The Los Angeles Unified School District closed down two charter schools that are part of the Celerity charter chain, because of financial abuses and mismanagement. The charters appealed to the charter-friendly State Board of Education, which rejected their appeal.
With amazing speed, the two charters changed their names and will reopen in the same buildings with the same principals and most of the same students and staff.
Celerity is the chain whose leader used School credit cards for designer clothes, shoes, expensive meals, and a limousine, while re eiving a salary of nearly half a million dollars a year.
This is what is known as “accountability” in California, where the California Charter Schools Association buys politicians and blocks any effort to hold charters accountable.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
criminal activity on the part of the schools and the agency that let them do this. Prosecute both .
I thought that, since the State will obviously not do anything to provide protection or oversight, families were supposed to “vote with their feet” to regulate this Wild West of venture capitalism and LEAVE THE SCHOOL when it becomes apparent that their children are spending time with adults who are the subjects of criminal investigations. Or don’t they have a choice!
“In 2013, she earned $471,842, about 35% more than Michelle King, the superintendent of the Los Angeles Unified School District, makes today.”
Where do charters get the pay scale from? The principal just makes a demand and they meet it?
It still amazes that anyone can just invent a publicly-paid position and then set pay. Every dime of her salary is public money. Who decided it should be 471,842 dollars? Her?
You are correct. What recourse do taxpayers have when public funds are disposed of at the whim of charter players? Public schools have to post line item budgets for public review. Salaries are negotiated and set in accordance with surrounding districts. Time for the public to examine recourse action.
This is actually worse than Ohio. In Ohio they have to find another sponsor before they change the name and re-open. There is LESS regulation in California.
“Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.” The Who
This is a classic sleight of hand move. How can anyone say charters and vouchers help children when they are guilty of chronic fraud and theft? It is time for a taxpayers’ revolt.
Poor families have less time to research schools. Middle class families have more time to research and find this out.
Charters pay whatever they want. They’re blissfully free of burdensome bureaucratic regulations (and accountability). Also, Celerity was gushed over by politicians and the mainstream media (the Los Angeles Times is mega-guilty) in the past.
The California Charter Schools Association has been very canny. In the early years, they truly would defend any charter, no matter how egregious its problems. In San Francisco in the mid ’00s, there was a non-chain charter high school that had these problems: Two students died on an unsupervised school wilderness outing. The school was openly cheating on graduation requirements, “graduating” students with far fewer than the required credits/courses. The school was in financial shambles, bouncing teachers’ paychecks. Its test scores were rock-bottom. When the San Francisco school board moved to close the school, the school fought back hard, including hiring a super-high-priced damage-control PR firm — with the CCSA’s support and funding. (This was in the days when left/progressives thought charters were ultra-groovy because whoopee no rules, so SF’s large and high-profile left faction fought to keep the charter open too — this was complicated and really ugly. It did eventually close.)
Anyway, it’s clear that the CCSA kind of realized that defending charters in such cases wasn’t going to work long-term, even though only volunteer bloggers were publicizing the situation. Sooner or later the public, political leaders and the MSM were going to get a clue. So CCSA started picking a few smaller, powerless charters — I think maybe 10 in the entire state — and making a big loud show of pointing out those schools’ failings and calling for them to be closed: “See, we DO want to hold charters accountable.”
Recently, CCSA and its folk have been making noise about opposing for-profit charters (which they used to adore). That’s a sham, since charters that are technically, legally nonprofit (such as Celerity) can be every big as predatory and all are every bit as harmful as for-profit charters. The distinction is really just some legal technicalities.
Anyway, that’s just an update on charter schools’ so-called accountability in California.
A while back, I posted a link to the November 2016 State Board of Ed. meeting where these two schools — the new ones Celerity Himalia and Celerity Rojas — were conditionally approved. I also provided an analysis and transcripts of relevant excerpts.
Representatives of both the LAUSD BOE and L.A. County BOE went into detail about how utterly corrupt the Celerity operation was and is. The Celerity reps — CEO Canada and their lawyer — responded to this with incomprehensible double-talk and question ducking. At one point, state BOE member Patricia Rucker got into one back-and-forth with the Celerity officials and lawyers that defies description.
The compromise was that the State BOE would CONDITIONALLY allow the new Celerity schools to open was that, in the future, Celerity would provide the transparency and cooperation to the State BOE that earlier, Celerity had indignantly refused to provide to either the LAUSD and L.A. County BOE’s, claiming — in letters that were projected on the wall at the meeting — that those latter two entities had no legal right to any such transparency or cooperation from Celerity.
The newly promised transparency and cooperation included immediate answers to any questions that the State BOE had about, and universal access to the Celerity organization’s operations and finances.
However, since November, Celerity somewhat predictably and totally reneged on that promise, and continued doing to the State BOE what they had earlier done to the LAUSD and L.A. County BOE’s, — i.e. give ZERO cooperation, duck all questions, and engage in a total refusal to provide the cooperation, access and transparency that they then later promised to provide the State BOE in the November State BOE meeting.
That’s what led up to the State BOE meeting in May where the two Celerity renewals were denied. You promised this in November and you failed to deliver, so we’re not allowing the renewals.
However, the state BOE did not follow through with the next logical step, which would be to rescind the approvals for the two new schools they had made in November. After all, those were CONDITIONAL approvals — the “condition” being transparency and cooperation in providing answers to questions about Celerity’s operations — and since November and until this day, Celerity officials have UTTERLY FAILED IN FULFILLING THAT REQUIRED CONDITION.
I am not in California, but here is one source of the problems. Legislation that allows fraud, waste, and abuse to happen. http://www.cde.ca.gov/sp/cs/lr/
No sh#%!
and so many, many, many citizens who simply do not vote in school board elections
If you want a deep dive into the Celerity debacle, you can watch this highly entertaining video of this California State Board of Education hearing from last Novermber 3rd, which resulted in the the State BOE reversing LAUSD (local level) and LACOE’s (county level) denials of the opening of two new Celerity charter schools in South Los Angeles: (with captions for the deaf & hard-of-hearing)
Watching LAUSD’s Robert Perry tear into Celerity (BELOW) is a real treat … something out of a John Grisham movie’s courtroom scene.
First up is Cindy Chan, Director of Charter Schools for the State Board of Ed (California Department of Education — CDE)
( 2:07:07 – )
( 2:07:07 – )
Chan argues that the State BOE’s / CDE’s impending approvals of the two new Celerity Charter Schools — i.e. reversals of the two prior denials by LAUSD and L.A. County BOE (LACOE) — do, in fact, take into consideration and impose conditions addressing the reasons given for the prior denials, reasons related to Celerity’s convoluted governance structure, with multiple non-profit organizations in charge of Celerity’s governance and finances.
To address all that, Chan states that the State BOE (CDE) demands that Celerity, to earn the approval/reversal of earlier denials regarding two new Celerity schools, must adhere to two prior conditions, as well as eleven technical revisions that the state will impose on the appeal:
1) Celerity Educational Group and Celerity Global must:
— a) respond in a timely fashion to any inquiries into both groups operations (gives a comprehensive list of what “comprehensive” means) and
— b) fully cooperate in any investigation of its operations and finances;
and
2) the two new Celerity schools (Himalia & Rojas) must adhere to the terms and conditions of the State BOE’s rules for operating a charter school.
Chan then goes into more detail about this. She’s totally aware of the problems with the current questionable and allegedly illegal practices of the current Celerity entities operating in Los Angeles and Compton — ones that prompted a federal raid and prosecutions — and describes them in detail, but then, it gets weird …
… instead of denying the new Celerity charters getting approved* — the simpler and more appropriate course of action — Chan offers a torturous explanation of how the State BOE can make it all work.
Next, a female Celerity representative, wearing a Muslim hijab head scarf (nothing wrong with that, btw, just helping out anyone skimming through the video), immediately gets up and plays a slick promo video about “A Day in the Life of a Celerity Scholar.”
( 2:17:27 – )
( 2:17:27 – )
Ohhhh-kay. That was nice.
She then sells the schools as the greatest thing since sliced bread, but doesn’t really address the concerns or conditions that Ms. Chan addressed earlier.
Celerity CEO Grace Canada then gets up, and tries to make Celerity’s case. (This gets complicated — intentionally so, on the part of Celerity, btw — but bear with me.)
