Subject: R J. C
From: "Saved by Windows Internet Explorer 7"
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2008 17:26:25 -0800

This is the html
version of the file http://www.severance.com/mccmess/2007_08_08AttyLettertoSleeth.pdf.
G o o g l e
automatically generates html versions of documents as we crawl the
web.
To link to or bookmark this page, use the following url:
http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:X-ijATmiIW4J:www.severance.com/mccmess/2007_08_08AttyLettertoSleeth.pdf+jack+sleeth&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us

Google is neither affiliated with the
authors of this page nor responsible for its
content.

These
search terms have been highlighted:

jack

sleeth

Page 1

L

A
W

O

F F I C E
S

O
F

R

ONALD

J.
C

OZAD

M

C

C

LELL
AN

-P

ALOMA
R

A

IR
PORT

2006
P

ALOMAR

A

IRPO RT

R

OA
D

,
S

UIT
E

207

C

ARLSBA
D

, CA 92011

T

ELEPH
ONE

: (760)
431-8200

F

AX

: (760)
431-1244

E

MAIL

:

C O Z A D L
AW

@

SBC G L O
BAL

.

NE
T

August 8, 2007

Mr. Jack M. Sleeth Jr

STUTZ ARTIANO
SHINOFF & HOLTZ APC

401 W A St #1500

San Diego, CA
92101-7901

By Facsimile
Only: (619) 232-3264

Re: Leon J. Page
vs MiraCosta Community College District

Dear Mr. Sleeth:

Thank you for
calling me after yesterday’s board meeting. During our conversation, you

advised that the
Board voted to re-notice for a future closed session the matter of the
settlement with

Dr. Richart. You
cautioned that the Board does not acknowledge any Brown Act violation and
will

not voluntarily
concede that the approval of the Richart settlement agreement is null and
void. There

also appears to be
some concern that the “undoing” of the settlement agreement at this time would

lead to a breach
of contract lawsuit by Dr. Richart. Accordingly, the Board seems to be operating
on

the questionable
assumption that it may cure and correct the “alleged” Brown Act violations by

merely holding
another closed session to ratify the prior action.

Because the
questioned Settlement Agreement has already been executed, and because
the

District has
already provided Dr. Richart with substantial monetary sums pursuant to it,
simply re-

noticing the
matter as either a public or closed agenda item will not cure the underlying
Brown Act

violations and
will only serve to compound the Board's previous errors.

To truly cure
and correct, the Board must voluntarily or by court order start over from
its

original
negotiating position - before any violations of the Brown Act took place. In
other words,

either the Board
or a court must declare the Settlement Agreement null and void, and the District
and

Dr. Richart must
renegotiate in its entirety, the terms of Dr. Richart's separation from the
District.

Thus, if the
Board is unable or unwilling to make the necessary acknowledgments, we will
be

compelled to file
the lawsuit and seek the appropriate court order.

In our view, a
nullification order, will not only correct the error, but will also render
the

Settlement
Agreement unenforceable and un-usable in any breach of contract action Dr.
Richart may

consider
bringing. Thus, after careful consideration, we anticipate thoughtful Board
members will

support and
advocate for the nullification order Mr. Page will seek.

Page 2

Jack M. Sleeth Jr

Stutz Artiano
Shinoff & Holtz APC

Page - 2
-

_____________________________

In addition to
the three causes of action under the Brown Act, Mr. Page also alleges that the

June 20, 2007
Settlement Agreement constitutes an illegal expenditure and waste of public
funds.

Under the terms
of her July 18, 2006, Employment Agreement, Dr. Richart was only entitled to 18

month's salary
and health insurance in the event the Employment Agreement was terminated. Any

additional
consideration constitutes a gift of public funds, prohibited under the state
Constitution.

Your claim that
the $650,000 represents "damages" is simply not supported by the evidence.

The District took
no adverse action against Dr. Richart. Public comments by a minority of the
Board

do not constitute
"state action" sufficient to trigger liability under 42 USC Section 1983 because
of a

purported
violation of Dr. Richart's liberty interest. Moreover, two of the District's
Trustees have

already testified
at deposition that they have no idea what “damages” were even being claimed or

why Dr. Richart
was given the $650,000.

Other aspects of
the Settlement Agreement are equally unsupportable. For example, the

Board awarded Dr.
Richart a blanket guarantee of indemnification without first making the required

findings under
Government Code Section 825. Also, the Settlement Agreement simply gives
Dr.

Richart $3,150
each month for “expenses” even though she is no longer acting as

President/Superintendent
and is no longer in a position to incur any expenses conducting District

business.

Although Mr.
Page will be filing his petition today, we look forward to working with you

toward achieving
a workable resolution consistent with policies of open and transparent
governance

of this important
institution.

Sincerely,

Ronald J. Cozad

cc: L. Page