The UT-San Diego yesterday denied that it had bought the North County Times, but today admitted that it had. This makes Voice of San Diego all the more important to San Diegans.
U-T Buys North County Times
September 11, 2012
By DAGNY SALAS
Voice of San Diego
Developer and U-T San Diego owner Doug Manchester now owns two major daily newspapers in the San Diego region: The company jointly owned by Manchester and his partner, U-T CEO John Lynch, bought the North County Times for $11.95 million. Voice of San Diego reporter Rob Davis is on the story and has been tweeting about it this morning:
11 Sep 12
Rob Davis@robwdavis
NCT publisher confirms that, yes indeed, the sale is complete now. Today. For real...
11 Sep 12
Rob Davis@robwdavis
Yesterday's non-sale fiasco has the bad odor of a case of We Wanted to Control Our News So We Denied The Report...
11 Sep 12
Rob Davis@robwdavis
The man who calls himself Papa Doug now owns all of San Diego's major papers. Good time to reread my profile of him. [Click here.]
U-T San Diego to buy North County Times, Californian
MANCHESTER EXPANDS MEDIA REACH IN $11.95M DEAL
By BRADLEY J. FIKES
nctimes.com
September 11, 2012
U-T San Diego has agreed to purchase the North County Times from Lee Enterprises Inc., North County Times publisher Peter York said Tuesday. The price was $11.95 million.
The sale of the Times, including The Californian, its edition in Southwest Riverside County, had been rumored for some time. A story in the San Diego Business Journal on Monday said a sale had been completed...
Showing posts with label North County Times (San Diego). Show all posts
Showing posts with label North County Times (San Diego). Show all posts
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
The NCT may have fooled some readers into thinking that a MiraCosta College mediator spoke with the authority of a judge
See MiraCosta College posts.
San Diego's retired judge David B. Moon, Jr. is not a judge, he's a mediator-for-hire. He is famous in some circles for his successful efforts to help employers get away with mistreating employees. However, when the employee in question is someone who has run an organization, and has worked closely with the lawyers for the organization, it seems that Mr. Moon does his best to get the employee an extremely good deal. In the case of MiraCosta College, a appeals court has ruled that the deal Moon got for former college president Victoria Richart was so generous that it was illegal.
Mr. Moon's statements should be given no more weight than those of any other mediator who is paid to be biased. But the North County Times, by focusing on his status as a retired judge, makes it sound like his personal opinion has some special value:
"...before the 2007 settlement, a retired judge retained by the college board found that Richart had a valid claim for damages against MiraCosta and some of its trustees worth 'in excess of $2 million'" (emphasis added).
Reporter Paul Sisson should have described Moon as a mediator, not a judge.
Across town, the San Diego Union-Tribune has broken the link to the following story it published on the same subject:
"This is Google's cache of http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/13/judge-says-former-miracosta-president-must-repay/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Aug 14, 2010 00:28:07 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.
Judge says former MiraCosta president must repay $1.3 million
By Pat Flynn, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 5:05 p.m.
A judge has ordered the former president of MiraCosta College to repay about $1.3 million in compensation she has received from the college district under a 2007 settlement in which she agreed to step down and waive her right to sue over employment issues.
Victoria Muñoz Richart and the district agreed to a $1.6 million settlement after the faculty cast a no-confidence vote against her over her investigation into the illegal sale of palm trees that belonged to the college.
Leon Page, an attorney who lives in Carlsbad, quickly sued, contending that state law prohibits public agencies from granting more than 18 months’ worth of salary and benefits in terminating contracts.
He lost at the trial level, but in November the 4th District Court of Appeal agreed that the deal was an unconstitutional gift of public funds and declared the settlement contract void. The appellate court sent the case back to Superior Court to sort out what to do next.
In his ruling, Judge William S. Dato said the solution is to return the parties to the status they had before the agreement was reached, ordering Richart to repay the money within 90 days and reinstating her right to pursue legal claims against the district.
“Technically, she is also relieved of her obligation to step down as president of the district, but the significance of that fact is far from clear,” Dato wrote, noting that the college has a new president (since March 2009) and that “it is unlikely Richart would want to resume the position even if the district board was willing to permit it.”
The ruling also ordered the district to withhold the approximately $300,000 remaining to be paid under the settlement.
