| Hamilton later testified under oath that she had called Richard Werlin at his invitation to discuss a planned meeting. |
| Richard Werlin, with the approval of the cabinet (including Libia Gil and Lowell Billings), had triggered an all-out hysteria at my school. Two staff members told me that many teachers were afraid that I was "going to come to school and shoot everybody.” |
| The district took no action on its threats, however, until I filed a lawsuit on March 12, 2002. On May 7, 2002 Patrick Judd, Cheryl Cox, Pamela Smith, Bertha Lopez and Larry Cunningham voted to dismiss me, thus violating California Labor Code section 1102.5 which prohibits retaliation against employees for reporting wrongdoing. This was also a violation of the constitutional right to petition for redress of grievances. |
| 9. AN IMPENDING ELECTION CAUSED THE TEACHERS UNION TO ABANDON ITS OBLIGATIONS I did not know it at the time, but the teachers union, Chula Vista Educators, was working with my accusers. CVE President Gina Boyd had worked at my school until 1995, and although she did not share the motivations of her friends at Castle Park Elementary, she had her own motivations. She was running for reelection and felt she needed to keep powerful teachers happy in order to win. This effort was supported by California Teachers Association Board of Directors member Jim Groth and executive director Tim O'Neill. |
| 13. THE OAH SEEMS TO HAVE A GIFT FOR COMEDY My dismissal was upheld by the Office of Administrative Hearings. Judge H. James Ahler conducted a hearing that was almost as comical as it was illegal. At one point Judge Ahler jumped up and ordered the panelists to join him in a side room, where he told them to disregard my testimony. I heard what he said because I was sitting on the witness stand a few feet from him. The court reporter and all the rest of us sat at attention during the ten minutes the panel was in the little room, but the judge's words were not included in the transcript because the reporter couldn't hear them. The school district spent many tax dollars, and the California Teachers Association spent plenty of teachers' dues, to get my lawsuit thrown out. Alteration of documents was required, as well as perjury by employees and even the Sheriff of Santa Barbara, but the effort seemed to pay off for the district and CTA when my lawsuit was dismissed in 2005. 14. DISTRICT LAWYERS BRING THE CASE BACK TO COURT IN 2007 As fate would have it, however, my case is back in court. Ray Artiano, the managing director of CVESD’s law firm, Stutz, Artiano, Shinoff & Holtz, decided to bring this case back to San Diego Superior Court in 2007 by filing a defamation suit against me for publishing this website. So it’s still possible that justice and sanity will find their way back to Chula Vista Elementary School District. |
| 8. BIZARRE NEW ALLEGATIONS A week after I returned, Linda Watson, one of the teachers who had called Richard Werlin on February 10, and a new accuser, Alan Smith, came forward with bizarre new allegations. |
| Saturday night phone calls from Castle Park Elementary to make anonymous and secret allegations. Feb. 10, 2001 |
| Mr. Werlin couldn't admit a mistake--a character flaw that proved very expensive to CVESD. April 4, 2001 letter |
| Teachers hiding behind the door, making secret accusations, when Larkins came back to work. One teacher testified that many people claimed to fear that Mrs. Larkins would come and shoot everyone. None of the hysterical teachers was given mental health care. April 20 grievance. April 16, 2001-- April 21, 2001 |
| Banned from the district on March 27 after Werlin took Larkins to a place with no witnesses. Then he asked her to return 8 days later. April 3, 2001 fax |
| Allegations of guns and violence at CVESD were never investigated. Mr. Werlin never put his March 27 story on the record until after Mrs. Larkins filed suit. March 24-March 27, 2001 |
| Writ of Mandate Contents and Overview of Events Feb. 12, 2001-- May 7, 2002 |
| Dishonesty or incompetence? Maura Larkins was asked back without investigation after each allegation; Did the district (1) know the allegations were false? or (2) put the lives of school personnel in danger? CTA's hoax grievance May-June 2001 |
| Maura Larkins was told she would not be allowed to teach in any classroom the following year. This turned out to be a trick. August 13, 2001 |
| Third-grade children suffered both emotionally and academically. Richard Werlin used police for intimidation at CVESD and WCCCUSD April 21, 2001 |
| Werlin began faxing Maura Larkins when her lawyer was out of town, demanding that she come in and meet with him alone. September 2001 |
| Libia Gil denied Maura Larkins the full evidentiary hearing to which she was entitled by the contract when suspended without pay. (See response to Gil.) CTA and CVE protected guilty teachers, refusing to support Larkins' stop pay grievance. Attorney Dan Shinoff took over the case on Oct. 4, 2001 when Larkins filed a tort claim. Sept. 26, 2001-October 5, 2001 |
| Illegal retaliation for filing grievances: threatened with dismissal and health benefits cut off to punish Larkins for filing 3 grievances. November 2001 |