( 2:25:08 – )
( 2:25:08 – )
In the process, Canada makes a bizarre and totally contradictory claim:
… one entity, the newly-created Celerity Global — totally under the control of Celerity’s founder Vielka MdFarlane , who’s also the recently departed CEO of Celerity CEG — has the power to appoint and remove any and all Board members of Celerity CEG (the group that McFarlane recently stepped down as its CEO),
… but at the same time …
… Celerity CEG simultaneously promises that, in the future, that Celerity Global will not interfere with any decisions made by the Celerity CEG board members, or exercise any control over those same Board Members, or any control over the schools themselves — even though those decisions made by Celerity CEG include multi-million-dollar contracts to Celerity Global — which is run by one person, Celerity’s Vielka McFarlane, who recently stepped down as the Celerity CEG’s CEO in favor of Grace Canada, creating a situation where McFarlane can personally profit from those contracts.
So what the-hell is going on here?
It’s basically a scam by which McFarlane can provide the false appearance — or rather, the legal fiction — that she has stepped down as CEO’s top boss, when she has done nothing of the kind. In a nefarious maneuver, McFarlane has merely created a new entity, totally controlled by her — Celerity Global — that controls the former entity that she formerly controlled while serving as that entity’s CEO— Celerity CEG. McFarlane’s still the top boss in the Celerity universe, only it’s worse: Canada claims that Celerity CEG, the entity of which she has just been appointed as its CEO, “cannot bind”or control or influence Celerity Global in any way. Neither of course, can any of the respective Boards of Ed — LAUSD, LA. County, and the State BOE.
Incredibly, the State BOE/CDE Board has bought — and until last month, when they denied the renewal of two pre-existing Celerity schools — continued to buy into this patent nonsense.
There are also other Celerity entities controlling real estate used by its schools, and another providing other services.
Next, Robert Perry, an officer from LAUSD’s charter school division, gets up to argue against approving the opening of two Celerity schools — i.e. in favor upholding LAUSD’s and LACOE’s denials.
In his southern drawl and gentlemanly manner, Perry blasts away at Celerity … and proceeds not to leave any meat on the Celerity carcass, so to speak: (what follows is riveting stuff, reminiscent of a John Grisham movie)
( 2:28:58 – )
( 2:28:58 – )
ROBERT PERRY:
“We come here today, representing LAUSD, to bring you from the (LAUSD) Board facts for your consideration, relating to the two Celerity items on the agenda. Our main concerns are around the consistent lack of transparency, which has impinged upon the (LAUSD) District’s ability to fully institute its statutory charge, to oversee charter schools which it authorizes.
“This lack of transparency is evident in two over-arching areas: fiscal management and governance.
“The Petitioner (Celerity CEG) operates under the name of ‘Celerity Education Group,’ and although it is the non-profit education group legally responsible for operating its own charter schools, there are OTHER SEPARATE but AFFILIATED legal entities that participate in the operation of the same (Celerity CEG) charter schools.
“For example, Celerity Global Development provides day-to-day management and administrative support to Petitioner’s (Celerity CEG’s) charter schools, according to their affiliation agreement. That agreement specifically states that (Celerity) Global ‘does not comply with The Charter Schools Act (of 1992), nor The Public Records Act. ‘
“This is concerning, since the (LAUSD) Charter Schools Division has identified potential conflicts of interest (on the part of Celerity CEG & Celerity Global officials, JACK) and the co-mingling of financial transactions between Celerity Education Group and (Celerity) Global and its other SEPARATE but AFFILIATED legal entities, including a one-time transfer of over $2 million from two separate accounts from Celerity Education Group to (Celerity) Global … to Global WITHOUT appropriate documentation.
“Through on-going oversight, LAUSD Charter Schools Division’s Fiscal Team has determined that the (Celerity CEG) organization has demonstrated that it has insufficient controls and policies to address potential misuse of public funds.
“When Petitioner’s (Celerity CEG’s) credit card statements were reviewed, (LAUSD) District staff identified purchases that were either redacted, or appeared to be inappropriately used for non-educational purposes.
“In response to (LAUSD) Staff’s concerns, Petitioner (Celerity CEG) stated that many of the questioned charges DID NOT BELONG to Celerity Education Group (Celerity CEG), and were incurred by one of their affiliated organizations (i.e. Celerity Global).
(This is what Harry Truman called “passing the buck.” JACK)
“The District has discovered that Petitioner loans funds between its current charter schools without appropriate documentation OR adequate explanation. This is particularly concerning since Petitioner operates multiple charter schools within AND OUTSIDE of California.
“The (LAUSD) District has concerns and other potential authorizers SHOULD HAVE concerns when it cannot verify, through appropriate oversight, that all public funds are being used for an educational purpose as they were intended to be.
“The organizational structure — including but not limited to the administration and leadership of Celerity Education Group and its affiliated organizations — remains unclear. While CEG changed Chief Executive Officers in the past two years, (LAUSD) Staff notes that the prior CEO (Vielka McFarlane) now leads Celerity Global, the sole statutory member of Celerity Education and active contracts remain …”
x x x x x x x x x x
And on it goes with with Perry detailing LAUSD’s total failure to get any cooperation from Celerity in LAUSD’s oversight of Celerity … a bravura performance on Perry’s part. Perry missed his calling; he should have been a prosecutor.
Next up is Dina Wilson, from the Los Angeles County Board of Education (LACOE), who picks up where Perry left off and continues with the exposure of Celerity’s perfidy.
( 2:33:45 – )
( 2:33:41 – )
Wilson details a prior charter school petition made by Celerity CEG to LACOE and to Wilson. In this prior petition, Celerity CEG declined to proceed with a charter school petition when Wilson’s County BOE (LACOE) required Celerity CEG to accept certain conditions — conditions virtually identical to the ones above that the State BOE now (November 2016) seeks to impose on Celerity CEG. (She projects the quotes side-by-side on a wall in the room)
Now, however, she points out that Celerity CEG has somehow managed to agree to those same conditions— again this time required by the state BOE / CDE — even though, in that prior letter to the County, Celerity CEG indignantly claimed that it was illegal for any charter authorizer to offer such a conditional approval. An authorizer either approves or denies. No third alternative.
Now, however, Celerity CEG reverses itself and claims that it will accept the same conditiions / conditional approval to the State BOE (CDE) that it had earlier refused to accept from LACOE. Again, Celerity CEG had earlier and indignantly claimed that it was illegal for any authorizier — local, state, or county — to impose or request such conditions. An authorizer either approves or denies. No third alternative.
A second reason for refusal of those conditions is that Celerity CEG claimed to LACOE is that Celerity CEG has no power to “bind” a “third party” (Celerity Global) not involved in the charter contract to these conditions, as requested by the the LA County BOE.
Now, however, Celerity says it does indeed possess the power to “bind” this third party. (Celerity Global).
(A copy of Celerity CEG’s letter is projected on the wall at the hearing, with the relevant portions — the ones saying that Celerity CEG has no power to “bind” or control that “third party” — highlighted in YELLOW.)
Again, who’s that “third party”? Why, it’s Celerity Global, which effectively exercises total control over Celerity Educational Group (CEG). (Again, their earlier response to the county is what Harry Truman called “passing the buck.” JACK)
Wilson also details how, when questioned, Grace Canada, the CEO at Celerity CEG lied to her about the real relationship between Celerity CEG and Celerity Global. When Wilson and LACOE asked for a copy of the Celerity CEG corporate by-laws, Celerity officials, led by CEO Grace Canada, deliberately deceived LACOE and provided LACOE with Celerity CEG’s 2012 by-laws, when it was the 2014 by-laws that were in effect at the time of Wilston’s / LACOE’s request (2015), those same by-laws that give Celerity Global total control of Celerity CEG — a fact that Celerity was desperately trying to conceal from LACOE.
The changes to the by-laws were designed to give the (totally false) appearance that Celerity’s founder and top dog, Vielka McFarlane, had stepped down in favor or Grace Canada, when in fact, McFarlane merely continued her absolute control of Celerity CEG through her total control over the newly-created entity — Celerity Global.
Canada somehow thought that she could hide all this in perpetuity. Nope. Indeed, when questioned about Celerity CEG’s misappropriation of funds for non-educational purposes, Canada would “pass the buck” and say, “We at Celerity CEG didn’t make those purchases; Celerty Global did, so we’re off the hook.”
Oh no, you’re not.
LAUSD’s Robert Perry, at this moment, nods his head in agreement with Wilson as he stands behind her in the video frame.
The rest of the video isn’t as exciting. A couple Celerity officials come up and fail to defend or refute any of the accusations made against Celerity.
Amazingly, however, the State BOE (CDE) ends up going along with Chan’s plan to approve Celerity’s two new schools, with that conditions that Chan argues will make it all work.
In the intervening six months, however, Celerity HAS TOTALLY AND UTTERLY FAILED TO BE MORE TRANSPARENT AND COOPERATIVE WITH EITHER LAUSD or with the California State BOE (CDE) — the very conditions that Chan insisted were an absolute requirement of the approvals. That failure on Celerity’s part is a big part of what drove this week’s closure of the two other Celerity schools …
… so the question must be asked:
WHY ARE THE NEW CELERITY SCHOOLS BEING ALLOWED TO OPEN?
WHY ARE ANY CELERITY SCHOOLS ALLOWED TO REMAIN OPEN?
— PART TWO of this on the next post
— PART TWO of the California Board of Ed’s November 2016 meeting dealing with the Celerity debacle.
Here’s more of that deep dive into the Celerity debacle — with the riveting November 2016 State Board of Ed Meeting of which I spoke:
The rest of the California Board of Education meeting authorizing two new Celerity is quite intriguing
Check out this:
( 3:05:15 – )
( 3:05:15 – )
In the above time frame, there’s a full half-hour where the State BOE members repeatedly and desperately try to get the answer from Celerity Education Group to the question:
“Is Celerity Global — a newly created entity which is under the total control of former Celerity Education Group (CEG)’s former CEO Vielka McFarlane…
… a vendor ..
OR
… part of Celerity Educational Group (CEG)’s governance structure?”
In a maddening, Kellyanne-Conway-esque performance, the various Celerity representatives and its lawyer shuck-and-jive and duck-and-weave when posed with this question.
Their response:
Don’t you guys get it? Yeah, we admit that Celerity Global does appoint and remove all of Celerity CEG’s Board members, but no, it’s not part of Celerity CEG’s governance structure. Got that?
Huh?
The answer that the Celerity folks won’t give: the newly created Celerity Global is both — it’s a vendor that in practice, and also according to the by-laws, exercises total control over Celerity CEG, while Celerity CEG has no control over Celerity Global.
Indeed, a letter from Celerity CEG’s new CEO Grace Canada to LACOE— produced and projected on the wall earlier in the hearing — says that Celerity CEG is has no power to “bind” Celerity Global to anything, and this letter is referenced in a line of questioning from the Board to Ms. Proctor, Celerity CEG’s lawyer.
Under repeated questioning, Celerity CEG lawyer Ms. Proctor eventually concedes that the only power that Celerity CEG has over Celerity Global is to cancel or not cancel its contract with Celerity Global, while Celerity Global, while that contract is in effect, can basically just do whatever the-hell it wants whenever it wants to do it — i.e. including exercising the sole and total authority to appoint and remove all Celerity CEG Board members — with the newly-crated Celerity Global having no obligation to provide any transparency or accountability to anyone or any government educational entity.
State Board of Ed. Member Patricia Rucker politely but firmly pursues this line of questioning to the Celerity representatives and lawyer, and she constantly has to point out:
“That’s not the question I asked.”
The Celerity representatives and lawyer eventually fall back on the ultimate defense, and, in effect, they tell the California BOE:
“Look, folks. It’s ‘technically legal’ to do all this, so could y’all just shut up and approve the two new Celerity schools so we can all go home?”
The whole Celerity-CEG-Celerity-Global governance a totally ridiculous, deliberately confusing, utterly deceitful, albeit “technically legal” construction. (The federal investigators that raided Celerity earlier this year have a far different opinion regarding all of this being “technically legal” by the way. Look for indictments in the near future.)
It would be like … well, let’s call it the Smallville Board of Education (BOE) contracts with Staples, yet Staples, according to the Smallville BOE by-laws, and according to the Smallville BOE’s contract the Staples, Staples exercises total control over the governance, operations, and finances of the Smallville BOE, Staples has total control to appoint and remove Smallville BOE members, and when some governing authority wishes to inspect any Staples-Smallville contracts, itemized purchases, checks written to Stapes, neither then Smallville BOE nor Staples has any duty to respond to any of these requests (???!!!)
During this nearly five-hour meeting, here’s one question that no one on the California Board asked anyone: (paraphrasing a kids’ show)
“Where in the world is Vielka McFarlane?”
… sort of like the recent SNL sketch about Kellyanne Conway:
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=where+in+the+world+is+kellyanne
I mean, Jesus! She’s the whole mastermind of this total freakin’ fiasco. Shouldn’t McFarlane be here at the California Board of Education answering questions? Shouldn’t that be a baseline requirement of any approval of any new Celerity CEG schools? For some reason, no one even mentions her by name, as if the very mention of her name would call forth upon one’s self a curse or something
In the clip below, the lawyer for the L.A. County Office of Education reveals that, during her investigation, she discovered multi-million dollars worth of Celerity CEG checks written to the newly created Celerity Global … checks signed by … wait for it …Celerity Global’s new CEO Vielka McFarlane(!!!) at a time when then-Celerity Global CEO McFarlane was supposedly NO LONGER EVEN PART OF THE CELERITY CEG ORGANIZATION, McFarlane having resigned in favor of new CEO Grace Canada, and again, becoming the CEO of the newly created, Celerity Global.
In essence, McFarlane wrote multi-million dollars worth of checks … to herself.
( 3:19:10 – : )
( 3:19:10 – : )
LACOE LAWYER: “Why is the CEO of Global (Vielka McFarlane STILL) signing off on checks when she had (supposedly) resigned? So we went and started counting the checks, and when we looked back at the checks, there was a total of 47 (Celerity CEG) checks (signed off on by McFarlane) between July, August, and September of 2015 where the CEO of Global (Vielka McFarlane) signed off on checks, single signature — $ 1.8 million.
“And of those 47 checks, 10 of those checks, amounting to $1.2 million, were written to Global, and any of these other Celerity (contracting) enttities: (Celerity) Attenture, Celerity Development… and that’s when we started looking … we looked back and said,
” ‘So when did she (Celerity Global CEO McFarlane) leave?’ And we went back and looked, she left April 2015 (months after McFarlane resigned from and left Celerity CEG), but she still had the authority (Celerity CEG) checks (to Global and other Celerity entities)?”
LACOE’s DINA WILSON: “There’s also a transfer of assets in 2012 It’s important to point out that …”
Wilson then talks about how Celerity Global was described to her as “the parent” of Celerity CEG, and that LACOE has no right to any internal financial information of Celerity Global.
x x x x x x x x x x x
In the California State Board of Ed’s November 2016 meeting, there’s a riveting exchange between State BOE member Patricia Rucker and the Celerity officials.
Rucker first gives an overview of the situation — a very confusing situation, in her opinion. Rucker then tries — over and over and over — to get a straight answer to the a simple question from Celerity’s top attorney Greta Proctor:
Is Celerity Global … part of CEG’s governance structure … or merely a “vendor”?
If Celerity Global merely “a vendor,” as Celerity now claims, then why the-hell does it have so much legal and contracted goddamn power over the entity that’s hiring it out as a vendor (Celerity CEG)? Why was Celerity Global even created in the first place???!!!
This makes no sense.
In response, Proctor just dissembles, and dissembles, and dissembles … ad infinitum.
She wants to know why Celerity refused the conditions from the County BOE, but now somehow will accept those very same conditions from the State BOE … in order for the approval over those new schools.
Watch it below:
( 3:05:15 – )
( 3:05:15 – )
“I think I smell a rat.”
— California State BOE Member Patricia Rucker drawing a conclustion, as she addressed Celerity’s lawyer at the May 11, State Board of Ed meeting, in presumably describing Celerity Founder and CEO Vielka McFarlane
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Geez, Pat. Don’t mince words.
I just started watching the video of the May 11 Board Meeting, and this quote jumped out at me.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
( 02:15:46 – 02:17:00 )
( 02:15:46 – 02:17:00 )
PATRICIA RUCKER: (addressing Celerity’s lawyer)
“And THESE were the questions I had the LAST TIME when we had the meeting in November, because the governing structure (of Celerity CEG / the Celerity organization overall) — as explained today — was the governing structure that I understood in November.
“But what I have NEVER been clear on is what the authority that the (Celerity Global) Executive Director (Vielka McFarlane) has, as an employee — either of (Celerity) CEG, or of (Celerity) Global — in contracting either with (Celerity) Global services.
(— look of concentration, talking slowly and carefully)
“If the CE, if the C- … now the acronyms are beginning to get mixed up in my head.”
(— tries again, with a look of concentration, talking slowly and carefully)
“If the … if the Chief Executive Officer (of Celerity Global — Vielka McFarlane) is an employee of (Celerity) Global, but is doing the actual contracting of the work that (Celerity) CEG pays (Celerity) Global for… that’s one thing.
“But if the Chief Executive Officer (of Celerity CEG, Grace Canada) is an employee of (Celerity) CEG, and works with the (Celerity CEG) Board to develop the contract that goes back to (Celerity) Global, and that gives money back to Global, and (Celerity) Global (controlled totally by Celerity Global’ CEO, Vielka McFarlane) is the one that both appoints the (Celerity CEG) CEO, and can remove (Celerity CEG) Board members, then, just as I did in November …
“I think I smell a rat.”
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Freeze-frame or PAUSE (02:17:01) in the video, and observe the “Whatch you talkin’ bout, Willis?” expression Rucker’s face after reaching that conclusion. It’s priceless. Here’s what I”m referencing:
Board Member Rucker’s “smell a rat” or ““Whatch you talkin’ bout, Willis?” point or conclusion:
If both Celerity CEG’s CEO Grace Canada — effectively an at-will employee at Celerity CEG — and all of Celerity CEG’s Board Members — also totally at-will — can be hired and fired at will by the Celerity Glolbal CEO Vielka McFarlane, then McFarlane essentially controls Celeirty CEG and all the Celerity entities utterly.
In this capacity, McFarlane then has unchallenged and unchallenge-able authority to then decide — and indeed HAS decided — all of Celerity CEG’s contracts, personnel decisions, curriculum, food and custodial services contracts, etc. , and can also move money around to and from the various Celerity entities — Celerity CEG, Celerity Global, Celerity Attenture and the real estate arm whose name escapes me — with no oversight at all, doing so whenever and however it pleases her. (Didn’t McFarlane’s own son get one of those contracts?)
In the November State BOE meeting, LAUSD’s Robert Perry pointed out how he has seen the Celerity CEG cancelled checks that show millions of dollars that have been moved around willy-nilly to and from the various Celerity entities, with no documentation or explanation as to why or for what this money was spent. Indeed, Perry claimed that after repeated requests from LAUSD to do so, Celerity executives never provided LASD with any documented record of these money-moving decisions — either in documents, or in any of the Board Meetings of the various Celerity organizations Board Meetings.
To further make this point, Perry pointed out how Celerity CEG checks involved in this moving around of money WERE SIGNED BY VIELKA MCFARLANE — AND NOT GRACE CANADA, who was the purported CEO of Celerity CEG at he time the checks were written. Again, McFarlane signed these checks AFTER she had supposedly left Celerity CEG as its CEO\, and had supposedly moved on to her new position as CEO of Celerity Global.
Anyway, back to the Board of Ed. meeting.
In response, Celerity’s attorney tries to double-talk his way out of this, but Rucker ain’t having it:
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
( 02:17:31 – 02:17:57 )
( 02:17:31 – 02:17:57 )
PATRICIA RUCKER: (smiles wide, addressing Celerity’s lawyer,)
“Okay! So … okay, .. so by, by … by relationships — in the same way that my mother’s brother is in some way related to me, or that my grandmother’s brother is in some way related to me — that would make the CEO of (Celerity) CEG (Grace Canada) an employee of (Celerity) Global (and its CEO, Vielka McFarlane) as well, if the (Vielka-McFarlane-controlled Celerity Global) board that appoints him (or her) or that person can be removed by (Celerity) Global (controlled by its CEO, Vielka McFarlane)… Yeah! Okay…
— (satisfied smile)
“I got it. A’riight. I understand. I’m not confused ANY more.”
LAUSD’s Robert Perry Does Clarence Darrow
Watch LAUSD’s Robert Perry describe in detail the non-cooperation and downright deceptive tactics Celerity employed to thwart transparency during the tine frame of November 2016—thru—June 2017.
Mind you, this was after the November 2016 meeting, when Celerity promised total cooperation with and transparency — both to the LAUSD BOE and to he State BOE.
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
( 2:35:23 – 2:36:21 )
( 2:35:23 – 2:36:21 )
ROBERT PERRY:
“The Board … this (California State) Board approved the (chartering of the new Celerity) schools (back in November) with THE CONDITION that the (Celerity) organization would FULLY COOPERATE with ANY investigation into their operations.
