The Pleasanton school board has canceled a special meeting previously scheduled for tonight to discuss details of an administrative hearing regarding the removal of former Walnut Grove principal Jon Vranesh.
The Office of Administrative Hearings reported a judge's decision has been issued but the involved parties had not been notified as of late-morning today. The written decision will not be released publicly until the parties receive it, an office spokesperson said.
Attorneys for both sides had not received the judge's ruling as of noon today.
School district officials announced at 1:25 p.m. today that the 6 p.m. special meeting was canceled.
Vranesh was removed as principal of Walnut Grove and placed on administrative leave in October 2013 after he was accused of creating a hostile work environment by calling female employees derogatory gender-based slurs, among other allegations of harassment.
Vranesh claims the allegations are unfounded and the district was retaliating against him after he raised complaints regarding health and safety issues earlier in 2013.
The administrative hearing was requested by Vranesh after the district indicated its intent to dismiss him. The hearing concluded in May, and Vranesh was not offered a contract for this school year.
When contacted this morning, Vranesh's attorney Paul Kondrick indicated he was still waiting on the hearings office to notify him of a decision.
Comments
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 4:36 pm
As tax-paying residents of Pleasanton, we have got to make it clear to the school board that we will not tolerate the stranglehold that the APT (Association of Pleasanton Teachers - the Union local) has had on our district.
This settlement is going to cost us more real money - it's already cost hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, all because of a gripe a couple of teachers had when Vranesh decided that they had to work for a living and act responsibly like everybody else. The teachers in question were paid off handsomely, and the lawyers were paid well, and taxpayers like you and I footed the bill.
The old superintendent left the district to avoid the backlash which is about to happen, rather than to stay and face the music. She could have tried to fight the union, but without the backing of the school board she had no chance.
Canyon Creek
on Aug 19, 2015 at 4:39 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 4:39 pm
I wonder if this means the District lost?
Pleasanton Meadows
on Aug 19, 2015 at 6:16 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 6:16 pm
And I'm asked to donate more to ppie and other fundraisers this week during registration. Why? So the money that should fund these ppie programs can be paid out for crap like this. We should be furious as a community. I'm all for the "education is "free" , quality education isn't" mantra but stop blowing money that could go to students on bad teachers. If they were good teachers they'd feel guilty for taking money away from students. The removal of a bad administrator would be satisfactory. This is a money grab.
Canyon Creek
on Aug 19, 2015 at 6:42 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 6:42 pm
Imagine if vranesh is found to have done most of the stuff by the court. Then what?
Downtown
on Aug 19, 2015 at 7:00 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 7:00 pm
Imagine indeed! Would the same people criticize Vranesh for wasting all that tax payer money by suing the district rather than take responsibility for his actions. I wonder.
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2015 at 8:54 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 8:54 pm
Yes, I wonder what Joe has to say now- where's the outrage against the one who actually caused the district this financial mess to begin with? I wonder where the outrage is that we had an administrator who acted like this in our elementary classrooms and members of our board voted to keep him in his position?
<< crickets >>
Canyon Creek
on Aug 19, 2015 at 9:00 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 9:00 pm
Mark my words. This isn't over and it shouldn't be. Vranesh will ultimately prevail. It's just a matter of time and more money. They should have settled with him long ago. Bet the district's legal counsel is thrilled with today's outcome because it means more cash for the appeals that will rightfully be filed.
Walnut Grove Elementary School
on Aug 19, 2015 at 9:12 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 9:12 pm
Guilty on all charges. What more do you need. It's over. Move on. Let it go.
Charter Oaks
on Aug 19, 2015 at 9:19 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 9:19 pm
@It's Over
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound? What do you mean "guilty"? Are you under the impression that this was some sort of criminal matter? Just because the district treated Vranesh like he was a criminal doesn't mean it is actually a criminal matter.
You do realize this was an administrative type hearing and not an actual superior court proceeding, right?
This is far from over. I bet no one wants it over more than Jon Vranesh himself. But of course he can't just let PUSD destroy his life and career and take one for the team. PUSD dug this hole and they will ultimately pay. We aren't a parent community of idiots and we pretty much all know how this will end. And it won't be good for the district.
Pleasanton Meadows
on Aug 19, 2015 at 10:28 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 10:28 pm
Reading comprehension is beyond some here. Regardless of guilt the impacted individuals are showing their true colors. If guilty, dismissal of administrative responsibility and their ability to move forward and progress in their careers, possibly a civil suit, would be appropriate actions. Instead they are pulling money from those they are meant to help. Those they greet and welcome daily, those whose character and well roundedness they are stewards of crafting. Again, this is about money.
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 19, 2015 at 10:37 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 10:37 pm
Jon Vranesh brought all of this on by denying any wrongdoing and hiring a crazy attorney. That is what is a shame and what has made the district spend money to do the right thing to protect its employees.