| THE COMMISSION DID NOT PROCEED IN THE MANNER REQUIRED BY LAW. The findings of thePCC commission at the OAH do not merely ignore undisputed evidence, they boldly state it doesn’t exist. Jan. 6-Feb. 11, 2003 |
| More illegal retaliation: The District, through the OAH judge, boldly violated Labor Code section 1102.5 in Feb. 2003, openly stating that Maura Larkins was being dismissed for filing grievances and a lawsuit. The real reason the district voted to dismiss in May 2002 was to cover up criminal violations of Labor Code 432.7. May 7, 2002-Feb. 11, 2003 |
| Judge Ahler declared that documents accepted into evidence and recorded in his own handwriting never existed! The Office of Administrative Hearings Head Judge Ron Diedrich supports the decision! Jan. 6-Feb. 11, 2003 |
| "Unwanted acts" The work environment was too hostile for Mrs. Larkins to dare set foot in the district. Werlin had total personal, arbitrary control over Mrs. Larkins, including the ability to make absolutely any allegation about her and act on it, with NO OVERSIGHT by THE Superintendent or protection from the teachers union. March 27, 2001-- May 7, 2002 |
| Judge James Ahler, Vice-principal Terry Olson, and teacher Barbara Abeyta brazenly flew in the face of fact and reason to claim that the harassment suffered by Maura Larkins did not prevent her from meeting her teaching responsibilities. She was repeatedly sent home, for heaven's sake! Then she encountered a more and more hostile environment each time she went back to work. |
| Maura Larkins' grievances (AGAINST MR. WERLIN) were summarily denied by (guess who?)-- Mr. Werlin. June 2001-January 2002 |
| (INCLUDES DOCUMENTS) |
| The commission's legal conclusions contradict each other. The conclusion that Mrs. Larkins was “unforgiving” implies a finding that there was something to forgive, yet the commission found that there was no hostile environment and no violation of contract. Maura Larkins filed suit in order to get her job back, not because she was "unforgiving." Jan.-Feb. 2003 |
| Judge Ahler described the panel's deliberation process: “… You know, who’s right or wrong and cunning and lying at the swimming pool, I don’t think that’s going to require more than a couple of minutes of discussion.” |
| Judge Ahler is not the problem. When he leaves, those in power will likely find someone who is even more prone to rubber stamping any action, no matter how illegal, by a public entity. |
| District lawyers turned case law on its head by comparing Mrs. Larkins to the profoundly confused Ms. Matthews...who decided “it was too cold and nasty and foggy up here” in Richmond, so she had “gone south to get warm.” |
| Letters from James Ahler indicate that two panelists signed the decision without discussing it and without reading it. |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| The Judge left off these very significant words: "Except as otherwise provided in this Agreement OR BY LAW.” |
| THE COMMISSION VIOLATED THE RULES OF EVIDENCE (END) |
| The OAH violated Maura Larkins’ right to defend herself. |
| Were these group decisions, as Richard Werlin claims, or did he simply do as he pleased, without any oversight? |
| Regarding illegality of OAH decision |
| THE LETTER TO CHERYL COX |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| None of the teachers listed at right appeared at Larkins' OAH hearing. Most likely this occurred because those teachers who had been deposed had contradicted themselves and Richard Werlin. Maura Larkins' own attorney Elizabeth Schulman refused to point out to the Professional Competence Commission that the district's witnesses contradicted themselves and each other. Instead, she and Mark Bresee agreed to have notes written by these people accepted into evidence as if the writers had been sworn in. Legal Question #1: Are these teachers therefore guilty of perjury? Legal Question #2: Did the lawyers violate the law? |
| CVESD Attorneys Mark Bresee Dan Shinoff |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| |
 |
| Serious problems in school culture were causing children to fail at Castle Park Elementary |
| My case was the result of an odd confluence of circumstances, and at the same time it was a typical event in the system that prevails at many schools across the United States. This system values politics and personal loyalty among adults over the duty to educate and protect children. Teacher culture is surprisingly similar to high school girl culture. Adults in the school hierarchy value each other above taxpayers and students. Administrators, of course, are usually former teachers, and masters of school politics. |
| Related information |
| a script for a cable comedy series, but this bizarre story is the result of typical advice to school districts by school attorneys. Chula Vista Elementary School District was represented in this matter by attorneys Mark Bresee and Daniel Shinoff |
| Maura Larkins' Petition for Writ regarding OAH hearing January 6-10, 2003 |
| Maura Larkins OAH Hearing |
| 1. AT Chula Vista Elementary School District FOR 27 YEARS WHEN THE HYSTERIA BEGAN. It started with a family problem: I was co-administrator of my father's estate, and one of my brothers was secretly unhappy about it. Also, his ex-wife wanted to be manager of my father's apartments. The two of them decided to use the police to remove me from my position. |
