CUSD Sued in Court for Hiding Its Bank Statements, Vote NO on Prop E

lawsuitTiming of the Court Case

Around the Summer of 2013 . . .  long before Coronado voters knew that CUSD was going to try to raise our property taxes through the three Prop E school bonds series . . . Coronado residents hired  Ms. Libi Uremovic to get the bank statements an other important financial records from CUSD . . . because Coronado residents were concerned about CUSD’s lack of transparency.

The court case is Uremovic vs. Coronado School District Case Number 37-2013-00060692-CL-BC-CTL. Notice the underlined year of initiation of the lawsuit is 2013 . . . last year.

You can read Ms. Uremovic’s website by clicking on this link — www.libionline.net.

Ms. Uremovic has been successful in helping taxpayers and residents in Imperial Beach, Beaumont and other cities around our Golden State.

For example, Ms. Uremovic succeeded in getting the Grand Jury of San Diego to advise Imperial Beach City to “get their financial house in order.”

You can read our other article about the court case against CUSD by clicking here.

Timing of Prop E

In February 2014, CUSD’s board of trustees unanimously voted to rush Prop E onto the June 3, 2014 Primary Election Ballot.

One of the basic rules of life is that when someone is giving you the bum’s rush . . . like CUSD is giving us voters . . . then you shouldn’t trust them . . . so you should vote NO on Prop E on June 3.

piggy bankWhat is the Case Against CUSD About? – BANK STATEMENTS

In order to conduct a thorough review and a forensic audit of how CUSD spent our tax dollars, the lawsuit seeks to compel CUSD to turn over their bank statements . . . under the legal requirements of the California Public Records Act.

CUSD Tried to Get Case Against It Dismissed

CUSD is determined NOT to disclose its banks statements to the public for forensic audit . . . that CUSD filed a motion of Summary Judgment to throw the case against it out of court.

Judge Temporarily Ruled Against CUSD before May 9, 2014

Judge Styn has issued the following tentative ruling AGAINST the CUSD regarding the release of records under the California Public Records Act. The actual hearing was on Friday, May 9, but the judge has tentatively ruled AGAINST CUSD.

blind justiceTransparency by CUSD? Hardly.

For those wanting independent verification, the ruling that can be found at: http://www.sandiego.courts.ca.gov/v3tr/ViewRulings.aspx?CaseNo=37-2013-00060692-CL-BC-CTL&SelDates=05/09/2014&EventId=1340145

It is copied in its entirety as follows:

CASE CATEGORY:

EVENT TYPE:

CASE TITLE:

Civil – Limited CASE TYPE: Breach of Contract/Warranty

Summary Judgment / Summary Adjudication (Civil)

37-2013-00060692-CL-BC-CTL

UREMOVIC VS. CORONADO SCHOOL DISTRICT [IMAGED]

CAUSAL DOCUMENT/DATE FILED: Motion for Summary Judgment and/or Adjudication, 02/21/2014

Respondent Coronado School District’s motion for summary judgment is denied. Petitioner fails to comply with the separate statement requirement of CCP § 437c(c)(3). The court could grant the District’s motion based on this procedural defect. However, the court exercises its discretion in favor of reaching the merits of the District’s motion.

The petition sets forth one cause of action against the District for denial of access to public records in violation of Government Code § 6253.

The District submits evidence that on June 4, 2013, Petitioner filed a Public Records Act request [SSUMF 5]; on June 12, 2013, the District provided a written response [SSUMF 7]; between June 12, 2013 and July 29, 2013, the District searched for and provided all identifiable records responsive to Petitioner’s PRA request [SSUMF 10]; the District provided responsive documents via emails of June 26, 2013 and July 8, 2013, via providing Petitioner with a “flash drive” on July 8, 2013 [SSUMF 11, 13, 15, 18, 19] and via making documents available for review on July 29, 2013 [SSUMF 36, 40]. Specifically, with respect to the “bank statements” requested by Petitioner, the District communicated to Petitioner the process used advised Petitioner that “there is no regular bank statement kept by the District of reconciliation”; and tried to assist Petitioner in formulating the scope of her requests [SSUMF 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29]. On July 23, 2013, Petitioner made a second PRA request for “the Bank Statement showing the Checks Ratified By Council/Board and the Complete General Ledger for the month of June, 2013” and “Monthly Bank Statements Containing Cashed Checks . . . a monthly statement showing every deposit and check processed through the Account” [SSUMF 30]; on July 23, 2013, the District responded to this request, explaining that the District had already complied with this request via production of documents in response to Petitioner’s original PRA request and explaining that the District’s Board of Education does not “ratify checks” [SSUMF 31, 32]; on July 23, 2013, the District again responded to Petitioner by explaining that the District did not have a bank statement showing the checks “ratified by the Board,” so this record did not exist and could not be produced [SSUMF 35]. The District submits evidence that, other than what the District has already produced, the District does not have any additional documents in its actual or constructive possession that fit the Petitioner’s request for “Bank Statements listing the Purchase Warrants processed for [the District]” [SSUMF 43]; the District does not have any bank statements showing all Commercial Warrants as they are cashed in its actual or constructive possession [SSUMF 44]; the District has provided Petitioner with all identifiable documents in the District’s possession that are responsive to Petitioner’s PRA request [SSUMF 47]; aside from the documents the District has already made available to Petitioner there are no additional existing documents in the District’s possession response to Petitioner’s PRA request [SSUMF 48]; and the District is not withholding any records responsive to Petitioner, nor is the District withholding any records on the basis of an exemption under the PRA or any other applicable law [SSUMF 49].

In opposition, Plaintiff raises the issue of records regarding cafeteria expenditures.

In reply, the District acknowledges that it maintains a separate fund for the cafeteria expenditures, but fails to address whether the District has produced documents relating to cafeteria expenditures or explain why such documents were not included in Plaintiff’s PRA requests.

Absent evidence regarding production of documents relating to cafeteria expenditures, the court finds the District fails to meet its burden on summary judgment.

Event ID: 1340145

TENTATIVE RULINGS Calendar No.: 5

Page: 1

CASE TITLE:UREMOVIC VS. CORONADO CASE NUMBER:

SCHOOL DISTRICT [IMAGED]

37-2013-00060692-CL-BC-CTL

Court Hearing on May 9, 2014 – Judge Reserved His Ruling to be Released Shortly

The parties appeared in San Diego Superior Court Department C-62 before Judge Styn.

For the report on that May 9 hearing, click here.

Vote NO on Prop E on June 3

Vote NO because CUSD won’t release its bank statements.

Vote NO because CUSD is spending OUR tax dollars on an attorney to hide its bank statements.

No-on-Ev3-girl=phoneVote NO because no matter how the judge rules on CUSD’s Summary Judgment motion, CUSD has hidden its bank statements from public review to avoid forensic audit by an independent outside auditor.

Vote NO because we can’t trust CUSD with $29 million more in school bond proceeds (extra funds) . . . which will cost us around double or triple that amount (around $60 – 90 million) in property tax hikes . . .  when CUSD refuses to come clean and disclose its banks statements for public review and forensic audit.

Vote NO on Prop E on June 3!

Tagged with: , , , , , ,
Posted in Articles, Lawsuit Against CUSD