No surprise that the "evidence" examined by the Police did not lead to formal criminal charges against Olson, Klaus or Iverson but that should not preclude them being FIRED by the ECASD immediately. There is a link to the DA's memo at the bottom of this post.
Be sure and read the BOE member comments and their recollections. Comm. Kneer's comments are priceless and can be read at the bottom of page 4 of the document. If she admits that she loses track of the discussions then why is she on the negotiating team and the CESA representative or even on the BOE at all???
Maria
Updated: 6/25/2008 12:27:02 P
Conflicting stories lead to no charges in Klaus case
By Julian Emerson
Leader-Telegram staff
Eau Claire County District Attorney Rich White has decided against charging current and former Eau Claire school district officials with wrongdoing in helping former school Superintendent Bill Klaus try to receive his $225,000 retirement stipend earlier than called for in his contract.
White said disagreement among the seven board members who approved changes to Klaus' contract on Feb. 5, 2007 made filing criminal charges against Klaus, former school board President Carol Olson and others difficult. He noted that "legitimate questions exist" about the behavior of district officials regarding the contract change but said he can't address those legally.
"My bottom-line conclusion ... is that I cannot prove beyond a reasonable doubt the (Klaus) engaged in criminal conduct," Write wrote in his decision, which he released shortly before noon today.
Eau Claire police and the Eau Claire school board decided to investigate the matter after an April 19 Leader-Telegram story detailing how Olson, at Klaus' direction, signed and backdated a document intended to allow Klaus to receive his $225,000 retirement stipend earlier than allowed by his contract.
Olson was no longer a board member when she signed the document. Klaus didn't receive that money after the school board subsequently disallowed that action.
The police department wrapped up its investigation earlier this month, but the school board inquiry into the situation continues. Sources familiar with the matter say the board is considering a buyout of at least a portion of Klaus' contract, which runs through 2012.
Klaus has been on administrative leave with pay on April 30.
Here is the link to the 9 page document from the DA:
http://www.leadertelegram.com/NewsLinks/PDFs/Klaus-DAMemo.pdf
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I can now put the DA's memo in my Klaus thing file
and move on. I agree with the memo as the DA'S reasoning matches what I saw in the relevant documents, especially the Feb 5 contract and the later "clarification. "
Now it's up to the school board to do the same thing, that is do someting to close the file and move on.
Whatever they do will be see as wrong by many people.
But I will add one thing that may be accurate or not, I am not sure. It appears to me that the current board (not just the Feb 5 board referenced in the memo) is divided not so much on the facts that they have meticuously dissected and agree upon but on an appropriate course of action.
As a pragmatist I urge them to resolve their differences however they can and put this episode behind them. There is just too much work ahead
to linger on this issue.
I also think the new Superintendent should keep out of it and let the board resolve it. It didn't happen on his watch and now that his watch is
coming up he needs a clear deck to sail ahead.
I took Mary Kneer's comments differently. I think perjury is a big step, and while the other three longtime board members were up to it, she was looking for an out. So she told a little lie rather than a big one. I look forward to her rotating off the board next year. This is probably the first time she didn't follow Carol Olson's lead.
I do want to point out that no one backed up Bill's laughable contention that it was all about survivor's benefits. I guess that falsehood has run its course.
Bob
Perjury is a big step but it's also a very precise charge that would not apply to the police investigation or the board interview.
Lying to the police invesigator would come under a charge of "obstruction of justice" or something like that- "lying to a police officer" not perjury.
I believe perjury requires lying under oath in a more formal setting and also has an element of intent. I don't think the board investigation involves an oath.
Post a Comment