Neither Richart nor her attorneys could be reached for comment Friday.
“This was an abusive, corrupt bargain,” Page said of the deal he torpedoed, saying his role was to stand up for the college and taxpayers “since nobody else did.”
Although he has no role in any future dealings between Richart and the Oceanside-based district, Page said, “I think now this can very easily be settled.”
He said he envisions a scenario in which Richart is able to “hold back” some of what she has been paid.
“I don’t think it’s necessary to squeeze every last penny out of Victoria,” Page said.
Michael Gibbs, an attorney for the college district, said that while there have been no discussions since Dato released his ruling Thursday, a settlement is possible.
“I am sure there will be a good-faith effort to reach a resolution,” he said.
And if that doesn’t happen, there “may well be” more litigation in the case, he said.
San Diego's retired judge David B. Moon, Jr. is not a judge, he's a mediator-for-hire. He is famous in some circles for his successful efforts to help employers get away with mistreating employees. However, when the employee in question is someone who has run an organization, and has worked closely with the lawyers for the organization, it seems that Mr. Moon does his best to get the employee an extremely good deal. In the case of MiraCosta College, a appeals court has ruled that the deal Moon got for former college president Victoria Richart was so generous that it was illegal.
Mr. Moon's statements should be given no more weight than those of any other mediator who is paid to be biased. But the North County Times, by focusing on his status as a retired judge, makes it sound like his personal opinion has some special value:
"...before the 2007 settlement, a retired judge retained by the college board found that Richart had a valid claim for damages against MiraCosta and some of its trustees worth 'in excess of $2 million'" (emphasis added).
Reporter Paul Sisson should have described Moon as a mediator, not a judge.
Across town, the San Diego Union-Tribune has broken the link to the following story it published on the same subject:
"This is Google's cache of http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/aug/13/judge-says-former-miracosta-president-must-repay/. It is a snapshot of the page as it appeared on Aug 14, 2010 00:28:07 GMT. The current page could have changed in the meantime.
Judge says former MiraCosta president must repay $1.3 million
By Pat Flynn, UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER
Friday, August 13, 2010 at 5:05 p.m.
A judge has ordered the former president of MiraCosta College to repay about $1.3 million in compensation she has received from the college district under a 2007 settlement in which she agreed to step down and waive her right to sue over employment issues.
Victoria Muñoz Richart and the district agreed to a $1.6 million settlement after the faculty cast a no-confidence vote against her over her investigation into the illegal sale of palm trees that belonged to the college.
Leon Page, an attorney who lives in Carlsbad, quickly sued, contending that state law prohibits public agencies from granting more than 18 months’ worth of salary and benefits in terminating contracts.
He lost at the trial level, but in November the 4th District Court of Appeal agreed that the deal was an unconstitutional gift of public funds and declared the settlement contract void. The appellate court sent the case back to Superior Court to sort out what to do next.
In his ruling, Judge William S. Dato said the solution is to return the parties to the status they had before the agreement was reached, ordering Richart to repay the money within 90 days and reinstating her right to pursue legal claims against the district.
“Technically, she is also relieved of her obligation to step down as president of the district, but the significance of that fact is far from clear,” Dato wrote, noting that the college has a new president (since March 2009) and that “it is unlikely Richart would want to resume the position even if the district board was willing to permit it.”
The ruling also ordered the district to withhold the approximately $300,000 remaining to be paid under the settlement.
Neither Richart nor her attorneys could be reached for comment Friday.
“This was an abusive, corrupt bargain,” Page said of the deal he torpedoed, saying his role was to stand up for the college and taxpayers “since nobody else did.”
Although he has no role in any future dealings between Richart and the Oceanside-based district, Page said, “I think now this can very easily be settled.”
He said he envisions a scenario in which Richart is able to “hold back” some of what she has been paid.
“I don’t think it’s necessary to squeeze every last penny out of Victoria,” Page said.
Michael Gibbs, an attorney for the college district, said that while there have been no discussions since Dato released his ruling Thursday, a settlement is possible.
“I am sure there will be a good-faith effort to reach a resolution,” he said.
And if that doesn’t happen, there “may well be” more litigation in the case, he said.
Friday, March 26, 2010
Why did the North County Times erase its 2003 puff piece on SDCOE attorney Daniel Shinoff?
