.
.
CUSD Trustee John Alpay Threatens District Trying to More than Double His Own Pay
Even though we live in a time where polticians’ thirst for money at the taxpayer trough seems endless, CUSD Trustee John Alpay has taken greed to a new level. Listed on the California State Bar Association as a lawyer for Oakley, Mr. Alpay has sent a letter to the school district demanding that his pay be doubled immediately and that the district “void” its policy denying Trustees expense reimbursement. (Here is a copy of Mr. Alpays threatening letter to the District: http://www.redcounty.com/sites/default/files/files/Allpay%20Email(1).pdf ) Given the fact that CUSD issued a press release today indicating that they may have to fire 346 teachers, Mr. Alpay’s actions seem not only horribly greedy but ill timed.
This all began back in February of 2008 when the Trustees were looking at the many ways in which they could close the budget deficit. On the February 25, 2008 agenda was item number three “Preliminary Budget: Consideration and approval, updated information on the 2008-09 State Budget and identification of proposed reductions in programs and services in order to balance the district’s 2008-09 Tentative Budget.” ( Here is the Agenda for the February 25, 2008 CUSD agenda http://cusd.capousd.org/cusdweb/boardtext/boardtext4-21-08.pdf ) During the course of the evening, one of the easy ways to cut the budget was to reduce the current pay of the Trustees by 1/2 taking it from $750 per month down to $375 per month. In addition, the Trustees also voted to eliminate their rights to receive reimbursement for travel expenses.
Now flash forward almost three years. Mr. Alpay, the aforementioned Oakley lawyer recently elected to the CUSD Board, sends his threatening letter linked above. In that letter, Mr. Alpay claims that the District violated the Brown Act when it voted to reduce Trustees’ pay and travel expenses. He further argues that all past and current Trustees are owed back pay dating to the Febraury 25, 2008 meeting. Mr. Alpay further alleges that each Trustee may be entitled to “penalties” for the District’s failure to pay the Trustees (he does fail to mention that those penalties would only be $375 for each Trustee and only if his challenge was timely and he prevailed.) The letter demands that the Board take “corrective” action and that all Trustees be paid their retroactive pay and all travel expenses for the past three years and further asks THAT THE BOARD BE ABLE TO FURTHER INCREASE TRUSTEE PAY!
Not only is Mr. Alpay greedy and gutsy he is flat out wrong. In his letter Mr. Alpay accuses the District of violating the Brown Act: “Unfortunately this item [Trustee pay reduction and travel expense elimination] was not agendized and is not reflected anywhere as a potential item for discussion.” Evidently Mr. Alpay does not see how a reduction in Trustee pay and expenses could at all relate to “proposed reduction in programs and services” which was set for a vote that night – I am not sure how he could miss that little tidbit, but he either missed it or simply chose not to see it.
Then Mr. Alpay goofs in a way that lawyers aren’t supposed to goof – he is almost three years too late in bringing his challenge. If Mr. Alpay’s argument about the Brown Act violation is correct he had 30 DAYS to bring it to the attention of the District and request that they correct their mistake. The time to “challenge” the District’s vote expired in approximately March of 2008. Again, Mr. Alpay either missed this little tidbit or didn’t care about the corners that he cut to double his pay.
Why would Mr. Alpay take this convuluted road to double his pay and increase his benefits? Simple answer – no accountability. By sending his “demand” letter, Mr. Alpay is hoping that District staff “void” the earlier vote thus doubling trustee pay and restoring the voluntarily eliminated travel expenses. Obviously the other way Mr. Alpay could proceed is to bring this to the Board as his own motion. Given that his District just announced the possible elimination of 346 teachers, I don’t think Mr. Alpay’s motion to double his pay and to restore expense reimbursement would fare too well politically.
This greed and poor judgment greatly saddens me because Mr. Alpay claims to be a Republican. I really doubt that. Seeking to expand your own pay at taxpayer expense? Sounds like a Republican In Name Only (RINO) to me. Of course I am not the first one to notice that Mr. Alpay is not really a Republican: http://www.redcounty.com/content/oc-gop-central-committee-traitor-among-us-%E2%80%93-john-alpay
Oh, great. You guys dumped Pedroza but now you’ve got a Tony-Beall-bot. Get a clue, OJ-ers. This screed is too stupid even to bother criticizing.
What an intelligent response. Please ignore that all of the primary materials are attached as hot links. Ignore that the story was carefully fact checked. Just summarily dismiss it to promote continued government corruption and greed. By the way, I have never even met Mr. Beall. By the way, I never do respect those that hide behind the skirt of anonymity.
Yeah, we know.
Isn’t that gonna cause problems between you and Newbie?
You will have to hear it from him, but I suspect we are on the same page.
I mean, about posting anonymously.
