In this SUPT. MARTEN SCPA STATEMENT ALIBIS EXPOSED Series District Deeds has identified 81 Public Trust, Board Bylaw or Legal Violations in the 2,249 words of the 9-29-15 Cindy Marten SCPA Support Documentation

That breaks down to ONE PUBLIC TRUST, BOARD BYLAW OR LEGAL VIOLATION EVERY 28 WORDS OF MARTEN’S STATEMENT!

It has taken District Deeds NINE DAYS, SIX POSTS AND OVER 14,000 WORDS to unravel, fully expose and illustrate the scope and depth of lies, deceptions, coverups and alibis regarding in the SCPA Statement by Marten that was sanctioned and enabled by her accomplice,  San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) Trustee Marne Foster, General Counsel Lawyer Andra Donovan and Board Members Richard Barerra, Kevin Beiser, John Lee Evans and Mike McQuary.

THAT is the reason that we have taken such care to detail ALL of these violations…to provide SDUSD Stakeholders/Taxpayers the full insight into how absolutely compromised the current Superintendent and Board if Education can become when entrusted with ABSOLUTE power and no legitimate oversight or control.

The San Diego County Grand Jury saw it, called it out and made numerous suggestions for Marten and the Board to voluntarily accept.

District Deeds is in FULL SUPPORT of virtually ALL of the San Diego Unified School District Trustee’s Overreach Abuse of Power Report Recommendations.

Instead, Marten, to save her job and the job of Marne Foster, with the approval of the Board of Education, INSULTED the group of dedicated volunteers on the County Grand Jury…and ALL the SDUSD Stakeholders/Taxpayers…by DENYING knowledge that anything was wrong….and DENYING the only chance they had to regain any semblance of SDUSD Leadership transparency and accountability. 

These 14,000+ words PROVE the guilt of Marten, Foster, The Board of Education and District associates through their own words, deeds and documentation, and officially indict them for their wrongdoing.

The OATH that the Board of Education members swear to (and who the Superintendent reports to)  at the beginning of their terms is as follows:

I, ________________________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which I am about to enter.”

SAN DIEGO UNIFIED BOARD OF EDUCATION TRUSTEE OATH OF OFFICE

As you read through the many Violations by Supt. Marten , Trustee President Marne Foster and  Trustees Richard Barerra, Kevin Beiser, John Lee Evans, Mike McQuary, please decide in your own mind if ANY of that group are capable to “well and faithfully discharge the duties” to which they were elected or appointed.  

How many of them can actually fulfill their duties when they fabricate, lie and conceal evidence to prevent themselves from being held accountable for their despicable actions? 

This SUMMATION is a “Crib Sheet” for the series.  Click on the Blue links to go directly to that “Part” of the series.

Also…for the readers who grew bored with our inarticulate and boring writing style, we have included a very brief summary for each of the sections within the “Part”.

Thank you for reading this Series…District Deeds hopes this will lead to Justice for all the unwilling recipients of the retribution, intimidation, loss of work, sleepless nights, mental anguish and income due to the improper, illegal and unethical actions of the current SDUSD Senior Leadership. 

GOOD LUCK!

District Deeds Series:  SUPT. MARTEN SCPA STATEMENT ALIBIS EXPOSED – Introduction

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: SDUSD BOE – Richard Barerra, Kevin Beiser, John Lee Evans, Mike McQuary.

Cause: Concealing Evidence, Violation of Oath of Office

Proof: Due to the SDUSD Board of Education decision to assign co-defendant Supt. Cindy Marten to investigate herself and accomplice Trustee Marne Foster, any and all finding are negated by conflict of interest and the refusal of Marten to incriminate herself and and co-defendant Trustee President Foster for the violations they committed thereby eliminating their exposure to guilt and repercussions.  This is concealing evidence and a Violation of the Board Member Oath of Office to  “well and faithfully discharge the duties” of the Office of SDUSD Trustee.

District Deeds Series: SUPT. MARTEN SCPA STATEMENT ALIBIS EXPOSED – Part 1 – The Set-Up

KEY COMPONENT:

sUPT. MARTEN DOES NOT MENTION TRUSTEE MARNE FOSTER IN NARRATIVE

Analysis Segment:  1

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten

Cause: Gross Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty

Proof: Marten was hired by the BOE with only ELEMENTARY Principal experience and NO large district Superintendent leadership or Middle/High School experience and has made numerous staffing errors since she has NEVER hired, fired or re-assigned ANY SDUSD employee…or any education related employee ANYWHERE prior to being assigned the position.

