Oh borther wrote on Aug 29, 2008 8:43 PM:Nothing 'happened' to Vickie Richart. She cannot collect any more than the statutory amount. She has absolutely no case of any kind. They'd laugh her out of court on a discharge theory! Keep going Leon. You may have to get ready to appeal.

Chuckles wrote on Aug 29, 2008 8:56 PM:Attorney Jack Sleeth said that, if the deal was collusive, you would do it in the middle of the nights? Huh? That's precisely when the Board DID agree to provide Richart with the $1.6 million gift -- in the middle of the night!!!

WastedTaxDollars wrote on Aug 29, 2008 9:42 PM:This pretty much says it all -

"Attorneys for the college, on the other hand, have argued that Richart's authority and her ability to do her job were undermined by statements three trustees made to the public and to the college's faculty senate, which encouraged the public to fight the settlement"

So, some of the Trustees actually did their job. What a concept! They voiced their opinions that the president wasn't doing her job. Sounds like the "Attorneys for the College" are really attorneys for Richart. The Trustees have both the RIGHT and OBLIGATION to have a PUBLIC opinion on the performance of the president and other officers. That's why we elect them! I would think the "Attorneys for the College" should be impartial in any dispute between the Trustess and employees they oversee. Especially in an issue surrounding employee performance. That certainly doesn't seem to be the case here. It seems that the relationship between Richart and these attorneys is WAY too cozy. How about an ethics investigation on these so called "Attorneys for the College"?

Old Salt wrote on Aug 29, 2008 11:57 PM:This was clearly a buy-out of VMR's tenure. The agreement was she would leave office and recieve 1.6 mil in return. How difficult is that to understand? State law limits that agreement to 18 mos salary or less. Even the author of the bill, under penalty of perjury, said the purpose of the bill was to limit exposure of public funds to unscurpulous employees, hoping to get rich on the publics dime. The judge should rule in Mr. Pages (our) favor. That's the right thing to do.

Jay wrote on Aug 30, 2008 7:26 AM:The argument was made that Richart was damaged but nowhere was it mentioned that what she had done to incur the negative comments, such as the vote of no confidence, and the many, many voices of the public and staff about her leadership style of chaos and intimidation, were responsible for her decision to leave. She wasn't fired; in fact, she is still on the payroll! This is a gross injustice to the taxpayers of this county who struggle to keep up with rising costs. And to threaten, as Sleeth did, about the cost of the lawyers is adding insult to the injuries. Nowhere has it been divulged about the egregious amount of money the lawyers have made off of the board's inability to get out of a bad deal!

which side are they on wrote on Aug 30, 2008 8:52 AM:"The attorneys for the college" do not represent the entire college. They only represent Ms.Richart and her cohorts on the Board.

Free Country wrote on Aug 30, 2008 9:31 AM:Since when can't one speak out about how someone is doing their job? Richart brought chaos to an otherwise peaceful, well-oiled campus. This waste of taxpayer money that includes paying her insurance and her husband's until they are both 65 is outrageous. The total amount she received is an outrage. I hope Judge Nugent carefully considers all the relevant facts and law here.

Mikey B. wrote on Aug 30, 2008 3:11 PM:Let's not get too spendy Vickie !

angry taxpayer wrote on Aug 30, 2008 4:42 PM:Leon Page will go down in flames. The three minority board members knew they goofed when they criticized Richart in public. Hence, they subsequented voted for the settlement in return for Richart's promise not to sue them. Board members are forbidden by state law to evaluate employees in public.

Hey Leon wrote on Aug 30, 2008 6:36 PM:What ever happened to you Jim Wood Brown Act Violation Lawsuit? That baby was sure swept under the rug. More of the same I'll bet, hopefully the NCT can follow up on this one so we know the results.

Hey Leon wrote on Aug 30, 2008 6:38 PM:What ever happened to your Jim Wood Brown Act Violation Lawsuit? That baby was sure swept under the rug. More of the same I'll bet, hopefully the NCT can follow up on this one so we know the results.

To Angry Taxpayer wrote on Aug 31, 2008 6:56 AM:Leon Page may go down in flames, but if he does, it's the public that loses, not him. In any event, neither the college nor Richart are now arguing that Richart was entitled to damages because some kind of "public evaluation" malarky. Richart fooled the Board into thinking that it was liable to her when it never was.

showboat wrote on Aug 31, 2008 4:44 PM:Where was Page and Cosad when Manchester Hotel Resorts sued the city of Oceanside for some 2 million dollars? If I recall - in bed with Rocky Chavez, TJ and Jack Fellar, the three that voted for the "settlement." Me thinks Page and Cozad are just looking for attention...

jvc wrote on Sep 1, 2008 3:50 AM:I hope Mr.Page sues the school district
for giving the MCC faculty a pay scale
that is 22 percent greater than other
colleges thereby saving our misspent
tax dollars!

I Agree WIth Hey Leon wrote on Sep 1, 2008 7:05 AM:What ever happened to your lawsuit against Mayor Wood for violating the Brown Act. I'll bet it was settled inj closed session by Shari Mackin, Esther Sanchez and Jim Wood himself.

To Showboat wrote on Sep 1, 2008 7:22 AM:What kind of remark is this? You must have no idea about the cost and amount of work it takes to take on the task of trying to get justice for the taxpayers and public that supports MiraCosta. Page and Cozad have done a great service and they deserve our admiration and not your sour grapes. Want someone to take on the Oceanside problems? You be the one leading instead of griping.

Showboat is taking a Free Shot wrote on Sep 2, 2008 8:24 AM:Anything to wack the opposition, right. After all it is a blog. The settlement of the Manchester lawsuit has nothing to do with this issue. Although without it Doug Manchester would now own the two hotel blocks by the beach and still have a hold on El Corazon.

Lawyer Speak wrote on Sep 2, 2008 11:38 AM:Sleeth faces a huge conflict of interest and speaks with a forked tongue. His partner, Shinoff, was hired by MiraCosta to represent the College and its highest ranking entity, the Board of Trustees. However, his legal advice was exclusively in favor of the college president, including giving the president over 1.5 million for just saying she might need to pursue legal solutions for her ill-fated, 34-month presidency. Should Sleeth lose this case, the Board, each trustee, ex-President Richart, and the California State Bar will all have the opportunity to pursue legal solutions against Shinoff and his firm for their bad advice. This case looks worse than chaos; it's a quagmire.

realist wrote on Sep 27, 2008 5:21 PM:It is amazing how the public doesn't know about the $109,000.00 million dollar budget that for the better part facilitates the full time faculty pay and not the part time faculty. Let's really narrow things down on who makes the most at MCC. Take a guess at how many full time there are in relation to the part time faculty. "INJUSTICE"