I think that he would like to post under his real name but can’t figure out how to change it.
Vern,
Don’t out me to Geoff yet. He hasn’t figured out that I’m in the office next to his.
LOL, I didn’t even want to give that sort of hint to readers…
Wow, where does Geoff work, I wonder…
If the story was so carefully fact-checked, where is Trustee Alpay’s response?
When the trustees were spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers the district didn’t need and not doing what they said they would do?
But you are spending time on this? The trustees cut their pay in half as a token, $25,000 a year out of a multi-million dollar budget that equals all the cities that the school district represents.
This is called petty on your part. Corruption? Threats? Can we say HYPERBOLE?
It’s not GREEDY to want to be paid for work you do. Most other districts get paid stipends for their work, it’s not work that will GET you rich, of course unless you SUE the district.
First, you are anonymously trying to deflect attention away from Mr. Alpay’s unbridled greed by saying that his greed isn’t over enough money for me to worry about? Really? Mr. Alpay ran as a conservative and then turned around and 1) tried to double his pay in a cowardly way, and 2) gave back millions of dollars to union members to try and engender their cooperation with future campaigns. Evidently he is confused about the meaning behind “Democrat” and “Republican.”
The recent give away is of the more than six million dollars to district employees is far more significant than “spending money on lawyers.” You want the district to go into negotiations with the union without the benefit of counsel? The ridiculous comments in this post have done something that you would have been better off avoiding – drawing my very focused and intense attention.
Consider this merely part one of the story – GAME ON!!
I still stand by the point that this is petty and you are overreacting. Corrupt? Greedy?
There is no demand that he be paid more, it is public record, it was done in the light of day.
And what does your other point have to do with this? Talk about a witch hunt.
Actually, Geoff’s point is that he believes (as do I) that Mr. Alpay was trying to get the staff to find a Brown Act violation and re-instate the previous pay level so that he would not have to do it himself. And if you read the email and don’t read it to be a demand for more pay, you have difficulty “reading between the lines” and you will never believe Mr. Alpay has ulterior motives.
Did you know that nearly three years have passed since the stipend was reduced and the expense reimbursement ended and, apparently, not a single Board member has complained?
Did you know that the statute of limitations on the Brown Act violation he alleges ran almost three years ago meaning that no valid claim can be filed? I suspect Mr. Alpay, as an attorney, knew but conveniently forgot to mention that to the Superintendent.
Despite all of this, do you still think Geoff is overreaching?
Yes, corruption and greed? no. It is overreaching and sounds like someone is LOOKING for a reason to get on Alpay.
Unwise and badly timed, yes.
Huge difference. Anyone should be able to sit on a board, not just wealthy people who can afford to do so. The stipends are there to allow any community member that luxury to serve, from single parents to people who work blue collar jobs.
The stipend allowed boards are not extravagant, we aren’t talking Bell here.
You aren’t going to agree with me though, no matter what I say. And vice versa, I don’t think there was anything here that warrants the language used in this piece. I think it’s fair to ask why, but he outcry is absurd.
Yes Mr. Willis, why don’t you write articles about the hundreds of thousands of dollars that the pre-2010 Election trustees directed to be paid out to their supporters. Why don’t you talk about the active role that the Bealls played in the dismembering of CUSD, the same Beall whose article from Red County that you referenced above…Yeah, he doesn’t have an axe to grind at all, does he. But he does have thousands of extra dollars, doesn’t he?
Good job on causing an uproar over pittance.
So, I guess we can’t call ourselves “Republicans” unless we think and act exactly like you?
Great Vern, good addition to OJBlog. Another Red County/OCGOP minion. Just when I thought it was safe to come back…..
What’s the old adage, if you repeat a lie enough times it becomes the truth. The settlement you refer to was negotiated between the attorney appointed by the insuring agency for CUSD and the plaintiffs’ attorneys. The CUSD board was not involved in ANY of the settlement negotiations.The CUSD board was advised by the insuring agency that if it didn’t sign off on the settlement coverage was going to be pulled due to the fact the acts in question where intentional; and that CUSD faced damages being awarded in sums far in excess of the negotiated settlement amounts. At this point, and on the advise of its appointed (not selected) attorney, the Board voted to accept the settlement. Of course, CUSD could have rolled the dice and ended up like San Juan Capistrano which is dealing with having to pay off a multi-million judgment because it didn’t settle. But hey, don’t let the real facts get in the way of your fiction.
Although I know John and was a big booster of his when he ran against wasteful, incompetent ideologue Mike Winsten, this doesn’t sound at first blush like something I’d care to defend. Especially not by talking about how much worse the other guys were.
Tomorrow I’ll talk to him, and some other folks, and see what the other side of the story is.
I would like to hear that.
Might have been a good idea for you to call him yourself before writing about his position, no?