Avila
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:33 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:33 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
Avila
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:35 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:35 pm
Does the Flock Dwindle? Will they claim another conspiracy?
Interesting that Vranish still has supporters. Let’s review the facts
1) The school board, based on an independent investigation, upheld the complaint that the employees were subject to a hostile work environment in referring to employees with sexually derogatory language
2) The school district insurance carrier, without authorization of the school board, decided to pay out settlements to three employees in excess of $0.5M
3) An administrative panel made up of a judge and a representatives from each side declaredly upheld the complaint against Vranish for creating a hostle work environment, unprofessional conduct and several other charges. This hearing lasted 3 weeks and deposed over 37 witnesses. What possible evidence was not presented. Also in this hearing, another teacher, who was not part of the settlement, testified that Vranish locked the door to his office behind her and told her that he “wanted f$ck her.”
Where on this planet is this kind of behavior allowed?
The cry’s from the public should be about how a manager sexually harasses his employees, claims that he was framed, engages parents and the community to support him with unfounded statements and costs the district over a $1M in settlements and legal fees.
We have a corrupt process when it takes over $1M to fire an employee who is a sexual harasser. No wonder our public school system is so bad when it take over a million dollars to fire an unprofessional and incompetent employee. The district also lost a school board member, a superintendent, and an assistant superintendent of HR over this over-hyped issue.
Mr. Vranish I hope that your teaching credential is revoked for such behavior. I can’t imagine how anyone could put you in the same room with students.
Good riddance and get some therapy.
Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:38 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:38 pm
Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?
Amberwood/Wood Meadows
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:46 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:46 pm
I guess I can post now...
@What? You do realize that sexual harassment is illegal. Unfortunately it is enforced via civil suits. The administrative law judge conduct a formal hearing. The evidence is presented under oath and is admissible in court if Vranish chooses to pursue in the civil courts.
Perhaps Arkin and Hintzke votes will be an issue in the election next year. I can't wait to see the sparks fly. Perhaps even better than Donald Trump.
Foothill High School
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:50 pm
on Aug 19, 2015 at 11:50 pm
If Vranesh really did those things, someone in his 15 year career would have said something. No. The walnut grove staff made it up, most do not really teach there but cart the kids on field trips, have skits, or have the kids do independent study and speech and art projects. And they knew Vranesh was finding out what frauds they actually were. The teachers Union is out to protect all bad and useless teachers so they ousted him. In fact they did not want any interference so that they could do what they wanted, which is next to nothing. What liars.
Walnut Grove Elementary School
on Aug 20, 2015 at 6:37 am
on Aug 20, 2015 at 6:37 am
@Does the Flock Dwindle and @Delete me . . . RIGHT ON! @Wg watcher - what planet are you from? Mr. Vranish's conduct was ILLEGAL. Walnut Grove has been and will always be, as are all the other Pleasanton Schools, a wonderful place for children. We are blessed in this Community to have such fine schools and fine teachers. I applaud the teachers who FINALLY brought forth and complained of Mr. Vranish's conduct. NO ONE should be subject to that kind of behavior - THIS ISN'T COMPTON VIA NWA. His language and actions were demeaning and vulgar. If all of this is fabricated and he is an upstanding pillar in the Community, as you say, wouldn't his wife of many years stand by his side - not happening. I feel badly for Mr. Vranish but he is getting his due diligence - too much power can be dangerous . . .
Canyon Creek
on Aug 24, 2015 at 7:16 am
on Aug 24, 2015 at 7:16 am
Wonder what those people who blindly supported him are doing noe to spin this, incuding those board members who supported him? Wow
Downtown
on Aug 24, 2015 at 6:28 pm
on Aug 24, 2015 at 6:28 pm
I am horrified and disgusted by what I read in the legal report outlining the ruling against Mr. Vranesh. I believer that the school board members who pushed aside the findings of the special investigation, and backed him anyway, need to address the public and explain what they were thinking supporting a man who harassed our district's teachers. Irresponsible! Too many teachers, too many occurrences. It's clear he did much if not all he is accused of.
Foothill High School
on Aug 24, 2015 at 8:04 pm
on Aug 24, 2015 at 8:04 pm
It sounds completely like hearsay and false testimony to receive huge payouts and conduct a union ouster of a principal that was from a Special Education background. General education teachers despise special education teachers and especially those that get promoted to management. Particularly many general education teachers at Wg did not want special education children mingling with their own children in Wg classes. Also, apparently Vranesh managed the campus and moved things like shade structures without getting the okay of the select few teachers.
Foothill Knolls
on Aug 24, 2015 at 8:50 pm
on Aug 24, 2015 at 8:50 pm
@Wg Watcher: "It sounds completely like hearsay and false testimony to receive huge payouts and conduct a union ouster of a principal that was from a Special Education background."