| CASE SUMMARY: What Happened at Castle Park Elementary by Maura Larkins |
| 2. MY TROUBLED WAS TAKEN SERIOUSLY BY THE DISTRICT |
| I was removed from my classroom on February 12, 2001 due to a false police report (see "A False Police Report" on this page) made by my mentally-ill and substance-abusing ex-sister-in-law. However, the district didn't want to admit this, since using the illegally-obtained police report (no charges were filed against me) was a misdemeanor. |
| 3. THE DISTRICT DECIDED TO COVER-UP ITS MISTAKE There is no chance that the district would have been charged with a crime for its silly little misdemeanor (Labor Code section 432.7), but the district decided it would rather spend $100,000s of tax dollars to pay its lawyers to cover up the mistake than to simply admit it made a mistake. 4. THE DISTRICT CAME UP WITH A STORY The reason given by the district for my removal was that two teachers had called assistant superintendent Richard Werlin at home on a Saturday evening and said they believed I might kill them. Oddly, the district created NO DOCUMENT at this time to explain the reason I was removed from my classroom, nor did it investigate the alarming report. |
7. I WENT BACK TO WORK I went back to teach in April 2001 because it seemed clear that my accusers had been deemed unreliable (either crazy or dishonest or some combination of the two), and I assumed that the fabricated excuse in Richard Werlin's document , was merely an effort by an embarrassed human resources director to cover up his mistake. But I was wrong. It was more than a cover-up; it was, in fact, a set-up. |
| 10. CVESD DID NOT BOTHER TO INVESTIGATE THE MASS MURDER RUMOR THAT CAUSES HYSTERIA AMONG TEACHERS Without making any effort to establish that a Columbine-type event was not in the offing, the district demanded that I come back to work in September of 2001. This time I refused. My lawyer demanded an investigation to clear my name and cool down the crucible that Castle Park Elementary had become, but the district refused. It was clear that anyone could make any accusation against me, and it would be believed and acted on: I was not safe at work. 11. SCHOOL ATTORNEY MARK BRESEE GETS HELP FROM DANIEL SHINOFF Attorney Mark Bresee, who was then working with Parham & Rajcic and was recently chosen as chief counsel for Terry Grier at SDUSD, had been giving legal advice to CVESD up to this point. When I filed a tort claim on October 4, 2001, attorney Diane Crosier and claims adjuster Rodger Hartnett of San Diego County Office of Education Joint Powers Authority, along with their favorite attorney, Daniel Shinoff of Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, became involved. |
| 5. THE DISTRICT CHANGED ITS STORY Within a month, the district changed its story, saying that only one teacher, Jo Ellen Hamilton, had called Richard Werlin about me. |
| 12. THE DISTRICT ILLEGALLY RETALIATED WHEN I FILE GRIEVANCES I filed 3 grievances In early November 2001. The day after receiving them, the district threatened me with dismissal. This was a violation of the Elementary Education Relations Act (EERA) and other laws. |
| 6. THE FAX THAT CAUSED CVESD TO DO AN ABRUPT ABOUT-FACE On April 3, 2001 I sent a fax to the district. The next day I was abruptly asked to return to work, and at the same time the district belatedly prepared a document to explain why I had been removed from my classroom in the first place. The document contained a new, completely false accusation by Richard Werlin and never mentioned the teacher reports. |
| Hamilton later testified under oath that she had called Richard Werlin at his invitation to discuss a planned meeting. |
| 3. TO COVER-UP ITS MISTAKE There is no chance that the district would have been charged with a crime for its silly little misdemeanor (Labor Code section 432.7), but the district decided it would rather spend $100,000s of tax dollars to pay its lawyers to cover up the mistake than to simply admit it made a mistake. 4. THE DISTRICT CAME UP WITH A STORY The reason given by the district for my removal was that two teachers had called assistant superintendent Richard Werlin at home on a Saturday evening and said they believed I might kill them. Oddly, the district created NO DOCUMENT at this time to explain the reason I was removed from my classroom, nor did it investigate the alarming report. |
| 5. THE DISTRICT CHANGED ITS STORY Within a month, the district changed its story, saying that only one teacher, Jo Ellen Hamilton, had called Richard Werlin about me. |
| The problem of destructive politics in schools |
| by Maura Larkins |
Page 19 Page 20 Page 21 Page 22 Page 23
| Larkins finally refused to go back until allegations against her were investigated and retracted. No investigation was ever done by the district. The district and teachers union tried to intimidate their victim into staying home and staying silent. Feb. 12, 2001-Sept. 2001 |
| Chula Vista Elementary School District WANTED Maura Larkins to stay away from the district during the 2001-2002 school year. Maura Larkins was not "persistent in the face of opposition." Sept. 01-May 02 |
| CVESD administrator Richard Werlin, with the help of attorneys Mark Bresee and Daniel Shinoff, made a big mess at Castle Park Elementary School. |
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |