Sara Roos, blogger in Los Angeles, poses this question. Why should Ref Rodriguez keep his seat on the LAUSD school board when he has been charged with commiting involving financial fraud during his election campaign? But that’s not all. Ref founded a charter school chain, which complained to authorities about Ref’s misuse of its funding.
The Los Angeles Times reported:
Rodriguez, 46, faces three felony charges for conspiracy, perjury and procuring and offering a false or forged instrument, as well as 25 misdemeanor counts related to the alleged campaign money laundering.
At a preliminary hearing, prosecutors lay out their case before a judge, who must decide whether there is enough evidence for the defendant to stand trial. In court Wednesday, Judge Deborah S. Brazile, drawing on prosecutors’ estimates, said that the hearing in this case could last up to six days,
Unless there is a postponement, Brazile on May 9 will assign the case to a trial judge, who would have two days to begin the hearing.
Prosecutors say Rodriguez carried out a scheme in which friends and relativesdonated more than $24,000 to his campaign, with the understanding that Rodriguez would reimburse them fully. He could have donated the money legally to his own campaign, but Rodriguez allegedly broke the law by concealing the true source of the contributions — denying voters accurate information about support for his campaign, according to the L.A. County district attorney’s office and the Los Angeles Ethics Commission.
His cousin, Elizabeth Tinajero Melendrez, faces related misdemeanor charges. Prosecutors contend that she helped Rodriguez solicit and illegally reimburse the donors. She also has pleaded not guilty.
The case is complicated by separate conflict-of-interest allegations, first reported in the Los Angeles Times, that have to do with Rodriguez’s former role as a senior executive at a local charter school group.
Officials at the charter group, Partnerships to Uplift Communities, recently alleged that in 2014, Rodriguez signed or co-signed $265,000 in checks drawn on PUC accounts that were payable to a separate nonprofit under his control. That same year, they allege, Rodriguez authorized payments of $20,400 to a private company called Better 4 You Fundraising, in which he may have owned a stake at the time.
At a previous court appearance, Deputy Dist. Atty. Susan Ser said her team was examining whether to charge Rodriguez in the alleged conflicts of interest.
If he were a teacher, he would be fired.
If he were a principal, he would be fired.
If he were a superintendent, he would be fired.
But he stays on as a member because the charter school lobby spent millions to buy control of the board, and they can’t risk losing his seat in a new election. His vote may be decisive in choosing a new superintendent for the district.
Does California have ethics laws for public officials? Can they retain their position after indictment? If he is not guilty, he can run again. But it sets a terrible example for students to pretend that an indictment on felony offenses is a trivial matter.
Sara has a petition on her post. Please consider signing it.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thanks very much, Diane, for calling attention to the plight of LA.
Let me quickly note what a lawyer-friend pointed out:
Technically, I am wrong: Ref Rodriguez is not under indictment. He is formally accused, charged with felonies. He goes before a Grand Jury on May 8, 2018 for indictment.
I will post this quickly just to correct the record, but more to come…
LikeLike
Petition: https://tinyurl.com/RefRodriguezResign
LikeLike
“If he were a teacher, he would be fired.”
Can LAUSD teachers be summarily fired just for being charged with a felony? Pretty sure that’s not the case in NYC, would be surprised if it’s the case in LA.
LikeLike
I know teachers who were removed from their NYC classrooms for less than a felony. Sent to the rubber room and languished there without charges.
LikeLike
Right, but “removed from a classroom” is different from being fired. My very vague recollection is that, as far as criminal charges go, NYC teachers can be summarily removed from the classroom — but not summarily fired — if they’re charged with a felony involving drugs or abuse of a child.
LikeLike
How about removing Ref from the board until he has been cleared or convicted?
LikeLike
There would a sense of justice in terms of how that parallels how teachers are treated for felony offenses whose nature makes it important to get them out of the classroom immediately. But of course there would have to be some kind of legal authority that required/permitted Ref to be removed (a rule, a law, some inherent authority vested in the Mayor or the rest of the Board that empowered them to cast out other Board members in their discretion). Which I assume does not exist.
