Click to see Rebuttal to the Deaf Bee by the Alliance

Click to see Henry Bergstresser's e-mail

Rebuttal to the Deaf Bee By the Alliance

This is in response to the recent publication of the Deaf Bee that was mailed out the second week of August 2003 by DHHSC.  On page 11 of that newsletter is a section on the Board Byline in which answers are provided to questions that were asked by visitors in attendance at recent DHHSC community forums and board meetings.  It states in the beginning of that section that the answers provided are “based on well researched, documented facts that illustrate the truth about past events”.  Unfortunately, only partial truths were provided with some of them not quite accurate.  If this information were based on well-researched and documented facts the Alliance would like to know how that information was obtained.  Our information is based on people who were actual witnesses to the events that unfolded, from board meeting minutes, and other sources, which we will share with you below.

1. While it is true that on the night of Ms. Carroll’s termination, three new members (Reno Coletti, Nancy Kanta and Paul Ogden) joined the board to terminate her, the Deaf Bee failed to add that Martha Coletti, Reno’s wife, joined the month before.  Lori Lane, who resigned as an employee in August 1998, joined the board in October 1998, four months prior to terminate Nancy.  All that information is documented in the VACC Board Meeting Minutes of October 1998, January 1998 and February 1999.  (Lori Lane’s husband Charles applied for Ms. Carroll’s job and when he did not get the job, Lori Lane immediately resigned from the Board).  Lori’s resignation can be found in the minutes immediately following the selection of the new Director in July/August 1999.  The community met with the two candidates Larry Laskowski and Charles Lane at a public forum in July 1999, before Larry was offered the position. 

Now ask yourselves what were the real motives of the five new people that joined the board?  Lori Lane, recently resigned as employee, joined four months prior to the termination and is the wife of a candidate for Ms. Carroll’s position.  Martha Coletti who joined one-month prior is the wife of Reno Coletti, who became President within two months.  Paul Ogden, Nancy Kanta, and Reno Coletti joined the very night of Ms. Carroll’s termination.  Five members that joined prior to and on the night of Ms.Carroll’s termination is a significant number as it represented 50% of the board, enough to sway the votes of those who worked with Ms. Carroll longer.

Also important to note is that the bylaws at the time required a minimum of ten board members.  (See VACC Bylaws – Revised 3/95, which were the Bylaws in effect at the time of Nancy’s employment).  Based on just that information alone, the seven board members would not have been able to terminate Ms. Carroll without the three additional members. During the arbitration trial Paul Ogden said he was asked to join, but when Ms. Carroll’s attorney, David Doyle, asked Cindy Hodges (President at the time) under oath how Paul was recruited, Cindy replied that he expressed interest in joining but was not specifically recruited.  At the time Paul joined, Fresno State had just completed an investigation of a complaint Ms. Carroll filed against him and specific people regarding a full time Sign Language position which was given to a hearing person. Also note in the March 1999 and April 1999 Board minutes that Paul Ogden did not attend the next two meetings following Nancy’s termination. After attending the May and June meetings, Paul resigned.

 

2. There was a specific secret meeting that was revealed during the April 1, 2000 arbitration trial by Reno Coletti under oath in which he admitted that confidential personnel issues were discussed without the full board among those who were not even board members, including himself, and without Ms. Carroll’s knowledge and an opportunity to defend herself.  The Decision paper written by Mr. Noll, the arbitrator, says that the board “met covertly to orchestrate Ms.Carroll’s termination…” and ruled on that action to be of a sinister nature as part of his reason for determining the final outcome of the case, which the Deaf Bee also erroneously reports.  The Deaf Bee said, “the arbitrator concluded that, “the board had legitimate reasons to terminate [the Executive Director at the time].”  What the arbitrator actually said was this, “The arbitrator therefore concludes that the employment contract was breached by defendant VACC.”  Nancy Carroll was wrongfully terminated and for this board to otherwise state in their newsletter is grounds for libel.

3.      The huge award of funds in 1998 and 1999 was made to VACC, not DHHSC as is erroneously stated in the Deaf Bee.  DHHSC did not even exist at the time.  In December of 1998, VACC was awarded along with other DSS agencies a long awaited and much needed cost of living increase.  The amount was $88,617 for the Fresno, Kings and Tulare counties only, and a total of 265,851 for three years.  Those counties were considered underserved counties but were already recipients of DSS funds. (This information is documented on the DSS Funding Data Sheet from that time period).  Since VACC’s inception in 1984, the State Department of Social Services rarely gave agencies COLAs, so Ms. Carroll did extensive lobbying along with the California Coalition of Agencies Serving the Deaf in Sacramento to obtain this cost of living increase, which was originally supposed to also include an augmentation of additional funds for services in contracted service areas.  (Ms. Carroll was also Vice President of the California Coalition of the Agencies for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing at the time).  The Coalition hired Roger Canfield the year before to put together a booklet to pass out to legislators and senate members but individual Directors contributed much of the material in that booklet.  The goal of the Coalition was originally to request a total of 2.5 million for the underserved component of the Deaf community at large. However, DSS decided to split the amount and use only 1.5 million in form of COLAs and issue the remaining 1.5 million in form of bids.  The most money agencies could apply for was $200.000 for Monterey and San Benito counties and another $200,000 for Madera, Mariposa and Merced counties per year of a three-year agreement. The Coalition did not agree on the allocation amounts as some members wanted to see more money go to the South where larger deaf populations resided.

4.      The Alliance is appalled that DHHSC chose to copy one small phrase of the arbitrator’s decision regarding Nancy Carroll’s case, therefore making a slanderous comment to the public by implying that the board had legitimate reasons to fire her.  Please read the actual arbitrator’s comments in green under The Reason Behind Nancy Carroll’s Termination and see for yourselves what he did say.  This is one of the reasons why DHHSC cannot be trusted to tell the truth.   DHHSC owes Nancy Carroll an apology for that comment.  They should print a retraction with a public apology and a factual account of Mr. Noll’s remarks.

 

5. It is true that one of the responsibilities of an Executive Director of a DSS agency is to constantly seek funds for the agency through grant writing and donations.  However, Nancy Carroll as well as other Directors during 1997 to 98 did additional work through the Coalition to lobby for that huge augmentation which was not originally planned in the State Budget for allocation to Deaf Services.  This action required frequent visits to the State Capitol and meeting many assembly folks and senators in person.  Currently, DHHSC is operating on two extensions of the contract since the proposal for DSS funds was last submitted in 1998.

6.      DHHSC has talked for more than four years about doing a board election.  Reno Coletti and Rosemary Diaz have claimed that few people are interested.  We know differently.  The shameful truth is that after the termination of Nancy Carroll, the DHHSC Board never again attempted to gain or retain members in “Friends of VACC” which was the appointed body outlined in the bylaws to elect or reject board members to office.  We in the Alliance believe that this was a deliberate oversight on their behalf and was designed to eventually remove the Deaf Community from the election process entirely.  Had they allowed well advertised community elections to take place at the time of Ms. Carroll’s termination it would have also led to embarrassing questions over why the present board had taken action against a director who had just tripled the agency’s budget and had wide support in Monterey and the San Joaquin Valley.

---

Henry Bergstresser's E-mail 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.

 

E-mail 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.4^th 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. 4^th 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

 

 

Revised 8-14-04 J