Sweetwater board candidate has his sign damaged

Dear timtim [postscript]: How would you know the amount of attorneys fees the District incurred in its lawsuit? That information is subject to the attorney client privilege and would only be known by the Board of Education, Superintendent and District accounts payable staff. Hmmm....
— June 11, 2013 4:20 p.m.

Sweetwater board candidate has his sign damaged

Dear timtim [part 2 of 2]: Second it was the District that initiated the litigation you reference by filing a validation action on May 30, 2012. On July 18, 2012 Mr. Payne filed an answer to the District's lawsuit. On September 13, 2012 Mr. Payne filed a cross-complaint against the contractor seeking to recover the $17+ million the contractor is receiving from the District. The District would not have incurred the attorneys fees you reference had it not elected to voluntarily participate in this process. While Mr. Payne was required by law to name the District as a party in his action, the District could have elected to take no action and allow the contractor to whom it is paying $17+ million defend against Mr. Payne’s lawsuit. Thus the attorneys fees incurred by the District were incurred by its own choice. What is worse is the attorneys fees incurred by the District were incurred trying to AVOID having the contractor pay back $17m to the District!?! Finally, can you send me a copy of the document that supports your assertion Mr. Payne was ordered to pay the District’s legal fees? No you cannot because no such document exists. Mr. Payne was never ordered to pay the District’s attorneys fees. On February 1, 2013 I paid $44,639.50 to the construction contractor’s attorneys to cover their attorney’s fees for prevailing on their motion that asserted Mr. Payne’s cross complaint against them violated their right to free speech when it asserted they were awarded the Montgomery lease leaseback contracts on account of campaign contributions. On March 22, 2013 the contractor’s attorneys then paid me back $44,639.50 in return for my clients’ dismissal of their appeal of the Superior Court’s granting of the foregoing motion against Mr. Payne. Next time a taxpayer offers to litigate against a contractor to have millions of dollars paid back to the District, please ask the District's attorneys NOT to incur attorneys fees trying to oppose that effort. That to me sounds like frivolous litigation by the District...
— June 11, 2013 4:06 p.m.

Sweetwater board candidate has his sign damaged

Dear timtim [part 1 of 2]: I'm the lawyer for Stewart Payne in the litigation you reference in your comment inquiring whether anyone is helping him "pay the district the 40k in layer fees he was ordered to pay the district for his friviousless lawsuit he filed against the district that was tossed out." While I do not have the time or space to correct all of your erroneous statements, by this post I will endeavor to correct some of them you have been making relative to Mr. Payne's litigation efforts on behalf of the District. First, let's be clear that Mr. Payne was not asking that a single penny be paid to him in his litigation. Unlike many at Sweetwater, Mr. Payne is not looking to further his self interest. To the contrary Mr. Payne sought to have a construction contractor PAY BACK TO THE DISTRICT the $17+ million the District is paying them on a no bid lease leaseback contract on the Montgomery Middle School construction Project. Mr. Payne's legal arguments were not frivolous but instead were founded upon a good faith argument for the application and clarification of existing law, namely that Sweetwater was legally required to solicit sealed competitive bids on its lease leaseback construction contracts and award the contract only to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Mr. Payne’s legal arguments are the same arguments raised by the [California State Allocation Board][1]. Please don't reply with an ignorant “low bidder” criticism of the competitive bidding process that has been the mainstay of California public contracting for over 150 years. Remember in public contracting the lowest responsive and responsible bidder can only be awarded a job if they can provide payment and performance bonds issued by an independent surety guaranteeing up to the full amount the contract that the work will be done on time and in strict conformance with the plans and specifications which are subject to continuous daily inspections by more than one independent inspector authorized by the California Division of State Architect. Recall California statutes and case law indicate that sealed competitive bidding is required to prevent fraud, favoritism and corruption, stimulate advantageous marketplace competition and avoid the misuse of public funds. [http://67.21.3.118/research/caselevel3/73552]. Based on the evidence contained in the Grand Jury transcripts Sweetwater is the poster child for why California school districts should NOT be allowed to award construction contracts in any manner other than sealed competitive bidding with award only to the lowest responsive and responsible contractor who can provide 100% payment and performance bonds.[to be continued on next post] [1]: http://www.carlinlawgroup.com/media/CLG-SAB-Repor…
— June 11, 2013 4:05 p.m.