Testimony: Board Knew of Problems Before Police

Board members of the Orange Unified School District knew about problems with school repair contracts in 1982--two years before police were called in for an investigation, transcripts of Orange County Grand Jury proceedings reveal.

Copies of the transcripts were made available to reporters Tuesday. The documents cover the secret June testimony of former Orange Unified Supt. Kenneth Brummel and four of the seven board members: Eleanore Pleines, Joe C. Cherry, Ruth C. Evans and Robert James Elliott.

All four subsequently were accused by the grand jury of “willful misconduct” in public office. Pleines resigned, effective July 17, but the other three are scheduled to appear in Superior Court on Aug. 21. They are to be tried in a non-criminal action and, if found guilty by a jury, must be removed from office by the judge.

Specifics of Charge

When the grand jury announced its action against the four board members in June, Deputy Dist. Atty. Martin Engquist indicated that the board members had knowledge of wrongdoing in the district but did not act on it.

Specifics of Engquist’s charge are found in the transcripts.

Board member Evans testified that the school board first became concerned about possible wrongdoing with school-related contracts in 1982. She told the grand jury that the board was told two contracts had not been completed as they were supposed to be and that then-Supt. Gale Pattison ordered an internal investigation.

Both that investigation and a subsequent one in 1982 by a private auditing firm raised questions about maintenance contracts in the school district, Evans testified.

Promoted After Inquiry

Maintenance and operations were then under the direction of Steven Presson. Presson resigned in late 1984 after coming under scrutiny and criticism from the new superintendent, Brummel. But Engquist, according to the transcripts, noted in his questioning of witnesses that Presson was promoted in 1982 by Pattison despite questions raised in two investigations of the maintenance operation.

Evans agreed in her testimony that Pattison had promoted Presson after the investigations had been completed.

Presson, his wife,Elizabeth,and two Orange contractors, William A. Gustafson and Ronald Brock, were indicted by the grand jury on bid-rigging charges. Those four face a separate court action in Orange County Superior Court on Aug. 21.

In his questioning of Evans, Engquist repeatedly asked why the board did not take earlier action against the division headed by Presson.

She repeatedly responded that board members relied on information given them by the administrative staff.

“There is no way that the board members can check every purchase order or each item that appears (on the board’s meeting agenda) to know exactly what is in it,” Evans testified. “If we want that information, we refer to staff and we get it.”

She later testified, “It was rare that the board questioned whether or not we needed to do these things or whether or not we should award the contract. . . .”

Rug Brought to House

Evans also testified about school-related items that were made available to her or her family. She testified that a rug was brought to her house by Presson, but she said she thought it was a piece of scrap rug being thrown out by the school district. She turned the rug over to Orange police when they began investigating in 1984, she said.

Evans also said she was given a small table for her son’s computer by the school district after she asked if the district had a table that was going to be discarded. When the table arrived, she said, it was obviously a newly built one, and she offered to pay for it. But she said then-Associate Supt. George Simpson told her he would pay for it, and she forgot about the matter until it came up in the grand jury investigation.

Evans also testified that, at the urging of district officials, she borrowed district chairs on three occasions for annual parties she put on for parents who are leaders in the schools.

Brummel said in his testimony that when he was hired as superintendent in the spring of 1984, no one on the board told him about suspicions raised regarding building contracts in the 1982 investigations. However, Brummel said that in one-on-one private meetings he held with each of the board members in May, 1984, immediately after he was hired, Pleines expressed concern about maintenance and operations.

“I do recall that Eleanore also suggested that was an area of concern for her and one that she hoped I would investigate,” Brummel said.

“As I recall, she had concern for the leadership there and indicated to me that at one point she herself felt as though she would go to either the police or the district attorney to share with them her concerns for what was going on in the school district. . . .”

Pleines, when she resigned last month, said the grand jury transcripts would “be interesting to the public.” Often a maverick on the board before she resigned, Pleines was one of two who voted against the firing of Brummel last October. The other board member voting against the firing was Russ Barrios, who was elected to the board after the alleged contract bid riggings had taken place in the early 1980s.

Matter Taken to Police

Brummel told the grand jury that he officially took office July 1, 1984, and within two months came across documents that raised questions about the maintenance and operation activities in the school district. He testified that he put Presson on administrative leave because of his suspicions on Sept, 10, 1984, and that he went to the Orange Police Department asking them for an investigation Oct. 2, 1984.

Brummel told the grand jury that he did not inform the school board that he had gone to the police until Oct. 4, 1984. He testified that he felt “pressure” from the board for having consulted the police but that no one on the board tried to hinder the subsequent investigation.

The two-year investigation by the Orange Police Department and the Orange County district attorney’s office led to the indictment against the Pressons and the two contractors and to the non-criminal accusation of willful misconduct against the four school board members. Pleines no longer faces a trial because she resigned.

When Brummel was fired by a 5-2 vote of the school board last October, the board gave no reason for ending his three-year contract about nine months early.