Orange Trustees’ Defense Fund Spurs Retaliation Fears

Some employees of the Orange Unified School District are being solicited to donate to a legal defense fund for three embattled trustees, and a few are worried that “their jobs may be in jeopardy” if they don’t contribute, the fund’s chairman acknowledged this week.

But the chairman, Jerry Coker, a retired AT&T; executive in the city of Orange, stressed that no school official will ever learn who gave to the legal defense fund.

“Only the treasurer of our committee keeps the list of donors, and that’s because we have to make a report to the (Orange County) registrar of voters,” Coker said. “No one else sees that list or will ever see it. I don’t even know who has given money.” William Steiner, president of the school board, also said employees have no reason to fear the solicitation letter. “Donation is an individual’s choice,” he said. Neither the school board nor any arm of school administration wants to see the list of donors, Steiner added.

He acknowledged that the defense fund and the letters had created a controversy. But, he said, “school district employees are residents of the district, and I don’t think it inappropriate that they were included” in the mailing. Many employees are longtime friends and supporters of the three board members, he said, and might welcome an opportunity to help.

Only about a fourth of the district’s 2,500 employees received the letter, Steiner said. “And of that number, very few complaints have been raised,” he said. “I think it’s important to put in context the number involved and the small number of complaints.”

Trustees Robert Elliott, Ruth Evans and Joe Cherry were accused this summer by the Orange County Grand Jury of “willful misconduct” in office. The grand jury accused them of not paying proper attention to their duties, and thus overlooking an alleged $3-million bid-rigging scheme between 1980 and 1984.

A fourth trustee, Eleanore Pleines, who also was accused by grand jurors, resigned from office and the accusation against her was dropped.

The school board members now face trial Dec. 2 in Orange County Superior Court. If they are found guilty by a jury, the judge, by law, must remove the three from their elected office. Because the accusation is not a criminal charge, no other penalty is allowed.

The seven-member Orange Unified school board refused to spend school district money to defend the three. And in a later move, the school district’s insurance carrier also refused to pay court expenses. The fund was launched after those refusals, Steiner said.

A Los Angeles law firm subsequently agreed to represent them without charge, Coker said. But he added that other court expenses, such as fees and research, will cost about $30,000.

It was to cover those expenses that Coker and some other Orange residents formed the Trustee Defense Fund and mailed letters earlier this month to what he called “a cross-section of the community.”

“Some letters went to school employees, but not to all employees,” Coker said. “We sent out a total of 814 letters, and they went to people in many different occupations in the community.” Coker said mailing lists were combined with those kept by various Trustee Defense Fund supporters who previously had run for public office. He said about $4,000 has been raised so far.

The solicitation letters, signed by Coker, contained a list of 17 other members of the Trustee Defense Fund’s steering committee, including Wilma Wittman, a school counselor and vice president of the Orange Unified Education Assn., the teachers’ union.

Union president Mark Rona recently sent union members a letter noting that while Wittman’s name is on the committee list, the union is not involved.

“I sent the letter because the association was getting so many calls,” Rona said.

The letter wasn’t meant to be critical of Wittman or the defense fund, he said. Rona said he doesn’t believe that any of the accused school board members would retaliate against teachers who didn’t contribute.

“I know those board members, and that’s just not the way they’d act,” he said.

But Wittman said she was angry about Rona’s letter. “The letter maligned me,” she said. “I was acting as a private citizen and resident of Orange, which I have every right to do.

“I’ve known these board members many years, and they are friends. In my culture, you stay with your friends when they’re in good times, and you stay with your friends when they’re in trouble. These friends now face serious trouble, and I agreed to try to help. I’m not saying they’re innocent or guilty. That’s for the trial to decide.”

On Monday, the union’s board of directors voted to send a letter declaring that Wittman “had every right to participate (on the steering committee) as a private citizen.”

The central controversy, however, involves the original letters of solicitation.

In a letter to The Times, one former school employee said that some Orange Unified employees who have been solicited were “distressed” and that “many employees were concerned about the issue of retaliation.”

Coker said he was familiar with the reaction. “I got three calls from school employees myself,” he said, adding that he told them that “no school official will ever see who gave money.”

Coker said he and other Orange residents active in the defense fund became concerned that some people were prejudging the school board members as guilty.

“We are not saying these school board members are guilty or innocent, but we are saying they deserve a fair defense,” Coker said. “The issue of guilt will be decided by the court.”

The treasurer of the Trustee Defense Fund is Jay Coker, the wife of the chairman. But Jerry Coker said that he has not made any attempt to see the list of donors kept by his wife, nor will he do so.

Jerry Coker and Steiner noted that state law requires that those giving $100 or more to the defense fund be listed in a donation report that goes to the registrar of voters. That report, by law, becomes public record, open to the inspection of anyone. But Steiner said he thinks that “most of the donations will be less than $100” and thus the names of most donors won’t have to be made public.