The North County Times loves controversial San Diego County Office of Education Attorney Daniel Shinoff, or at least it seemed so when they created a pretty puff piece about him in 2003. So why have they erased the story from their archives, and in such a clumsy manner?
My guess: because he asked them to do so.
Why? Because it contained information that proved that Shinoff filed a false (or at least highly misleading) document as an exhibit for his declaration in a defamation suit. It was an important declaration. The judge relied on it to make her decision in a summary judgment.
In some cases Stutz doesn't seem to evaluate the law and the facts of the case, just whether their public entity client can get away with wrongdoing.
My guess: because he asked them to do so.
Why? Because it contained information that proved that Shinoff filed a false (or at least highly misleading) document as an exhibit for his declaration in a defamation suit. It was an important declaration. The judge relied on it to make her decision in a summary judgment.
In some cases Stutz doesn't seem to evaluate the law and the facts of the case, just whether their public entity client can get away with wrongdoing.
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
Everybody but Daniel Shinoff: The North County Times stops naming MiraCosta College's lawyer
Suddenly you can't find Daniel Shinoff's name in the North County Times. Why? Because Shinoff is trying to prove that he's not a public figure so he can stop me from writing about him?
My suspicion is that Shinoff, one of the favorite sources of information for NCT, suddenly doesn't want to be mentioned by name, and the newspaper wants to stay on friendly terms with him.
Shinoff's new moniker is "the district's lawyers." He comes alone to settlement conferences and board meetings. This morning he is listed as MiraCosta College's lawyer on the San Diego Superior Court calendar (no judge listed):
North County
01/17/08
08:30AM Dept N-27
Ex Parte
Case number GIN058018
Party C)MIRA COSTA COLLEGE
Counsel DANIEL R. SHINOFF
But like the Queen of England, Daniel Shinoff apparently prefers to refer to himself in the plural.
Other than that, North County Times is doing a terrific job reporting on education. Until now, the NCT frequently quoted Shinoff in its top-notch articles about north county schools.
The following opinion piece from NCT is typical of good reporting and opinion writing, with the omission of that once-ubiquitous name. By the way, I didn't write any of the comments, although I heartily agree with most of them.
North County Times
January 15, 2008
Click HERE to see the original article.
Slapped by karma?
By: SUNANA BATRA - For the North County Times
The new year has already ushered in some positive developments in the ongoing sordid saga at MiraCosta College.
When former MiraCosta President Victoria Munoz Richart was sued by faculty member Eileen Kraskouskas, who alleged that Richart had besmirched her reputation and forced Eileen to retire, Richart's attorney, Randy Winet, contended that Richart was well within her rights, and argued that people working in public education have to bear the "cross" of intemperate comments about their work performance.
The judge agreed, dismissing the case on the basis that she believed it to be a SLAPP, or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, suit, which aims to silence a group or an individual raising issues of public concern.
Fast forward a few months and, lo and behold, luck being the friend of the righteous, the judge presiding over the case brought by Leon Page against Richart and the district just happens to be the same judge, Judge Jacqueline Stern.
Imagine the dread Richart must have felt knowing the frailty of their argument, since it's the exact same argument the district successfully crushed just a few months ago. What a delicious tidbit of irony. Kraskouskas' grandstanding was no different from Richart's, Kraskouskas just didn't have free lawyers to duke it out for her.
So, what to do? Richart must get Judge Stern removed (or "papered" in fancy lawyer speak), and did, as was her right. While this sort of practice isn't illegal, it's certainly questionable. Did her lawyer "paper" Judge Stern because Stern knew that Dr. Richart, as president of the college, had previously rebutted a claim similar to the one she made when negotiating her buyout package, clearly working against her credibility? Is Mr. Winet now hoping that the new judge, Judge Thomas Nugent, never finds out about what happened in the Kraskouskas case?
You gotta love comeuppance for trying to silence people.
Wrapped only in her ambition, Richart had to know Judge Stern would point out that the queen had no clothes.
In the Kraskouskas case, she framed the suit against her as an attempt to squelch her free speech. But in striking the "do as I say, not as I do" posture, she does not believe her employers should be granted the same free speech that she enjoyed.
