Officials Faked Data to Justify Computer, Suit Says : Courts: Whistle-blower alleges he was dismissed for alerting investigators to county’s $8.6-million purchase.

Top county education officials falsified information to justify the purchase of an $8.6-million computer system and later dismissed the whistle-blower who alerted investigators, according to a lawsuit that went to trial Wednesday in Norwalk Superior Court.

A suit by computer analyst Allen M. Weil, 62, alleges that he lost his job because he revealed that top officials misled the County Board of Education, which authorized a new main computer system in 1991.

The Los Angeles County Office of Education, the suit said, did not yet need the computer, which will cost $13.7 million, including finance charges.

“Allen was harassed, discriminated against and eventually fired (because) he was making statements trying to protect the taxpayers,” said Weil’s attorney, Robert L. Esensten.

Officials named in the lawsuit have denied any wrongdoing and characterized Weil as a vindictive malcontent whose analysis about the need for the computer was incorrect.

“Allen Weil thinks he knows more about computers than anyone at the Los Angeles County Office of Education, but he does not, “ said Eric Bathen, the attorney representing the county education office and its officials. “There’s no validity in his claims.”

Weil’s allegations led to a critical audit last year of the education office. The dispute also has touched off four lawsuits and resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal costs.

The state attorney general has taken the unusual step of entering one of the lawsuits--a pending whistle-blower action--on Weil’s side.

Those named in Weil’s wrongful dismissal suit include county schools Supt. Stuart E. Gothold and former Assistant Supt. Calvin W. Hall, who retired in February.

Bull HN Information Systems, the company that manufactured the computer system, is a defendant in the whistle-blower’s suit, but Gothold is not.

In documents supporting that suit, Weil alleges that his superiors asked him to provide false data showing that a new computer was needed because the old one was operating at capacity.

After Weil refused, the suit alleges, administrators prepared such materials with the assistance of a Bull HN salesman, and presented the information to the Board of Education at three meetings in December, 1990. The board voted Jan. 8, 1991 to buy the new system that among other tasks processes the payrolls for most public school districts in the county.

Documents supporting the purchase stated that on the old computer, “the average daily processor utilization was at 90%” and peaked “at 100% or more for periods of up to six hours” a day, resulting in delays.

Using data supplied by Weil, county auditors later concluded that the average actually ranged from 54% to 72% over the last two years the old computer was used. Weil told auditors that the average was less than 60% at the time officials informed the board that the processor was at 90% capacity.

“Misleading data was included in the board’s proposal” for the new computer, auditors reported. “One board member stated that had the accurate information been distributed to the board, a more in-depth analysis and discussion would have been needed and a different decision may have been reached.” The board member was not identified.

Included in the court records was a portion of the draft audit, which said, “We believe the management team purposely included incorrect information in the board’s proposal in order to sway their decision.”

Auditors deleted the latter statement from the report at the request of officials from the education office, sources said.

Top administrators said they disputed some language in the draft as well as critical portions of the final audit.

“The audit team either did not take sufficient time or lacked adequate expertise,” wrote Bathen, who prepared a response to the audit for the education office. “Based on all of the information supplied to the board, the recommendation to purchase the (computer) can easily be supported.”

The attorney general’s office supports Weil’s contentions in court papers filed for the whistle-blower’s lawsuit. As a result of Weil’s whistle-blowing, he “was terminated from his position with the Los Angeles County Office of Education by the defendants,” according to a joint complaint filed by Weil’s attorneys and the state attorney general.

The attorney general’s office decided in September to join Weil’s whistle-blower lawsuit under laws set up to protect whistle-blowers and prosecute companies and public officials who defraud public agencies.

“The essential wrong here derives from an excessive closeness between a computer vendor and a government agency,” said Deputy Atty. Gen. Brian Taugher.

Jack Plicet, a representative for Bull HN, was in charge of the sale of new equipment and the servicing of old equipment, including a computer system purchased in 1986, Taugher said.

Plicet has referred questions to an attorney representing Bull HN. The attorney denied that Bull HN did anything wrong.

“This litigation involves highly technical and complicated issues that are not susceptible to a discussion among untrained individuals,” said attorney William E. von Behren. “We believe that Bull will be completely vindicated.”

After raising concerns in 1991 about the computer purchase, Weil said he was harassed by superiors, according to the suit.

Ultimately, Hall and two other administrators sued Weil for libel and slander. A Superior Court judge dismissed their suit on the grounds that Weil was entitled to criticize the job performance of public officials.

Weil’s attorneys later filed a suit against Hall and the others, charging that the libel and slander action was malicious prosecution.

“Government fraud and abuse will never be curtailed unless people like Allen come forward without fear of losing their livelihood when they do so,” said Weil attorney Steven Geffner.

The whistle-blower’s suit also alleges that the education office paid $800,000 to Bull HN for computer maintenance contracts that were not fully honored.

The auditor’s report found no evidence that Bull HN was at fault for not fulfilling its maintenance contract.

In earlier interviews, Hall said small portions of some board reports were potentially misleading. In preparing the report, some clarifying information was omitted about how frequently the old computer was overtaxed, Hall said.

“Evidently when it got typed, it just got on the wrong way,” he said.

The 100% capacity figure was not meant to be taken literally, said James K. Magill, an assistant director in Weil’s department. Magill denies allegations in Weil’s suit that he had asked the computer analyst to provide misleading information about the need for a new computer.

Jay M. Stevens, the administrator who presented the case for the new computer to the board, also was named in the lawsuit. “The essential argument was that we weren’t completing our payroll processing” during the time available, he said in an interview. “Our speed of processing and all things that relate to processing were not adequate or fast enough.”

Data processing is a main function of the education office. The office also develops curriculum, oversees school district budgets and operates education programs for disabled children, wards of the juvenile court and other special groups.

Weil was laid off from his job in March, 1993. He is seeking lost wages and punitive damages from the education office and several administrators. His attorneys contend that administrators engineered Weil’s dismissal and disguised it as a budget-cutting move.

Bathen, who represents the education office and its officials, denies those charges. Weil, he said in an interview, could have applied for another available position and he probably would have been hired.

Bathen described Weil as a vindictive, unhappy employee who complained incessantly about matters ranging from the parking lot to the copying machine. He said Weil could not accept any analysis about the computer system but his own.

“If anyone was doing the harassing, it was Allen Weil,” Bathen said.