It’s a condition that ‘s given TODAY. It’s a condition that was given back IN NOVEMBER.
“After that (November 3rd State BOE) meeting, we set up a meeting with (Celerity) CEG’s leadership to seek the same level of transparency and cooperation that had been committed to THIS board.
“We met (with Celerity officials) on November 10th, 2016. As a starting point, (Celerity) CEG was asked to provide FINALLY, a COMPLETE, transparent… as promised… TOTAL governance structure and an affiliated entities structure, and we got it in a timely fashion on December 15th, only to find out THIS PAST WEEK .. ”
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Perry then details what Celerity was asked by LAUSD. In response, Celerity officials provided a document that Perry claims deliberately and deceptively omitted numerous other different affiliated Celerity entities on a supposedly “transparent document”, only to discover, JUST THIS LAST WEEK (May 2017), the existence all these other hidden Celerity entities that also do business with Celerity CEG??!!!!
Furthermore, Perry and LAUSD discovered, for the first time ever, that one of these entities affiliated with Celerity — Celerity Attenture — was and is a for-profit company with Vielka McFarlane listed as its CEO!!!
These affiliated entities include: Celerity Development, Celerity Attenture, Orion Schools, The Rohn Group, Student Learning Pathways, Celerity Contracting Services’ … all of them deliberately omitted by Celerity from the chart — the totally transparent chart, supposedly — that Celerity provided back in November 2016.
Again, these are Celerity entities that, in premeditated move, Celerity CEG deceptively withheld from LAUSD on the supposedly “transparent chart” — Perry holds up that chart — that Celerity provided LAUSD back in November 2016.
According to the Secretary of State’s website, all of these entities list one — and only one — officer (CEO) : Viellka McFarlane.
Perry then goes into a full-on Perry Mason-Clarence Darrow mode … again, riveting stuff:
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
( 2:37:38 – 2:38:56 )
( 2:37:38 – 2:38:56 )
ROBERT PERRY:
“Our question for this (California State) Board is…
— (frustrated, emotional)
” ‘When will we EVER get to *the truth … about the inter-connectivity (of all the Celerity entities)?!’*
“We’ve had (failed) promise after (failed) promise after (failed) promise (from Celerity CEG).
“We’re NOT THERE (i.e. gotten to the truth about Celerity).
“We talk about Celerity Global. We KNOW that $2.2 million, approximately, was transferred from (Celerity) CEG into (Celerity) Global. That (misappropriation of funds) can happen with the sole statutory (structure) that wasn’t talked about a few moments ago.
“Part of our job (in LAUSD’s Charter Schools Division) as overseers of the public trust is to:
” — monitor public funds;
” — watch where they go;
and
” — hold the entities accountable for them.
“If the State Board continues to approve (charter school) organizations (such as Celerity) with such complex and intricate structures, (then) in a de facto way, it’s making it a tacit approval of those, and that makes us on the ground have an EVEN MORE difficult job to oversee.
“Because we believe that you can’t OVER-see what you CAN’T SEE, and I”ll turn the rest of my time over to Ms. Long, and Ms. Navarro-Reed (sp?).”
x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x
Ms. Long, Perry’s colleague from LAUSD then takes over and points out that all these separate Celerity entities that do business with Celerity CEG — Celerity Attenture, Celerity Development LLC, Celerity Contracting Services etc. — all of these organization have one — and only one — person listed as just one officer (CEO) on the Secretary of State’s website: Vielka McFarlane!!!
Ms. Navarro-Reed (sp?) chimes in with more details of Celerity’s corruption, talking about how, according to the by-laws, Celerity Global is the “sole, statutory member” of Celerity CEG, and exercises total control over Celerity CEG. Celerity CEG transferred the day-to-day management of Celerity schools to Celerity Global. Since Celerity Global is totally unaccountable to LAUSD, that totally removes the mandatory “local control” that must be exercised over any charter school, according to the 1992 California Charter Schools Act.
Later on in the meeting, an exasperated Perry interjects and says to the State BOE:
“We’ve been talking here FOR THREE HOURS trying to figure out the whole Celerity structure, and we’re STILL confused. Doesn’t THAT tell you something??!!”
Yeah, that they’re all crooks.