be accurate information, but it's not
24 done with the exact same language that the person used.
25 Q. So it's important -- I assume that the exact
Bolam & Associates
1 language -- it sounds like this was a statement that you
2 regarded as having a lot of implication, that he was --
3 Mr. Chamberlain was making a connection, clearly making a
4 connection between the equity concerns and the part in the
5 school play. That takes a certain amount of
6 interpretation. It might be obvious to Mr. Chamberlain,
7 but it's not clear from what's written down in terms of
8 the quote. So are you relying upon Mr. Chamberlain's
9 understanding of what Mr. Bellairs said to recommend your
10 termination?
11 A. No. I mean, not -- again, you're trying to
12 isolate a sole, little tiny piece of the whole puzzle.
13 This was certainly one of many, many, many things that we
14 talked about in terms of the termination. In this
15 particular incident I listened very carefully to what
16 Mr. Chamberlain relayed to Ms. Lekas and myself about what
17 took place on January 14th. So, you know, I am relying on
18 his very honest and accurate information of what went on
19 in the meeting.
20 Q. Do you remember anything about the
21 superintendent expressing any concerns to you about what
22 Mr. Bellairs said in that meeting?
23 A. No. In fact, he was pretty oblivious to who
24 Mr. Bellairs was. I had no conversation with Mr. Colonna
25 about this until we got ready for the dismissal. He did
Bolam & Associates
1 not come back and share any concerns he had because, like
2 he said, there were people that were very vocal. We
3 invite that. We want our employees to feel an open, free
4 relationship with us, to tell us things. So this was only
5 because it was a violation of the October 16th memo.
6 Q. Okay. And so Superintendent Colonna didn't see
7 anything -- didn't find Mr. Bellairs' comments
8 inappropriate?
9 A. I don't know. I haven't asked him that
10 question.
11 Q. Do you know of anyone that found Mr. Bellairs'
12 comments inappropriate on January 14th?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Inappropriate because they're violating the
15 directive or inappropriate because they're just
16 inappropriate?
17 A. Inappropriate for violating the directive.
18 Q. So no one actually found them inappropriate that
19 was there that didn't know about the directive?
20 A. I don't know. Nobody said anything to me. That
21 didn't mean people wouldn't think it was inappropriate.
22 Q. No one that you know?
23 A. No one came and told me.
24 Q. No one you know of. You haven't been told about
25 anyone that found the comments inappropriate that didn't
Bolam & Associates
1 already know about this directive?
2 A. Nobody came and reported that Mr. Bellairs said
3 anything that was egregious and what was the district
4 going to do about it. No.
5 Q. Did you hear about any other teachers who made
6 comments about students and parents during this same
7 faculty meeting?
8 A. Not individual people.
9 Q. So you didn't hear that others teachers also
10 made comments about specific students and parents?
11 A. I'm not aware that anybody made any specific
12 comments about specific kids or students. There was a
13 teacher that was quite vocal about getting more funding
14 for our ESL population.
15 Q. But there's no comments specifically about a
16 student in that?
17 A. I consider ESL students, but they weren't --
18 you're asking --
19 Q. By name?
20 A. By name? No. There was not.
21 Q. All right. So then --
22 A. But I don't believe also that Mr. Bellairs used
23 the student by name. But anybody who knew the newspaper
24 and knew who the BEF president was, knew who was doing the
25 fundraising. It would be easy to make that connection.
Bolam & Associates
1 Q. Mr. Bellairs didn't actually use the student's
2 name either?
3 A. Right.
4 Q. Okay. So Mr. Bellairs didn't use the student's
5 name, and there was no one there -- no parents there, the
6 parent of the student wasn't there?