Analysis Segment:  2

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten

Cause: False Claims/Lie

Proof:  NO evidence provided to support the claim that Marten and her instructional team “have built an exemplary school leadership team that is second to none in the nation.“.   This false claim/lie is a cornerstone to the Marten/Foster alibi that their ability to “reassign or remove Principals” is superior while in reality it is FAR below adequate.

Analysis Segment:  3

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten

Cause: Gross Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty

Proof:  AGAIN – NO evidence provided to support that just because Marten was “entrusted” and knew her responsibility doesn’t mean she, as a TOTALLY inexperienced and ill-equipped Senior Administrator can actually carry out the task assigned.  

Analysis Segment:  4

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster

Cause: False Claims/Lie

Proof:  NO evidence provided from any type of local, state  or national verified study to support the claim that removal/reassignment of NINETY Principals is “the natural movement you would expect to see in a large urban school district” 

This false claim/lie is another cornerstone to the Marten/Foster alibi that their propensity to remove/reassign Principals is “natural” and therefore justified while providing NO PROOF

Analysis Segment:  5

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten

Cause: Fabrication/Lie/Concealing Evidence

Proof:  Marten’s appeal that “If you review the data” of the pattern of Principal “reassignment”  is a complete fabrication/lie since there is NO data provided in the Marten Response narrative or reports to “review“.  By not providing the “data” Marten is effectively concealing evidence to cover up her erratic and unprofessional staffing record.

Analysis Segment:  6

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten

Cause: Fabrication/Lie/Gross Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty

Proof:  False Claim by Marten that:

Despite a WIDE array of services and supports provided to Principal Lizarraga by Marten’s brainchild, the Office of Leadership and Learning”, Principal Lizarraga, who had an exemplary performance review the year before with many school/site/individual accolades, 99% graduation rate and over 25 years of Site Leadership experience, declined SO MUCH that Marten was REQUIRED to remove her from her position and replace her with a an individual with NO ADMINISTRATIVE EXPERIENCE AT ALL”

This is clearly an unbelievable fabrication and Lie based on Gross Incompetence and a total Dereliction of her self claimed duties “to clearly articulate and support a coherent vision for school site leaders.” since there is NO WAY that a highly credentialed, nationally renowned arts education leader with a spotless record can be fully replaced by an individual with no experience.

Analysis Segment:  7

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster

Cause: Fabrication/Lie/Concealing Evidence

Proof:  There is no “specific, sequenced Human Resources process that includes very specific steps and timelines.” in the Marten Response narrative or reports; “the decision to reassign may occur on June 30.” actually happened June 10, 2014 two days BEFORE the Class of 2014 Graduation Ceremony.  “Progressive Discipline” for Principal Lizarraga was just ONE of the “Steps“that were NOT included. 

With no PROOF of the “Human Resource process” provided and evidence that a different process was employed at SCPA,  this is a Fabrication/Lie and concealing evidence to cover-up the Marten/Foster misdeeds.

District Deeds Series: SUPT. MARTEN SCPA STATEMENT ALIBIS EXPOSED – Part 2a – Biased Ignorance

KEY COMPONENT:

sUPT. MARTEN DOES NOT MENTION TRUSTEE MARNE FOSTER IN NARRATIVE

Analysis Segment:  1

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten; SDUSD BOE – Marne Foster, Richard Barerra, Kevin Beiser, John Lee Evans, Mike McQuary.

Cause: FERPA Law Violation/Concealing Evidence

Proof:  Selective release of certain, but not all, private records of certain, but not all, SDUSD Employees and a Student minor (Foster’s son) were selectively chosen and released without authorization by those parties.  Additional information for SDUSD employees that are being protected for their part in improper activities at SCPA WERE NOT released which constitutes concealing of evidence.

Analysis Segment:  2

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten; SDUSD BOE – Marne Foster, Richard Barerra, Kevin Beiser, John Lee Evans, Mike McQuary.

Cause: California Labor Code Violation – 3rd party Disclosure; Concealing Evidence

Proof:  The improper release of confidential SDUSD employee records could violate the California Labor Code-3rd party disclosure laws and the refusal to release other records in the same process could violate discrimination laws.

Certain SDUSD employee identities were selectively chosen and released on the same document other employees identities were not which indicates that evidence was concealed.

Analysis Segment: 3

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten; Trustee Marne Foster

Cause: Lie/Concealing Evidence

Proof:  For the question: “Did a Board Member put pressure on you to reassign Ms. Lizarraga?”, Marten DID NOT EVEN MENTION Foster’s name, despite the Grand Jury Report and dozens of local and regional news articles naming Foster’s intervention for Principal removals.

Marten said “However, I will say clearly and succinctly, the pressure I received from a board member did not cause the reassignment of Ms. Lizarraga.” and ALSO did not mention Foster.

