From: Don Bellairs
To: Camellia Osterink
Cc: firstname.lastname@example.org; Sen Bonamici
11 Files View Slideshow Download All
3. What is the Responsibility of the Superintendent.doc (20KB); 2002 article about nancy Hungerford and Special Ed.doc (23KB); 03 Feb Westview Facilities Use doc signed by J Hogue s suptbck up.jpg (623KB); p 3 Dennis deposition about Borquist and resignation.JPG (361KB); 04 July 28 Dennis ltr Leslie's Systems Audit.jpg (1409KB); 04 Nov 12 Beaverton will replace Westview principal.doc (27KB); Nov 14 05 letter to Husted p3.jpg (585KB); Meeting w Toledo to request new lawyer Oct 19 06.jpg (880KB); Nov 14 05 letter to Husted p1.jpg (873KB); Nov 14 05 letter to Husted p2.jpg (1094KB); 05 Mar 7 ltr from V. Chamberlain Notice of Opp for Hearing.jpg (718KB)
To the BSD lawyer
The colleges whose athletic teams cheated to win are giving back their trophies and titles. These occasions are examples of repentant leaders accepting accountability for the misconduct of representatives of an institution...baby steps in the forward progress of reform. They are actions that ethical leaders in government are embracing to regain public confidence.
What will Jerome Colonna do in the twilight of his career? Despite all the goodwill surrounding his work in the "shadow of the Swoosh," you and I both know he would no longer be superintendent if the Beaverton taxpayers had discovered how much his lawyers had been cheating (earning public education $) to cover up for some of his leadership decisions.
It is why you have your current job.
I worked very hard for the the community of Beaverton for seven years and some BSD representatives (with your protection) continue to deceive the public about my work record with the school district.
That is unacceptable. I would like my name cleared of the false, defamatory accusations Ms. Lekas sent to the state government. You should all be ashamed of yourselves--as long as you lie to the public who pays you, you are little more than bunco artists.*
Las vacas se olvidan que fueron ternevas.
BTW, how is the case with Amy Gordon going? Oh, that's right, you can't say...she's on administrative leave. The neighbors are paying her to be quiet while classrooms spill over.
Don Bellairs, teacher
Below is evidence of how an Office of Administrative Hearings judge and the state director of teacher licensing helped Mr. Colonna avoid accountability for violating the conditions of my employment contract in 2004. The contents of the message are still on Yahoo's server. Tom Doyle is, by creating conflicting interests in his roles as OEA attorney and as advocate for my free speech rights in federal court, demonstrably subverting the law and manipulating me on behalf of OEA leaders who, like Colonna, are avoiding responsibility for their lawyers' misconduct.
Date:Tue,31 Jan 2006 05:26:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject:Re: TSPC Case
Here is the memo I referred to on Friday. I was going to put it into a letter, but give your recent e-mail, I wanted to get it to you ASAP. I also received an e-mail from your brother asking me to "interface" with him regarding your case, so I am cc'ing him on this e-mail also. Per your instruction, I will not send out anything challenging the ALJ's decision until I receive a go ahead from you, although I will prepare it since if you decide to challenge the decision, I would like to do it ASAP after you make that decision.
I am writing pursuant to your request that I provide a more detailed explanation of the effect of the Administrative Law Judge’s recent ruling in your case. The TSPC had asked that the ALJ find that certain findings of fact from the FDAB decision be applied to the TSPC case. We countered that the FDAB decision could not preclude litigation of those issues for a number of reasons, including that it was an unreviewed decision. Unfortunately, the ALJ agreed with TSPC. This means that the judge will accept as true several allegations relating to alleged misconduct that we had hoped to contest at the TSPC hearing. At this point, we have several options to challenge this decision. Our choice as to which option to pursue is influenced by tactical considerations relating to the pending Court of Appeal’s case. Specifically, it may be of some value to move the TPSC case forward quickly to obtain a decision before the Court of Appeals issues a decision. This is true because one of our strongest arguments against preclusion is that FDAB decision is unreviewed at this time. However, a challenge to the ALJ’s decision will slow the time for having a hearing. Therefore, when reviewing these options we must consider the effect of the timing of these decisions. The balance of this letter is to review those options.
