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

"First of its kind here in Oregon": Tom Doyle, OEA attorney, files 2004 conflict-of-interest federal lawsuit; manipulates OEA member for years without accountability


 
FIRED TEACHER SUES, CITES RETALIATION
Oregonian, The (Portland, OR)
June 9, 2004
Author: DAVID R. ANDERSON - The Oregonian
Estimated printed pages: 2
Summary: Donald Bellairs, who says he was dismissed for raising concerns, seeks $1 million from the Beaverton district
A former Westview High School teacher has filed a federal lawsuit against the Beaverton School District, claiming he was fired because he raised concerns about district practices, including finances and favoritism.
Donald Bellairs claims the district violated his First Amendment rights, defamed him and interfered with his ability to get a home mortgage. He is seeking at least $1 million for severe emotional and physical injury, plus lost wages, punitive damages and attorney fees.
Bellairs also has a three-day hearing scheduled next week before the Oregon Fair Dismissal Appeals Board, which reviews appeals of teacher firings.
"That's the goal, to get his job back," said Thomas Doyle, Bellairs' attorney.
It's the first time in at least 10 years that the district has had a fired teacher take a case to the appeals board, said Linda Borquist, an associate superintendent for human resources.
"Normally we're able to resolve disputes at the lowest level," she said. "Obviously, this one is not."
Doyle said the district retaliated against Bellairs for comments his client made at a meeting that Superintendent Jerry Colonna had with teachers Jan. 14 at Westview. Three weeks later, the district gave Bellairs a notice of dismissal and fired him Feb. 24, Doyle said.
The complaint, filed Monday in U.S. District Court in Portland, says, "Specifically, plaintiff criticized the administration of the district for questionable public financial practices, improper education practices and inappropriate awarding of public benefits to students based upon parental financial contributions."
Doyle would not go into more detail, except to say that Bellairs' concerns did not include accusations of illegal activity. It was more related to favoritism, Doyle said.
Bellairs claims he was denied a mortgage because of his firing.
The lawsuit also names Colonna and School Board Chairman Craig Irwin as defendants.
District officials don't comment on pending litigation and couldn't say why Bellairs was fired because of the upcoming hearing, Borquist said.
Bellairs started with the district in 1997 at Meadow Park Middle School. He moved to Westview High in 1999, where he taught video production and media, Borquist said.
David R. Anderson: 503-294-5199; davidanderson@news.oregonian.com

Tom Doyle, OEA attorney, has a smug look because he practices law without oversight...


Tom Doyle's assesment of case to my brother Brian...three years later...








Appeal
From: Tom Doyle
Friday, June 2, 2006 3:27:56 PM
To: bellairsd@yahoo.com

Don
We have received the Court of Appeals decision and they rejected our appeal. They apparently did not have a problem with FDAB's faulty reasoning.

We will send you a copy via regular mail.

In any case, this appeal should be withdrawn, per the settlement agreement, so I do not plan on taking any further action on this matter except to report that it is settled and request vacature.
Tom



Print - Close Window
Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2005 15:36:03 -0700 (PDT)
From: "Don Bellairs"
Subject: FDAB appeal time frame--Don Bellairs
To: "Tom Doyle"

Tom,
Perhaps I am wrong, but the document I received in the mail 6/24 seems like the fifth request for an extention on my FDAB appeal. It has been a year since that hearing. As you know, I feel a review of the hearing will result in my reemployment. These delays have a financial impact on my family.
Please advise if you would like for me to request the OEA to provide you with assistance to help me resolve this matter in a manner that is fair to me.
Don


Print - Close Window
From: "Brandy Cochrane"
To: "'Don Bellairs'"
CC: "'Tom Doyle'"
Subject: RE: availability info and request
Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2005 13:28:21 -0700

Tom –
Mr. Bellairs -

FDAB Appeal replies can take anywhere from six months to a year to come to decision. We will certainly keep in touch and let you know as soon as we are able when it comes in. Thank you.

Brandy Cochrane
Bennett, Hartman, Morris & Kaplan, LLP
(503) 227-4600\
(503) 248-6800 fax

-----Original Message-----

From: Don Bellairs [mailto:bellairsd@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 23, 2005 11:27 AM
To: Brandy Cochrane
Subject: availability info and request

Brandy,
Please inform Tom that I will be unavailable for meetings or hearings from June 27th through the fourth of July.

Also, can you email me the results of my FDAB appeal as soon as those are available?
Thank you,
Don Bellairs

Wed, 15 Mar 2006 10:54:03 -0800 (PST)
"Don Bellairs" View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: tanya unavailable

Tom,
Tanya is unavailable for my trial. She has already been unnecessarily humiliated by this experience.
Please suggest an alternative.
Don

Subject: RE: update tspc
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 09:46:23 -0700
From: "Tom Doyle"
To: "Don Bellairs"

Don:
TSPC is willing to settle under the same stipulation they offered before - reprimand etc. I can resend the original.
Tom
From: Don Bellairs [mailto:bellairsd@yahoo.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:36 AM
To: Tom Doyle
Subject: update tspc

send me info regarding tspc. did not get a chance to read your last email.
don

Print - Close Window
From: "Tom Doyle"
To: "Donald Bellairs"
Subject: Reset
Date: Fri, 6 Jan 2006 14:02:51 -0800

Don:
The Judge called (15 minutes ago) and ordered the hearing reset to February 14, 15, and 16. She wanted to do this to evaluate the legal motion filed by the State.
Tom

Lawyers Working Hard for Hard Working People
Thomas Doyle
Attorney Bennett Hartman Morris and Kaplan
111 SW 5th Avenue
Suite 1650
Portland, Oregon 97204
doylet@bennetthartman.com
mobile: 503-227-4600
503-248-6800
503-740-6504

"First of its kind here in Oregon..."
Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 05:26:13 -0800 (PST)
From: "Don Bellairs"
Subject: Re: TSPC Case
To: "Tom Doyle" doylet@bennetthartman.com

Take no action on my behalf.
Tom Doyle wrote:

Don:
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 decisionm

Dear Don:

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.

-----Original Message-----
From: Don Bellairs [mailto:bellairsd@yahoo.com]
Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 9:07 PM
To: Tom Doyle
Subject: No further action
Mr. Doyle,
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.
Don Bellairs

Tom Doyle wrote:

Don:
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.
Tom




Tom Husted (Beaverton Education Association uniserve and Beaverton Education Foundation board member, when given  evidence that Doyle was manipulating a dues-paying member of the OEA): "Tom Doyle is a fine attorney."

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"