By refusing to name Foster as her accomplice, Marten concealed evidence and lied about their corresponding guilt at SCPA.

Analysis Segment: 4

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster

Cause: Lie/Concealing Evidence

Proof: Before “hearing of her reassignment, many staff members, students, and community expressed concern about her departure from SCPA.“ from the SDUSD Senior Staff, Marne Foster’s son bragged that “My mom and I got Lizarraga fired” at least 4 days BEFORE Principal Lizarraga had even discussed reassignment with Lamont Jackson…still with no mention of Foster.

NO mention of  the impact of Marne Foster’s intimidation of Teachers and Staff OR the impact of the $250,000 fabricated claim…or the direct improper intervention by Marten and Foster to over-ride site decisions and let Foster’s son to blatantly break the rules with no repercussions.  

This was clearly a lie and concealing evidence to protect herself and Foster from prosecution and termination.

District Deeds Series: SUPT. MARTEN SCPA STATEMENT ALIBIS EXPOSED – Part 2b – Biased Ignorance Squared

KEY COMPONENT:

SUPT. MARTEN DOES NOT MENTION TRUSTEE MARNE FOSTER IN NARRATIVE

Analysis Segment: 1

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster

Cause: Fabrication/Lie/Concealing Evidence

Proof:  Via a patchwork of out of context statements/reports and concealing key documents, Marten fabricated the “significant concerns about the campus climate and leadership over the past several years.” alibi to hide the Board Bylaw violations by Foster and herself. 

Analysis Segment: 2

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten

Cause: Gross Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty 

Proof:  The reliance on the opinion of a few underperforming, disgruntled SCPA employees instead of the viewpoint of Superintendent Bill Kowba, and then misconstruing  Mr. Kowba’s questions regarding the flawed investigation as being troubled with SCPA as opposed to being troubled about the investigation process itself is proof of Marten’s incompetence and dysfunctional approach and understanding of her duties. 

Analysis Segment: 3

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster

Cause: Fabrication/Lie/Concealing Evidence 

Proof:  Marten provided no proof or evidence of her claims of “leadership issues”.  Her claim was belied by the actual school site performance data proving the success of Principal Lizarraga at SCPA.  

Martens’s total lack of evidence, attempts to smear the reputation of Principal Lizarraga, and concealing the evidence  of the exceptional SCPA school site performance  shows that her claim was simply a lie to cover up the Board Bylaw Violations of Foster and herself.

Analysis Segment: 4

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster, Lamont Jackson

Cause: Fabrication/Lie/Concealing Evidence 

Proof:  The preemptive “we got Mitzi fired” statement by Foster’s son BEFORE the June 10th Jackson/Lizarraga Meeting, the lies told by Jackson in the July SCPA community meeting, the lack of even a job description or budget for the “district wide arts leadership role” and the direct testimony of Principal Lizarraga prove Marten’s “after the fact” fabrication of a SDUSD Central Office position another Lie to conceal the improper removal decision that she carried out for Foster and that she shared with Foster and Foster’s son four days before the Principal Lizarraga meeting with Lamont Jackson.

Analysis Segment: 5

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster, Lamont Jackson

Cause: Fabrication/Lie/Concealing Evidence 

Proof:  Same as Segment 6 – just a repeat of the lies above regarding quotes attributed to Principal Lizarraga that never happened to try to generate some minimal level of credibility.

Analysis Segment: 6

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster, Lamont Jackson

Cause: Fabrication/Lie/Concealing Evidence, Gross Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty 

Proof:  Misrepresentation of what occurred the last 2 week of the 2013/14 school year, testimony to the San Diego County Grand Jury and by Principal Lizarraga is proof that the infuriated Marten wanted to “make an example” of Principal Lizarraga and was willing to fabricate scenarios, lie and improperly remove a overachieving principal which is Gross Incompetence and Dereliction of Duty by Marten and her accomplices Foster and Jackson.

Analysis Segment: 7

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster, Lamont Jackson

Cause: Fabrication/Lie/Concealing Evidence, Gross Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty,  Board Bylaws Violation

Proof:  No mention of what occurred with Foster’s son during the last 2 weeks of the 2013/14 school year, testimony to the San Diego County Grand Jury and by Principal Lizarraga is proof that the infuriated Marten wanted to “make an example” of Principal Lizarraga for resisting Foster’s improper intervention and was willing to Fabricate scenarios, Lie and improperly remove a overachieving principal which is Gross Incompetence and Dereliction of Duty by Marten and her accomplices Foster and Jackson.