So, a question comes to mind: Why didn't the district's lawyers force Richart to file a lawsuit and then challenge her flimsy claims with an anti-SLAPP motion, since they beat a similar lawsuit just four months prior?
Of course, such questions are not likely to go unanswered for too long, as I'd wager that Judge Nugent is likely to compel Richart to testify soon.
But, hands down, the cherry on top has to be a comment, steeped in foreshadowing, made by Richart, in a letter addressed to her ally Charles Adams. She complains that the minority board members made a public evaluation of her by stating in public that they did not agree with the majority. She states: "This action causes me to believe that it may be in my best interest to publicly reveal all of the misconduct that has occurred at MiraCosta College prior to my arrival."
Unbelievable. Funny? Pathetic? Both? We shall see.
-- Encinitas resident Sunana Batra is a freelance columnist for the North County Times. Contact her at sunanabatra@gmail.com.
Comments On This Story
Note: Comments reflect the views of readers and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff.
We want to know more wrote on Jan 16, 2008 7:48 AM:
When Ms Richart is questioned under oath, the public deserves to learn if the school's lawyer was representing his client, MiraCosta College, or her. If the lawyer was representing her, did he inform his client, MiraCosta College, of the conflict. To do so would have been his ethical duty.
thank you wrote on Jan 16, 2008 8:24 AM:
I appreciate the NCT for printing this commentary.
Ethical? wrote on Jan 16, 2008 9:04 AM:
One uses the word "ethical" in relationship to the lawyers for MiraCosta and/or Richart? This relationship is almost incestuous and the trustees (majority) just seem to bless everything the taxpayers' money pays for! Now the bill for defending the district against the D.A. will be added to the toll. Ethical? A joke!
angry taxpayer wrote on Jan 16, 2008 10:52 AM:
Is the faculty happy with Leon Page's lawsuit which the taxpayers must defend? This gadfly simply wants to run for office and is playing a game to advance his political ambitions. And at the taxpayers' expense.
To Angry wrote on Jan 16, 2008 11:08 AM:
You need to check your facts before you open your mouth and let the loose thoughts fly out. Mr. Page is working to save the taxpayers' money - a job the trustees (get the word trustee?) are elected to do, but at which they failed. Mr. Page will get his expenses paid - that's all. This has nothing to do with faculty as the spinners are trying to imply. This is what the public is supposed to do when the politicians try to pull the wool over the public's eyes. Put your anger toward the trustees who got us into this mess by colluding with Richart to hide the truth.
What a mess wrote on Jan 16, 2008 11:16 AM:
This whole mess has come about because of Richart's inability to fulfill her duties as a leader. She can hand out the criticism but can't take it? Oh boo hoo. Let's get the majority off the board and get some new people in there who care more about finances and education than politics!
My suspicion is that Shinoff, one of the favorite sources of information for NCT, suddenly doesn't want to be mentioned by name, and the newspaper wants to stay on friendly terms with him.
Shinoff's new moniker is "the district's lawyers." He comes alone to settlement conferences and board meetings. This morning he is listed as MiraCosta College's lawyer on the San Diego Superior Court calendar (no judge listed):
North County
01/17/08
08:30AM Dept N-27
Ex Parte
Case number GIN058018
Party C)MIRA COSTA COLLEGE
Counsel DANIEL R. SHINOFF
But like the Queen of England, Daniel Shinoff apparently prefers to refer to himself in the plural.
Other than that, North County Times is doing a terrific job reporting on education. Until now, the NCT frequently quoted Shinoff in its top-notch articles about north county schools.
The following opinion piece from NCT is typical of good reporting and opinion writing, with the omission of that once-ubiquitous name. By the way, I didn't write any of the comments, although I heartily agree with most of them.
North County Times
January 15, 2008
Click HERE to see the original article.
Slapped by karma?
By: SUNANA BATRA - For the North County Times
The new year has already ushered in some positive developments in the ongoing sordid saga at MiraCosta College.
When former MiraCosta President Victoria Munoz Richart was sued by faculty member Eileen Kraskouskas, who alleged that Richart had besmirched her reputation and forced Eileen to retire, Richart's attorney, Randy Winet, contended that Richart was well within her rights, and argued that people working in public education have to bear the "cross" of intemperate comments about their work performance.
