School District’s Inspector General Resigns His Post

The embattled inspector general for the Los Angeles Unified School District resigned Thursday after a six-year stint that frequently brought him into conflict with top district officials.

Don Mullinax, who will leave the district next month, drew the ire of school officials for his critical reports on such matters as the Belmont Learning Complex and the purchase of a downtown high-rise that now serves as the district’s headquarters. Charged with searching for waste, fraud and abuse within the district, Mullinax answered directly to the district’s board of education.

He could not be reached for comment Thursday, but district Supt. Roy Romer said he had received a memo from Mullinax earlier that day announcing his resignation. It was not a surprise, he said.

“I’ve known he’s been interested in making a change for some time,” Romer said. “He’s got other interests, and I wish him Godspeed. He’s done well, but he’s looking for other things to do.”

While Romer and Mullinax had clashed publicly over several issues, Romer characterized their relationship as cordial and professional.

“He confided in me he was thinking about this,” Romer said.

In 1999, L.A. Unified hired Mullinax, a former Defense Department and U.S. Senate investigator, to uncover fraud, waste and abuse within the district. He soon prepared a five-year plan that included audits of district branches such as payroll, purchasing and contract management. He was given subpoena power. Many units he investigated faced little or no oversight at the time.

That year, Mullinax uncovered numerous failures of management and accountability in the Belmont project. The project was halted after three years, amid worries about underground gases from former oil wells. His investigation found that nine senior district officials, in addition to the district’s law firm and the developer, were to blame for allowing construction without adequate environmental assessment. In the aftermath, four employees left the district or retired, and five were placed on paid administrative leave for more than a year.

More recently, Mullinax was responsible for keeping watch over $14-billion worth of school construction.

Board President Jose Huizar said Mullinax had done an “excellent job in a difficult position.”

His departure “presents an opportunity to examine the procedures and structure of the inspector general’s office,” Huizar said. Among other things, the board will reexamine the position and determine if its investigative and auditing duties will be changed or divided between two separate bodies.

Huizar said some members of the board would meet next week to discuss an interim plan for the position.

Mullinax has faced resistance from some board members and district officials. In 2003, he complained that the facilities division resisted when he requested $3.5 million to audit 105 projects.

Board member David Tokofsky said Mullinax had been dealing with a “long train of abuses” from district officials.

“There have always been four or five board members at different times who have supported him, but I don’t think it has been unanimous appreciation of the job and responsibilities,” Tokofsky said. Finding another job, he said, was better “than the pains of continuing on with less than unanimous support.”

“There were constantly people within the facilities division absolutely demonizing him,” Tokofsky said. “They did not like him.”

He pointed to 2001, when Mullinax raised concerns about the purchase of a downtown high-rise that is now the district’s administrative headquarters, questioning its structural condition, particularly the strength of its floors. In an internal report, Mullinax raised concerns that the floors were uneven and too weak to support file cabinets and other heavy equipment.

The facilities division was “very upset at him” for questioning their judgment, Tokofsky said.

In September, Robert Garcia, chairman of a citizens construction oversight committee, suggested that Mullinax “should be fired” for releasing a report that was “replete with errors.” The report claimed there had been a 25% overrun in total project expenditures and that the committee’s own consultant had misrepresented facts in a year-end report. Garcia called the allegations “shoddy and factually inaccurate.”

“It reflected the need for procedural safeguards to prevent the abuse of power by the inspector general and to ensure the truth and accuracy of any reports,” Garcia said.

Tokofsky said many of his colleagues never believed Mullinax’s position was necessary, “but anyone remembering the Belmont fiasco and reading any of his other reports would realize management doesn’t look for snafus and screw-ups.”

“I hope the public and board would not put up with losing the office,” Tokofsky said.

Times staff writer Monte Morin contributed to this report.