Analysis Segment: 8

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster, Lamont Jackson

Cause: Fabrication/Lie/Concealing Evidence, Gross Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty, Board Bylaws Violation 

Proof:  The culmination of Trustee Marne Foster’s improper, site intervention vendetta against Principal Lizarraga came to fruition with the willing and enthusiastic…and Board Bylaw violating…support of Supt. Marten.  The violation of Board Bylaws and potentially other Federal State and County laws through fabrications, lies, and concealment of evidence delegitimizes the removal of Principal Lizarraga and proves the guilt of Supt. Marten and Trustee Foster.

District Deeds Series: SUPT. MARTEN SCPA STATEMENT ALIBIS EXPOSED – Part 3 – The UN-Common  App

KEY COMPONENT:

SUPT. MARTEN DOES NOT MENTION San Diego Grand Jury Report

Analysis Segment: 1

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster, Counselor Megan Blum

Cause: Lie/Concealing Evidence

Proof:  Marten proved the guilt of herself and Foster by avoiding any reference to the San Diego County Grand Jury and concealing the treatment of Counselors Abagat and Blum to cover up the improper suspension of Abagat and the rewarding of Blum for breaking the rules regarding unsealing Common Apps,  improperly sharing it with Foster and lying on the Common App of Foster’s son as demanded by Foster and willingly implemented by Marten.

Analysis Segment: 2

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten

Cause: Gross Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty

Proof:  Just like when Marten tried to smear the reputation of Principal Lizarraga, Marten blames counselor Kim Abagat for TELLING THE TRUTH about her improper suspension and then tries to shift responsibility for the improper suspension to a “not so independent” investigator, she verified that she is not capable of shouldering the responsibilities of her Superintendent position.

Analysis Segment: 3

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster, Lawyer Andra Donovan

Cause: Fabrication, Lie, Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty, Board Bylaws Violation

Proof:  Marten was apparently willing to allow the Legal Firm of Andra Donovan to recreate her first conversation with Foster regarding the Common App to avoid the appearance of improper site direction by Foster which disqualifies Marten from any measure of trust by SDUSD Stakeholders that she has the capacity to consistently tell the truth. 

Analysis Segment: 4

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster, Lawyer Andra Donovan

Cause: Fabrication, Lie, Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty, Board Bylaws Violation

Proof:  Marten directly incriminated herself and Foster THREE times in this section  thereby making her AND Foster guilty of breaking Board Bylaws:

1. Marten allowed the Legal Firm of Andra Donovan to recreate her first conversation with Foster regarding the Common App and did not know that Fulcher had exposed her in a published email verifying she gave him direction based on Foster’s orders the night BEFORE Foster contacted Fulcher.
2. Marten claimed that Foster received the same treatment as “other parents” but was exposed as a liar by the list of EIGHT examples that NONE of the other parents of the 7,000 SDUSD Class of 2014 Graduates received verifying that Foster received Board President treatment by Marten and Senior Staff.
3. Marten claimed she was  “solely responsible for all campus personnel decisions” but then reversed direction 2 weeks later when she found she could be fired for her improper support of Foster

Analysis Segment: 5

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster, Lawyer Andra Donovan

Cause:  Fabrication, Lie, Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty, Board Bylaws Violation

Proof:  Besides repeating the “other parents” lie, Marten also created the falsehood that Kim Abagat was not the Counselor assigned to write Foster’s sons Common App, and that Common App “best practices” were not followed despite overwhelming hard evidence that neither claim was true thereby incriminating her of fabricating a lie, exposing her incompetence of not knowing district “Best Practices” guidelines and allowing Foster to direct the Common App process at SCPA thereby making her AND Foster guilty of breaking Board Bylaws.

Analysis Segment: 6

Plaintiff:  SDUSD Stakeholders and Taxpayers

Defendent: Supt. Cindy Marten, Trustee Marne Foster, Lawyer Andra Donovan

Cause:  Fabrication, Lie, Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty, Board Bylaws Violation

Proof: The incomplete and inaccurate “independent investigation performed by an outside investigator” was approved by the guilty Board Member, the lawyer creating the alibis, and Superintendent that approved and directed the abuse operationally making its conclusions fallacious.

By abdicating her responsibility and funding this not so independent investigator,  and then Using these faulty results to improperly suspend Counselor Abagat, Marten has fabricated a lie that punished  a dedicated SDUSD Employee and fulfilled the wishes of an improperly intervening Foster which proves her and Foster are guilty of Incompetence/Dereliction of Duty and violators of Board Bylaws.

~FIN~

Here is the full Alibis Exposed Series to date: Marten SCPA Statement Alibis Exposed Series

Sign the “RECALL SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT TRUSTEE MARNE FOSTER” Petition

To stay up on ALL the NEWS and get ALL the REAL information about the SDUSD…scroll to the bottom of this page and “Follow” the District Deeds Blog right now!