The judge agreed, dismissing the case on the basis that she believed it to be a SLAPP, or Strategic Litigation Against Public Participation, suit, which aims to silence a group or an individual raising issues of public concern.
Fast forward a few months and, lo and behold, luck being the friend of the righteous, the judge presiding over the case brought by Leon Page against Richart and the district just happens to be the same judge, Judge Jacqueline Stern.
Imagine the dread Richart must have felt knowing the frailty of their argument, since it's the exact same argument the district successfully crushed just a few months ago. What a delicious tidbit of irony. Kraskouskas' grandstanding was no different from Richart's, Kraskouskas just didn't have free lawyers to duke it out for her.
So, what to do? Richart must get Judge Stern removed (or "papered" in fancy lawyer speak), and did, as was her right. While this sort of practice isn't illegal, it's certainly questionable. Did her lawyer "paper" Judge Stern because Stern knew that Dr. Richart, as president of the college, had previously rebutted a claim similar to the one she made when negotiating her buyout package, clearly working against her credibility? Is Mr. Winet now hoping that the new judge, Judge Thomas Nugent, never finds out about what happened in the Kraskouskas case?
You gotta love comeuppance for trying to silence people.
Wrapped only in her ambition, Richart had to know Judge Stern would point out that the queen had no clothes.
In the Kraskouskas case, she framed the suit against her as an attempt to squelch her free speech. But in striking the "do as I say, not as I do" posture, she does not believe her employers should be granted the same free speech that she enjoyed.
So, a question comes to mind: Why didn't the district's lawyers force Richart to file a lawsuit and then challenge her flimsy claims with an anti-SLAPP motion, since they beat a similar lawsuit just four months prior?
Of course, such questions are not likely to go unanswered for too long, as I'd wager that Judge Nugent is likely to compel Richart to testify soon.
But, hands down, the cherry on top has to be a comment, steeped in foreshadowing, made by Richart, in a letter addressed to her ally Charles Adams. She complains that the minority board members made a public evaluation of her by stating in public that they did not agree with the majority. She states: "This action causes me to believe that it may be in my best interest to publicly reveal all of the misconduct that has occurred at MiraCosta College prior to my arrival."
Unbelievable. Funny? Pathetic? Both? We shall see.
-- Encinitas resident Sunana Batra is a freelance columnist for the North County Times. Contact her at sunanabatra@gmail.com.
Comments On This Story
Note: Comments reflect the views of readers and not necessarily those of the North County Times or its staff.
We want to know more wrote on Jan 16, 2008 7:48 AM:
When Ms Richart is questioned under oath, the public deserves to learn if the school's lawyer was representing his client, MiraCosta College, or her. If the lawyer was representing her, did he inform his client, MiraCosta College, of the conflict. To do so would have been his ethical duty.
thank you wrote on Jan 16, 2008 8:24 AM:
I appreciate the NCT for printing this commentary.
Ethical? wrote on Jan 16, 2008 9:04 AM:
One uses the word "ethical" in relationship to the lawyers for MiraCosta and/or Richart? This relationship is almost incestuous and the trustees (majority) just seem to bless everything the taxpayers' money pays for! Now the bill for defending the district against the D.A. will be added to the toll. Ethical? A joke!
angry taxpayer wrote on Jan 16, 2008 10:52 AM:
Is the faculty happy with Leon Page's lawsuit which the taxpayers must defend? This gadfly simply wants to run for office and is playing a game to advance his political ambitions. And at the taxpayers' expense.
To Angry wrote on Jan 16, 2008 11:08 AM:
You need to check your facts before you open your mouth and let the loose thoughts fly out. Mr. Page is working to save the taxpayers' money - a job the trustees (get the word trustee?) are elected to do, but at which they failed. Mr. Page will get his expenses paid - that's all. This has nothing to do with faculty as the spinners are trying to imply. This is what the public is supposed to do when the politicians try to pull the wool over the public's eyes. Put your anger toward the trustees who got us into this mess by colluding with Richart to hide the truth.
What a mess wrote on Jan 16, 2008 11:16 AM:
This whole mess has come about because of Richart's inability to fulfill her duties as a leader. She can hand out the criticism but can't take it? Oh boo hoo. Let's get the majority off the board and get some new people in there who care more about finances and education than politics!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)