Mike Chamberlain’s sworn testimony
FDAB hearing June, 2004

Q. The last paragraph states that he has not been pleased with much administrative guidance in the past, and it often seemed uninformed. Did you believe that referred to anyone?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. To whom?
A. Gail, Malcolm. I believed he was referring to administrators that had been at Westview, who are currently there, or those that had been there recently.
Q. Did you sometime after that point have information that was shared with you about women's football?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. How did that information come to you?
A. It came to me from Gail. It also came to me from Monica Gorman, who was the activities director, who had been hearing some rumblings of things that kids were unhappy about some things.
Q. They came to you because you were Don's supervisor; is that right?
A. Yes. But, I mean, as administrators you'll hear lots of things. Just because you're not the administrator evaluating doesn't mean you're not going to hear things.
Q. What did you do with the information? First of all, let me ask you, what was the nature of the information that you had about the women's football in relationship to Mr. Bellairs?
A. That they had had some kind of practice over the weekend for the powder puff football game that was coming up the Friday afternoon. That the practice had not gone well. That Mr. Bellairs had become very angry. That there had been some swearing from him toward the girls
about some involvement in practice, something with the practice. The girls were upset. They were hesitant to participate. They were not sure how to proceed.
Q. What did you then do with that information?
A. I went and talked to Don.
Q. What did he say to you?
A. First of all, that he appreciated me coming directly to him. He said that there had been some issues at practice. He said that there were some girls who weren't following his plans. He had spent a lot of
Time outlining a plan for practice, and they were kind of
off on their own. They were basically doing their own thing, weren't listening to him. Some of the girls were not attending practice, and he was very upset about the commitment.
Q. What, to your understanding, was the role of the faculty member in relationship -- this was not a competitive team; is that correct?
A. Correct.
Q. What was the role of the faculty member assigned to this activity?
A. My understanding is that the faculty role was to make sure that the girls are organized, they understand the time line, they have the permission forms in, and that they're there as a faculty rep for safety. So make surethe kids are safe when they practice.
Q. Is the faculty rep supposed to be the coach?
A. No. The understanding was, no, that the coaches were boys. So freshman boys would coach freshman girls, senior boys would coach senior girls.
Q. Okay. Did you have other information about what had happened? Did Mr. Bellairs acknowledge the fact that he had used inappropriate language?
A. I asked him. He said no, he had not.
Q. Gail testified that she had talked to one student and had gotten a phone call from one parent. Did
you have any independent contact with either students or parents about this episode, besides what you got from Gail?
A. I talked to Monica Gorman, who is the activities director. She had some of the senior girls in class, in the activities class -- in student government class. She said that there were some rumblings that they were upset about some things. I did talk to two students in the afternoon on Wednesday, October 8th or 9th. I can't remember the exact day, but I talked to two students.
Q. What did those students tell you about what had gone on?
A. That Mr. Bellairs had gotten angry at them. That they really wanted to have a good experience. They wanted it to work. They weren't -- you know, they didn't want to have any kind of conflict. They wanted to make this work and have fun. And they felt like it was
becoming much more serious than they ever intended it.
Q. Then if you take a look at Exhibit No. 17, didyou get this message back from Mr. Bellairs after your conversation with him about the weekend episode?
A. Yes. Yes. I had talked with students, and on Wednesday -- and, you know, we finished our conversation before school was out, so it was about 2:15 on Wednesday, the 8th of October.
Q. Okay. Now, this e-mail says at the end of the first paragraph, "I will post the list today so you can handle all the complaints about my fictitious outbursts." He is still maintaining that his outbursts were
fictitious, that that was something that the girls were inaccurately or dishonestly portraying to you?
A. Yes.
Q. The next paragraph says, "I realize this will create for you some issues, but I know that you will do what's right and not cave in to self-interested parents who believe the system should serve a few kids well and give the vast majority what is left." What's that
A. There were some students that were seniors that Don felt -- some of the same kids at Meadow Park – that were after him and their parents were after him. So he felt like it was the same parents that were constantly trying to sabotage him and get him in trouble.
Q. He told you that?
A. Yes.
Q. Did you then have a conversation with him about that same time about the e-mail? And I'm going to refer you to the conference summary that you wrote a few days later at D-18. There's a reference there in the first paragraph to the fact that you and Don met in your
Office at your request because of a concern you had about this
e-mail we just looked at, that there were other individuals involved. What was the reason why you decided that you needed to meet with Don Bellairs on October 9th?
A. The original e-mail from the issue with eSIS and the student -- which I guess was 16 -- when that came to me, I met with Don, and I -- we talked about the issue of: "What do you mean by the fairy's spreading dust?" And I explained to him once again that I was the one who had walked by and seen the girl. But in that meeting I clearly expressed to him how I did not want him to be speaking to me or
e-mailing me negative things about administrators that were currently in the building. I said, "These are people I work with." So I said, "We can talk about this kind of stuff, but it's not something that I feel good about." He would continue to say things to me in person about administrative decisions that had been made in the
past. On the 18th or -- on Thursday, October 9th, this kind of e-mail came through again. This time the e-mail had cc'd two teachers and the principal. So I met with him on Thursday, October 9th, to once again express my concern about the pattern of e-mail that are disrespectful
to staff members.
Q. In that meeting did you get any kind of concurrence from Don that he shouldn't be e-mailing and
copying to other people and using disrespectful language of that sort?
A. He remembered our conversation before. He knew that we had talked about it. He knew that I had clearly expressed my wishes. And he understood that it was only a couple weeks ago that this had happened. He knew all about my requests. But he said to me very clearly that this was the way he was going to do business. This was Don, and he was going to continue to do it this way.
Q. He told you that on October 9th?
A. Yes. Very clearly.
Q. Were you aware -- I think I asked you generally about the problems between Gail and Don. Were you aware of the series of angry outbursts that Don had had specifically directed at Gail in the prior year?
A. I was aware of them, yes.
Q. Did you have a concern about the kind of working relationship you were going to have with him?
A. Actually, our relationship was very good. I mean, we had never had that kind of an outburst. It was a concern of mine -- I can't say that I didn't think about it, but he -- I didn't have angry outbursts with Don. So it took me by surprise, because the September -- late September early October issues were pretty sudden and pretty unexpected. So I was aware of them, but I didn't have that kind of outbursts with Don.