In the big picture, this is about due process balancing. Does due process always come first, or, like President Trump, do we like to have the due process come second in certain situations?
LikeLike
No way would a teacher be left in the classroom if accused of a felony.
The process of adjudicating alleged wrong-doing is slow, and there is a lot written about it elsewhere. Ask if you need help finding it?!
So if they’d like to remand Rodriguez to his house, collecting pay but not able to vote on board measures pending impeachment, that would work too.
LikeLike
As I posted elsewhere on this thread, I’m pretty sure that in NYC, teachers can be summarily removed from classrooms only if they’re charged with felonies that involve drugs or abuse of children. I don’t think they can be summarily removed solely on the basis of other types of felony charges being filed against them. And even when the felony charges involve drugs or abuse of minors, NYC teachers cannot be summarily fired. (Which is as it should be.)
LikeLike
FLERP!,
What makes you believe that only teachers charged with felonies involving drugs and abuse of children can be summarily removed from the classroom?
This isn’t an internal investigation by the school or the DOE’s investigative arm. This is an investigation by the police and a legal indictment. Why do you believe that a teacher indicted for a felony would have the right to remain in the classroom?
And the point of rubber rooms is that teachers can be summarily removed from classrooms for ANY reason – but they do get to collect their paychecks. Your comment implies that a teacher could be under indictment for robbing a bank and could come in every day to teach first grade and the school could not remove him from the classroom. I don’t believe that. Do you?
LikeLike
When teachers(over 3000 of them) were under investigation they couldn’t or were not allowed to stay on the job. Why is this guy different?
LikeLike
There was plenty of evidence out there on Ref while he was running for office. A KPCC reporter noticed the questionable donations, but no one followed up on it. His non-profit suddenly stopped filing tax returns and he was treasurer of his PUC charter schools when LAUSD published an audit of one of the PUC schools that showed questionable financial activity. But, again, nothing happened. So, even without the indictment, he should never have been allowed on the LAUSD board on the first place.
LikeLike
Yup – I think that KPCC article is linked in my blog post. Here’s one: http://www.scpr.org/blogs/education/2015/02/27/17955/in-lausd-board-election-it-s-charter-schools-vs-la/
…though there’s another that’s more blunt. Basically saying “Really? I don’t believe it….”
LikeLike
For more specifics, please see the link you’ve noted above: https://tinyurl.com/WeRefuseRef
And the petition here: http://thewire.k12newsnetwork.com/2018/02/25/test-2/
In LA, we have a newly-bought charter-majority on a 7-member school board, bought to the tune of DOZENS of millions of dollars over the past several years and elections. The most recent election in 2017, for one race alone, the CA Charter school lobbying association, CCSA, spent over –sorry I forget the specifics but you can find it all here: http://redqueeninla.com/wp-admin/post.php?post=3120&action=edit and here: http://redqueeninla.com/2017/05/12/count-the-money-think-of-the-kids/ [well over $11m; I think a new analysis by the LATimes found over $12m but I don’t have the link right now]
Their purse is fathomless. And their need is great.
Because the LAUSD Superintendent – Superintendent to over 10% of all of California’s schoolkids and teachers — that position is currently empty. And the 7-member school board, with a fragile and vulnerable 4-seat charter majority, is scrambling to seat a new, charter-friendly superintendent before Rodriguez is found guilty and must step down. Technically, whether he is forced to resign depends on the specifics of the charges, I believe. IANAL, but I should think felony charges of perjury and conspiracy should qualify, but in reality, it’s possible he might be able in Trumpian Fashion, to bluster on, grasping onto his so-necessary seat.
But I’m certain the privatizers would like to get this business over with sooner than later; they are scrambling to appoint a Superintendent now. And yet, that one vote is thoroughly tainted. Ref Rodrgiuez never should be allowed to vote on a Superintendent; his behaviour has disqualified him morally.
In LA, we need to make a very, very loud statement of this. We need thousands to stand up and say “enough”! Just as they are saying all across the country to the ethical shenanigans in Washington.