Not really when I am working with authenticated documents from Mr. Alpay himself which authentic his greed and scummy actions. The beautiful thing about this blog is that Mr. Alpay can always append his views to address any point he wishes. If Vern’s recount of his “explanation” is accurate (which I have no reason to believe that it is not accurate) then I completely understand why Mr. Alpay has not taken advantage of this opportunity.
Well, John called me this morning before I had a chance to call him.
He says he doesn’t care about the money, that if money were his main concern he sure wouldn’t be putting so much time into the school board. Whether at the original $750 a month or the current $375, with the time and gas he and others put into the board, it is a money-losing labor of love.
He also points out the obvious, that if that three-year-old vote were overturned, his predecessor Winsten would get 20 times more out of it than he would.
He also says he agrees that in these harsh budgetary times, everyone – including the trustees – needs to “share the pain.”
His only concern, as a lawyer, was that there may have been a Brown Act violation in the way the original decision was made three years ago, but that after receiving a response from the superintendent he is satisfied that’s not the case. Remember, the previous “reform” board was guilty of many Brown Act violations, and trustee Sue Palazzo brought up yet another one at the last meeting.
I’m sure the cynical among you will say he’s just backing off what he realized was a toxic demand.
Would I care that much about a three-year-old Brown Act violation, if I didn’t disagree with its actual outcome? I don’t know, maybe if I were a lawyer I would.
Vern,
Mr. Alpay’s talking about a three year old Brown Act violation to decrease the Board’s pay. Even assuming a violation occurred, I doubt anyone at the DA’s office is losing sleep over that one, not to mention the statute of limitations ran almost three years ago. Also, why would he drop in the Labor Code reference which would only be relevant to someone who wanted to sue over it. I’m sorry, but I’m going to be cynical and say he’s backing off because he got caught and realized that for the changes to be made, he would have to put it on the agenda himself, and all smart politicians realize that asking for more money in this environment is, as you say, toxic.
On the positive side, let me commend you Vern for actually staying on topic. The other pathetic and ridiculous posts of people trying to tie Geoff to Tony or bring up issues totally unrelated to the article really is a sign of poor logic and desperation. Sadly, it happens on both sides of the aisle on here.
I also applaud you for offering up Mr. Alpay’s side of things. Although I think it’s the typical politician’s response, I think we need both sides of all arguments and then we can form our own opinions.
Vern, are you becoming the voice of reason for lefties on here?!
Shit, I hope not. Doesn’t comport with my self-image of ranting raving drunken Voice in the Wilderness. BTW I see you’ve got a nice smart liberal lady commenting from you and Geoff’s office (on another post this morning, no more clues.) That’s nice to know you’re not all righties there.
She is a force to reckon with for sure.
Vern, I am wondering how the letter from Mr. Alpay to Mr. Farley came into public knowledge? Are letters/memos between the trustees and the superintendant public records and released to the public? I honestly don’t know, and that is why I am asking, to learn how the process works. Thanks.
Yes, pursuant to the public records act, virtually any correspondence between a trustee and a staff person is a public record (and this would include emails).
True, correspondence is public record; however, someone must submit a public records request to the district to obtain the information. It’s not simply published in a big book or easily available on-line.
Yes, and here we of course run into Tony Beall’s relentless jihad against Alpay. It is going to become monotonous.
My point exactly.
The point is NOT how the documents were obtained – the point is that they are actions symbolic of a greedy politician trying to profit at the expense of the people without having to take responsibility for his actions. I have been around local politicians all of my professional life and it never ceases to amaze me how some can view eeking every penny out of the public coffers as their birthright.
There is a point of how they were obtained, Mr. Willis.
You apparently received them from Tony Beall, who is doing his best to undermine Mr. Alpay.
Your credibility is undermined because you didn’t say where you got them from. So you’re either in with Mr. Beall in trying to undermine Alpay or being used by him.
And because you didn’t see fit to even ask Mr. Alpay, for all you know, he was only trying to correct a wrong, not seek more money.
You, sir, are a tool.
And as far as politicians eeking out public money, have you looked into whether Mr. Beall and his colleagues receive health insurance at the taxpayers’ expense?
Do they receive a salary or stipend as council members? Have they reduced or eliminated that?
Just be fair and balanced.
“Mike” – you clearly don’t read – “By the way, I have never even met Mr. Beall. By the way, I never do respect those that hide behind the skirt of anonymity.” This from my top comment above. I live in the District and have five teenagers – the business of the District is of top importance to me. You have tried to distract attention away from the allegations a number of times, but I notice that you have never contradicted them or said that I have my facts wrong.
To be clear, I have never met, spoken with, exchanged writings with or communicated in any other way (other than clicking onto his website fact checking this story) with Mr. Beall. He has never communicated with me in any way. Clear enough?