First, we can appeal this decision to the Chief Administrative Law Judge. The Chief ALJ can review the decisions of subordinate ALJ’s. I think in light of the fact that our current ALJ rendered a decision inconsistent with a Federal Judge on this same issue, that we have a chance of success going this route. It is likely, but not certain, that we will have to reset the currently set hearing if we are appeal this decision.
Second, from the Chief ALJ, we can appeal to the Commission. It is unlikely that the Commission itself will reverse the ALJ’s decision, so this route is unlikely to result in an change in the current posture of this case. Arguably though it is prerequisite to our third option, below.
Third, we may file what is called an interlocutory appeal to the Court of Appeal from the Chief ALJ’s or the Agency’s decision, if it is adverse to us. The court’s granting of such a petition is unlikely, but this is an important issue that may be of interest to some court of appeals judges.
Fourth, we can do nothing in terms of a direct appeal of the ALJ’s decision, and proceed with the TSPC hearing. We would then make our challenge to this decision part of any appeal on the merits, if the ALJ rules against us on the merits. The advantage to this position is that it moves the case forward potentially ahead of the Court of Appeals decision on the FDAB case, thus strengthening our case on any TSPC appeal. Of course, though, the Court could issue a decision this week affirming the FDAB decision, in which case, the strength of any challenge to a TSPC case will be weakened.
Ultimately, the question is as follows: do we challenge the decision now or do we include any such challenge in any appeal to an adverse TSPC decision? There are advantages and disadvantages to both directions. Would we prefer to know definitively the "lay of the land" on the TSPC hearing before the hearing? Certainly. However, there are tactical advantages to proceeding with the hearing and making the preclusion issue a cornerstone of any appeal. In any such appeal though, if the Court of Appeals affirms the FDAB in the meantime, then it is likely that the court will not find the preclusion finding by this ALJ to be reversible error. Given that fact, it makes the most sense to challenge this ALJ’s decision now through steps one through three above. At this point, an appeal the Chief ALJ has the highest likelihood of obtaining reversal of the ALJ’s decision. Appeal to the Agency and the Court would be the next steps. We are prepare to file such an appeal immediately if this is your wish.
Finally, we should talk about possible settlement. As you remember, over a year ago, the Commission was willing to settle this matter for a reprimand, probation, and an agreement to go through an alcohol evaluation and follow-up treatment. You rejected that offer. Again this past December, the Commission was willing to enter into the same agreement. However, you rejected that offer also. It is possible that Commission will be willing to enter into the same agreement now, although in December they said that that was your last time they would make an offer of that level of sanction. With your authority, we can broach the subject again, although we would have to be willing to sign off on the exact offer they gave us before. However, part of the reason you rejected that offer was that it would have a prejudicial effect on a related piece of litigation you have pending in Federal Court. At this time, entering into this stipulation would still have a negative consequences on the Federal lawsuit, which is scheduled for trial in March.
In sum, I know the ALJ’s decision is unfortunate. It is the first of its kind here in Oregon and must be challenged through some route. The question is, what method of challenging this decision is in your best interest as a tactical matter. There are a number of matters to take into consideration: the effect of the FDAB decision on the TSPC matter, the effect of the TSPC matter on your federal case, and the effect of Federal litigation on those administrative proceedings. I hope this memo provides a certain level of clarity on those considerations. In the end, my gut says to challenge the decision now.
From: Don Bellairs [mailto:email@example.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 9:07 PM
To: Tom Doyle
Subject: No further action
Do not act further on my behalf until we have had a chance to meet. Do not appeal actions or send documents that represent me.
I haven't forgotten about you, I'm just trying to be thorough in my e-mail/letter explaining the decision.
Should have something by Monday.
(*thieves who prey on vulnerable people ex: lawyers who made my mother suffer unnecessarily at her death to "silence" me... I look forward to meeting you personally some day--it will mean that someone is finally taking responsibility for his actions. Maybe, at such a gathering, the Hungerfords and Doyle and Toledo and all you well-compensated lawyers can impress us with the educational acumen you have acquired in your service to public schools.)
Julie Leahy, Todd Telle and Sam Vore in 1999 Westview High School TV Production class movie "Kentucky Killer"