The people here in LA are mostly all nominal Democrats although the school board positions are all nominally non-pertisan. But like Mike Sullivan says: https://bigeducationape.blogspot.com/2018/03/marshall-tucks-dirty-secret-how-right.html?spref=fb
If it quacks like an elephant ….
So point is, Ref Rodriguez, on LAUSD’s school board, is key to what is happening in LA with its more-charter-sper-capita-than-anywhere-on-the-planet, and all this is key as well to the impending CA Superintendent race, threatened by the nominal Democrats who aren’t, funded by the Big LA Democrats who aren’t …. same profiteers who are now desperate to maintain their guard on the hen house.
We need help. Please sign and forward!!
LikeLike
I don’t think teachers and administrators would be fired if they were accused of fraud.
Instead, they would probably be sent out and be put on a leave of absence with or without pay pending the verdict of the trial. If found guilty, they would be fired. If found innocent, the teachers’ union would take the district to court and ask for all lost pay and that the district pays for all legal costs to the teacher too. I saw this happen to two other teachers at least twice during my thirty years of teaching. Both teachers were found innocent and the union’s lawyers went after the district and won that back pay and court costs.
Teachers have due process rights and an allegation of fraud is not a guilty verdict. We have to wait for the trial’s verdict for that.
Dismissal for Cause
A school must show cause in order to dismiss a teacher who has attained tenure status. Some state statutes provide a list of circumstances where a school may dismiss a teacher. These circumstances are similar to those in which a state agency may revoke a teacher’s certification. Some causes for dismissal include the following:
I don’t think administrators have the same due process protections classroom teachers have.
LikeLike
Since this is an elected position, I would think election fraud accusations would warrant censure and perhaps recall.
LikeLike
Ref has to be found guilty in court first. An allegation no matter how much evidence the prosecutor has is not a guilty verdict. To do anything against Ref before that guilty verdict might open the district up to a lawsuit that might cost millions if Ref is found innocent.
Ref might dodge the bullet by also making a plea bargain outside of court where he pays a fine and admits no guilt. I hope the prosecution will not make a deal and will take this case all the way to a verdict.
Trump has used plea bargains a number of times to avoid being found guilty in a court case. The wealthy often buy their way out of being found guilty.
https://www.usatoday.com/pages/interactives/trump-lawsuits/
LikeLike
Recall depends on a guilty verdict? Not sure.
LikeLike
I think a recall is possible without waiting for a guilty verdict. Doesn’t it take a petition with a required number of signatures to start a recall? That way, they could get rid of him even if he settles and pays a find with no admission of guilt.
LikeLike
That sounds right, Lloyd.
LikeLike
That sounds right, Lloyd.
LikeLike
I hate Ref Rodriguez. That being said, it is up to the legislature and governor to decide who can make such decisions or if they can even be made at all.
I think the evidence against Ref sounds damning, but financial cases are also extremely complex. He has due process until the law says he doesn’t – and that is a political decision that doesn’t just effect him but every board member after him.
What would it look like if any board member could be removed just for the look of impropriety? It might scare some people away from board member jobs – whether that’s good or bad is also subjective but could juice political investigations with media attention paid for to unseat people one side doesn’t like.
LikeLike
I agree that due process should be respected. The charges against him remain alleged until proven.
There is law and/or precedent — a “ruling” in the CA elections code, perhaps more (IANAL). It’s here, Chapter 160 added to section 20 of the CA Elections code: http://www.mcgeorge.edu/Documents/Publications/04_Elections_FINAL.pdf
“Chapter 160 establishes certain felonies as violations of public trust and bars those convicted
of such felonies from running for public office. Felonies that violate the public trust are bribery, embezzlement, “extortion[,] or theft of public money, perjury, or conspiracy to commit any of those crimes.”
I didn’t ask for him to be removed, but asked that he step down for the reasons I articulate and are explained well in the above article: the loss of public trust.
Under the circumstances of a closely divided board, set to revolutionize the implementation of public policy in the nation’s second-largest school district — for the swing vote to be case by one standing on such flimsy moral ground is just not acceptable.
LikeLike