A Tale of Two Teachers: What happens when one asks to be paid fairly and suggests that the other has too much influence?

Janet Hogue, then CEO of the BSD's fundraising organization, the BEF...

Janet Hogue, then CEO of the BSD's  fundraising organization, the BEF...
...representing herself as superintendent.

Oct 06 letter from new BSD HR director Sue Robertson

Oct 06 letter from new BSD HR director Sue Robertson
...blocking access to evidence that would demonstrate Beaverton administrative misconduct.

Response to Sue Robertson, BSD HR chief, concerning false allegations to conceal misconduct

Response to Sue Robertson, BSD HR chief, concerning false allegations to conceal misconduct

Letter from Jennifer Hungerford, former Beaverton atty referencing BSD money manager Dan Thomas

Letter from Jennifer Hungerford, former Beaverton atty referencing BSD money manager Dan Thomas

Hollis Lekas, former Beaverton HR admin., June 2004 "complaint" to TSPC...

Hollis Lekas, former Beaverton HR admin., June 2004 "complaint" to TSPC...
...after waiting on FDAB results.

Justice delayed...

Justice delayed...

...is justice denied, Tom Doyle-style

...is justice denied, Tom Doyle-style

Former TSPC investigator Nisbet working unethically with Tom Doyle, OEA atty

Former TSPC investigator Nisbet working unethically with Tom Doyle, OEA atty
Her actions were designed to affect the outcome of a federal lawsuit. She lost her job consequently (Like me, she was small enough to fail). The improper use of TSPC "stipulations" and "pass-the-trash" deals effectively lets lawyers and bureaucrats in Oregon education play "God" with student welfare and teacher careers...

TSPC director Vickie Chamberlain trying to work a "deal" with Doyle

TSPC director Vickie Chamberlain trying to work a "deal" with Doyle
Signing stipulations to protect BSD administrators who violated employment and civil rights laws

OEA Legal Conceals Fraud

OEA Legal Conceals Fraud
Mark Toledo tries to cover up for Tom Doyle

Former OEA President Larry Wolf denial of illegal civil suit filed by OEA atty Tom Doyle

Former OEA President Larry Wolf denial of illegal civil suit filed by OEA atty Tom Doyle
Wolf abdicates leadership of union's membership to OEA "Advocacy"