CUSD is Fighting Hard Against Opening Its Books & Won’t Release Its BANK STATEMENTS
enter In court on May 9, CUSD’s lawyer Kelly Owens and CUSD’s assistant superintendent for business services (CUSD finances) Keith Butler said that they want to continue hiding CUSD’s bank statements.
http://brycetaylorrudow.com/test/wp-admin/ CUSD refuses to disclose its bank statements for public review in order to avoid a forensic audit can be conducted to see exactly how CUSD spent OUR tax dollars.
Court Hearing on May 9, 2014
In court on May 9, CUSD’s lawyer Kelly Owens argued that “they gave all the documents they have” to the Ms. Uremovic in response to Ms. Uremovic’s document request under the Public Information Act of California.
The problem is that CUSD dumped 1,700 pages of documents on plaintiff Ms. Libi Uremovic . . . but refused to hand over CUSD’s bank statements.
CUSD’s Defenses – CUSD Contradicts Itself and Says “CUSD’s Finances Are Confusing”
The Judge is impartial and neutral in this matter.
The Judge said that CUSD didn’t say that they supplied the cafeteria account information in the papers they filed in court and, naturally, he didn’t have time yet to go through the 1,700 papers they gave to Ms. Uremovic and to the court.
CUSD lawyer Owens said that “CUSD is unique and doesn’t have bank statements” and “the County Department of Education is responsible for all CUSD’s finances — not CUSD.”
CUSD assistant superintendent Keith Butler then contradicted CUSD lawyer Owens and said that “CUSD isn’t unique . . . no school districts have bank statements” and “the County Department of Education is responsible for the finances of all school districts.”
CUSD’s lawyer Owens said “it’s very confusing . . . “ and “the bank statements Ms. Uremovic seeks don’t exist.”
All in all, it was a sad showing by CUSD and a sad moment for public transparency.
Plaintiff’s Arguments in Court
She stated that the cafeteria account information is only one example.
Ms. Uremovic also said that another example is that CUSD pays off its existing Prop KK bond debt . . . millions upon millions of OUR tax dollars spent to pay off principal and interest on prior school bond debt . . . without disclosing it to the public . . . because CUSD does it through inter-fund transfers . . . and the BANK STATEMENTS are the only documents that can trace those and other transactions to see where OUR money is really going.
Did CUSD’s Lawyer Try to Mislead the Judge in Court?
As an example of CUSD’s possible lack of ethics and integrity . . . CUSD’s lawyer who is paid handsomely with OUR tax dollars . . . to defend CUSD in court against OPENING CUSD’s BOOKS and against disclosing CUSD’s BANK STATEMENTS to see how CUSD really spent OUR money . . . CUSD’s lawyer may have tried to mislead the Judge in court.
Here’s what happened:
Ms. Uremovic stated that the Judge’s decision is important because CUSD has rushed its measure for 3 series of school bonds . . . Prop E . .. onto the June 3 Primary Election Ballot . . . and CUSD’s books and bank statements are important for voters to review because we don’t know whether or not CUSD needs the Prop E school bonds until we see how much of OUR tax dollars CUSD wastes.
CUSD’s lawyer Kelly Owens quickly jumped in and volunteered that, basically, “Yes, you know how it goes, Judge. These lawsuits against school district’s bond measures are intended to defeat school bonds that impoverished school districts like CUSD need so desperately.” This is a paraphrase . . . not her exact words.
No . . . Ms. Uremovic didn’t file her lawsuit to defeat Prop E . . . because Ms. Uremovic filed her lawsuit in Summer 2013 . . . LAST year . . . and no one from the public knew about CUSD’s plans to rush Prop E onto the June 3 Primary Election Ballot until . . . February of THIS year . . . when the CUSD board of trustees voted unanimously to rush Prop E onto the June ballot during one of their meetings.
It’s likely the Judge didn’t buy CUSD’s lawyer’s possible attempt to mislead the court and to, basically, attempt to disparage Ms. Uremovic.
But CUSD’s possible attempts to disparage Ms. Uremovic and to mislead the Judge are important.
Because CUSD’s behavior shows that CUSD’s culture posibly lacks ethics and integrity. If CUSD can try to mislead a Judge in court in order to win a Summary Judgment motion . . . then CUSD can easily mislead voters in its campaign to gain $29 million through the Prop E property tax hike.
Judge to Rule By Wednesday
The Judge said he will rule by Wednesday at the latest on CUSD’s motion to dismiss the case through its Summary Judgment motion.
To say that CUSD has no BANK STATEMENTS . . . as CUSD’s assistant superintendent Keith Butler said and as CUSD’s lawyer Kelly Owens said . . . is outrageous.
CUSD is pretending that it has no responsibility to keep or to review its own bank statements.
CUSD is pointing the finger and claiming that the County Department of Education has the responsibility for CUSD’s financial records.
CUSD is claiming that it has no duty to review its own BANK STATEMENTS to reconcile its accounts . . . CUSD claims it has no duty to get the bank statements from the County Department of Education and to release the bank statements to Ms. Uremovic.
This is a giant red flag for voters . . . who may conclude that CUSD wastes OUR tax dollars . . . and hides the evidence of its waste . . . and acts like an unaccountable spoiled child who won’t show us how they spent OUR tax dollars.
Vote NO on Prop E on June 3
No matter what the Judge rules by Wednesday, vote NO on Prop E because CUSD refuses to release CUSD’s BANK STATEMENTS for public review and forensic audit.
Vote NO on Prop E on June 3!
* Statements in quotes are paraphrases, not exact quotes.