Advertisement

School Security Chief Charged in Filing False Report of Theft : Court: Authorities allege that Charles Parcell took a computer from an office, then tried to hide it and claimed it was stolen. The computer was later found elsewhere on campus.

Share
SPECIAL TO THE TIMES

The head of security for the Pasadena Unified School District has been charged with falsely reporting a district computer as stolen.

Charles Parcell is scheduled to appear Tuesday in Pasadena Municipal Court for arraignment on a misdemeanor charge of filing a false police report, city prosecutor Tracy Webb said. Parcell was charged Oct. 14.

Authorities allege that Parcell removed a $1,800 computer from the district’s special-education department and, when an employee from that department saw it in his office, tried to hide it and filed a false report saying it was stolen. The computer was later found in another campus office.

Advertisement

Parcell, former principal of Blair High School, is also the subject of an internal investigation into the use of his district cellular telephone, said Rey Monteroso, director of fiscal services.

The Times was unable to contact Parcell for comment.

Supt. Vera Vignes said Parcell was put on paid administrative leave, pending the outcome of the district’s investigation into alleged misuse of school equipment.

She would not comment on the investigation, except to say an inventory of district equipment is under way.

During the police investigation, Parcell implicated his supervisor, Associate Supt. Michael Klentschy, but Webb said Klentschy will not be prosecuted because of lack of evidence and witnesses.

Klentschy has received a nine-month notice that could allow the district to terminate his contract June 30, 1993, Vignes said, but she said the notice was unrelated to the investigations. Klentschy has been with the district for six years.

“The board is looking at all contracts,” she said. She said Klentschy will continue to work while the investigations continue. Klentschy declined to comment.

Advertisement

School Board President Elbie Hickambottom said the board will wait until the internal probe is completed before taking any action. He also declined to comment on the nature of the inquiries.

According to the summary of the police investigation, Parcell moved the computer in August from a special-education office to the security office, saying he planned to use it to create a security manual. When a special-education staff member went to report the missing computer to the security office, she saw what looked like her computer in a locker there. A security officer on duty told her she was mistaken.

The police report said the computer was gone when another employee from the special-education department returned to look for it. She then reported the incident to Vignes, who initiated the police investigation.

Police received Parcell’s report listing the computer as stolen on Sept. 3, several days after the incident was reported to Vignes. Parcell told police Klentschy helped him devise a plan to place the computer someplace where it would be “easy to find” and even suggested leaving it in a restroom at district headquarters, according to the report.

The report said Parcell told police that Klentschy eventually told him to “throw it in the ocean.” Klentschy denied making the statement.

Police Investigator DuWayne Moe said he recovered the computer after a district safety officer told him it was in a trash sack in the security office.

Advertisement

Although the police investigative report said Klentschy denied knowing about the false theft report, it said he acknowledged authorizing the move of the computer and admitted to not telling Vignes he had done so because he feared for his job.

According to the report, Parcell told police he was responsible for preparing the false theft report, which was signed by another employee. The district’s investigation into Parcell’s cellular phone use began after Monteroso, director of fiscal services, discovered this summer that Parcell’s bills over the past year ran from $400 to $600 some months.

Another district employee who saw the phone records told The Times that many of the calls were placed to numbers outside the district.

Advertisement