Henry
Bergstresser's Email Message
With sincere thanks
to Henry Bergstresser from Monterey, we at the Central California Deaf Community
Alliance for Justice wish to make public his letter written to the DHHSC Board
after they wrote the Board By-line article that appeared in the Deaf Bee
misstated so many facts that the deaf community needs to know the truth about.
His longevity with the Monterey's office of Valley Advocacy Communication Center
that later became DHHSC was crucial to it's existence and without his help the
DSS funds in 1999 might not have been given to Monterey and San Benito counties,
as well as Merced, Madera and Mariposa counties Those who worked with
him respect him highly, and we consider it an honor to work along side of him
and others who are willing to stand up for deaf rights.
Email
Message
TO: Rosemary
Diaz, Brett Bailey, Christy West, Helen Porter, Patty Parker, Reno Coletti
CC: Nancy Carroll, Jim and Becky Wade , Tom Lee at DSS, Lisa Bandaccari
at DSS
Subject: Board
Byline...Direct Answers from the Summer/Fall 2003 issue
I
am amazed the ends the board is going to make it appear the past board did nothing
wrong when it fired Nancy Carroll. The
Deaf Bee quoted a sentence segment from the Arbitrators ruling (…the
board had legitimate reasons for terminating Ms. Carroll).
What should have also been included is the rest of the sentence”…had
she been given notice of the Board’s concerns, had a reasonable opportunity
to correct or change her behavior, failing to do so , and such failures documented
by an independent Cotran investigation with notice and opportunity to be heard
granted to Ms. Carroll. The uncontroverted evidence establishes that the board
failed to provide formal written evaluations to Ms. Carroll (that could have
included concerns about her failure to cooperate with the evaluation process),
met covertly to orchestrate Ms. Carroll’s termination, and made a mistake of
law concerning her employment status.
The arbitrator therefore concludes that the employment contract was
breached by defendant VACC. (underline
added for emphasis)
The
California Supreme Court case Cotran v. Rollings Hudig Hall International, Inc.
(1988) 17 Cal.4th 93 was cited as the controlling case. This
case states: “We give operative meaning to the term ‘good cause’ in the context
of implied employment contracts by defining it, under the combined Scott-Pugh
standard, as fair and honest reasons, regulated by good faith on part of the
employer, that are not trivial, arbitrary or capricious unrelated to business
needs or goals, or pretextual. A
reasoned conclusion, in short supported by substantial evidence gathered through
an adequate investigation that includes notice of the claimed misconduct and
a chance for the employee to respond” (17
Cal.
4th
107-108).
I
testified on Nancy
’s behalf.
Even then the board refused to acknowledge
Monterey
.
The board did nothing to lobby to get those augmented funds in 1998.
The Monterey Advisory board and people from
Merced
lobbied long
and hard to get those funds. It
is obvious from the bylines the board does not feel this was an important achievement.
We went against people who did not want us to get that money.
We contact EVERY elected official in
Monterey
County
, local and
state. We even sent letters to
our federal elected officials. We
got the money and the board immediately fired
Nancy
.
If you put the two together it is obvious the board did not want this
extra money or service area. From
our view point Nancy was fired because she increase the service area and reduced
the potential power of the board. From
that point on the board resisted putting members from
Monterey
and
Merced
on the board.
That
$200,000 I am now told was only for three years.
The board can now use it in anyway they see fit.
The majority of that money belongs to serve
Monterey
.
Merced
got the same
amount. I suspect the board is
now using that money to pay for the new building.
I want to see a budget with the exact amount being spent in
Monterey
and in
Merced
.
If this money, with the recent cuts, is not primarily being allotted
for Monterey
I will lobby
long and hard to make sure Monterey
and
Merced
get a fair
share. We should not have to support
your building.
If
you would read the entire ruling you will see Mr. Noll clearly ruled in
Nancy
’s favor to
the point of giving her monetary compensation based on her years of employment.
It is clearly time for the present board to acknowledge the past board made
a mistake. The board should formally
and publicly apologize to Nancy
.
Once this is done we should be able to move on.
The
Deaf Bee also states “the board did not have strict procedures in place to appropriately
complete the process of termination.”
There are federal and state laws relating to employment that need to
be followed. As stated in the above
Supreme Court case there was a very well defined procedure in place.
What the ‘Bee’ conveniently did not say was the people on the board at
the time of termination chose to ignore any procedures.
Only after the fact did the board then try and make up reasons for the
termination. Mr. Noll, the arbitrator,
stated in his ruling “…considering
that performance issues centered around board relationships…”
It is clear Mr. Noll saw through
the weak presentation put on by the board and supported
Nancy
.
The
Deaf Bee also mentions “secret” meetings.
Mr. Noll in his ruling mentions “covertly” which is another way to say
secret. This board has a history of closed (secret)(covert) meetings.
There are some legal authorities which will tell you DHHSC is required
to follow the guidelines of the Brown
Act.
This act is to prevent covert or secret meetings of the board of directors
of an agency receiving public money. The Brown
Act states these closed
sessions meetings must have minutes taken so if a question comes up a judge
will decide if the meeting met the guidelines of a closed meeting.
Based on the history DHHSC in recent years I would question each and
every closed meeting of the board.
The
present board is putting itself in a position of contributing to the continued
harassment of Nancy Carroll by printing only parts of the ruling to make it
appear the board was right. By
refusing to acknowledge the ruling as given by Mr. Noll the board is putting
itself in the position of losing the confidence of the community. I have talked
with enough people here in Monterey
to tell you
we do not have much confidence in the present board.
DHHSC
is in the business of serving the Deaf and Hard of Hearing community.
The present board does not represent the wide diversity that exists in
the DHHSC service area. The present
board continues to meet during the week rather than on weekends so that those
of us in the outlining areas who could serve on the board cannot without hardship.
The present board continues to make excuses why it is continuing the
present direction. The board has no constituents to answer to.
The board hears what it wants to hear. The board as shown by the Board
Byline…Direct Answers see the rest of us as putting out “misinformation”.
It is the board that is putting out misinformation!!
This is why I will say again…. Reno
Coletti
must resign. Reno
joined the
board the night Nancy
was fired.
This hints at how the past board
broke confidentiality because obviously those on the board at the time needed
people who would vote with them to remove
Nancy
as CEO.
As
long as the board refuses to acknowledge mistakes have been made I will continue
to stand up and protest. Present
board members are knowingly or unknowingly pawns being manipulated by
Reno Coletti
and those who support him.
I
strongly suggest the board read the entire ruling by Mr. Noll.
I also strongly suggest the board bring in a lawyer to explain the legal
terms used by Mr. Noll.
I
have covered several issues in this email.
I will at a later date put in a formal request for a detailed budget
which shows how much is being allotted to
Monterey
and how much
to Merced
.
I strongly feel this board is not giving
Monterey
and
Merced
the attention
it should. The needs of the Deaf
and Hard of Hearing are too great. We
need to be working together as a team.
The present set up of the board prevents that from happening at this
time. I cannot stress the importance
of acknowledging the mistakes of the past and then moving on.
Sincerely,
Henry Bergstresser
Updated 8-14-04 J