Even if you don't believe the testimony of all the people who spoke against Vranesh, there are still two other important things against him that can't be ignored: (1) the "accidental" deletion of a PUSD laptop computer's hard drive by Vranesh which a computer expert claimed could not have been done accidentally. Apparently, according to the ruling, the hard disk was wiped completely clean by special "disk scrubbing" while the laptop was connected to another computer. This incident certainly brings into question Vranesh's truthfulness as wall as the question of what was on that laptop hard disk. (2) According to the ruling, Vranesh apparently took and printed out official PUSD email with sensitive and confidential student and employee information in order to use it for his own personal legal use - without getting permission from the students or employees affected. The emails apparently included confidential student disability and employee medical information. That action certainly seems to cross ethical boundaries if not legal boundaries. All this is in the recently released public ruling against Vranesh.
Downtown
on Aug 25, 2015 at 9:43 am
on Aug 25, 2015 at 9:43 am
Damon,
Sounds very similar to the accusations against Hilliary and the democrats want her are our President.
Vineyard Hills
on Aug 25, 2015 at 12:26 pm
on Aug 25, 2015 at 12:26 pm
If you think the School District paid a bundle of money defending this situation, how much more do you believe will be spent once it goes to a Civil trial. The overall cost can and will be scary. Think of this story as only beginning. The ride is far from over.
Foothill Knolls
on Aug 25, 2015 at 3:46 pm
on Aug 25, 2015 at 3:46 pm
@Casual Viewer : "If you think the School District paid a bundle of money defending this situation, how much more do you believe will be spent once it goes to a Civil trial."
A civil trial? I think that if Vranesh were smart he would cut his losses now. The facts released in this ruling aren't going to help his case if Vranesh decides to push on, and hopefully both he and his lawyers realize that. In fact, I'm surprised that Vranesh decided to even contest his dismissal in the first place since the ruling clearly reveals that PUSD had plenty of reason to dismiss him. In fact, I'm surprised that it took PUSD so long to dismiss this person who would have been instantly fired if he had tried such shenanigans at almost any other workplace. Vranesh would have been smarter if he had decided to just quietly move on after being removed as Principal. He might still have had a chance to straighten out and restart his career elsewhere. As the situation now stands, it's going to be very difficult for him to restart his career in education because any school district anywhere in the country is going to be sure to do an Internet search and easily find and read this very detailed public ruling against him, and they are not going to like what they read.
Vineyard Hills
on Aug 25, 2015 at 4:50 pm
on Aug 25, 2015 at 4:50 pm
Damon, your points are valid but a civil trial is so much more different than a administrative hearing. Your talking a jury trial where there is no holding back testimony and evidence and everything will be made public. The decision will be by a jury as well as the amount of money or no money depending on who wins. It is going to be expensive and the district will have major expenses as well as the other party. If one sides wins I am sure they will go after the losing side to recoup legal fees.
Canyon Meadows
on Aug 25, 2015 at 5:06 pm
on Aug 25, 2015 at 5:06 pm
The decision by the oah if it stands will have a direct impact on the civil case, i think. Soething reminds me that double jeopardy or something like it says you do not get two bites of the apple to fight over the same issues. But who knows.
Ruby Hill
on Aug 25, 2015 at 6:01 pm
on Aug 25, 2015 at 6:01 pm
It's called a hearing for a reason. A trial will be a very different proposition as Mr. Vranesh and his legal team will be able to be much more expansive in their pursuit of the truth. I will also mention that much of the investigation that this was founded on was a clear violation of due process (certainly to be brought up) and the testimony within the investigative report was disputed as fabrication.
Foothill Knolls
on Aug 26, 2015 at 8:58 am
on Aug 26, 2015 at 8:58 am
@Casual Viewer : "Damon, your points are valid but a civil trial is so much more different than a administrative hearing. Your talking a jury trial where there is no holding back testimony and evidence and everything will be made public. The decision will be by a jury as well as the amount of money or no money depending on who wins. It is going to be expensive and the district will have major expenses as well as the other party. If one sides wins I am sure they will go after the losing side to recoup legal fees."
I honestly don't see how your points work in Vranesh's favor. More testimony and evidence? Do you think that Vranesh will look good with a parade of witnesses coming to the stand and testifying how he used abusive and sexist behavior to them and others? And how do you think that Vranesh will look on the stand when the opposing attorney starts asking him questions about how the PUSD laptop's hard disk drive was "accidentally" deleted by being hooked up to a second computer running a "disk scrubbing" program? What is he going to say in response to expert testimony by a computer professional who says that the laptop's hard disk could not possibly have been deleted accidentally? Vranesh will come across to the jury as a liar and a fool.
As for the expense of the trial, that doesn't seem to work in Vranesh's favor, either. Don't lawyers for plaintiffs in cases like this usually work on a contingency basis where they agree to just work for a share of any legal damage awards? Given the fact that this recent ruling came down very hard on Vranesh, I doubt that his lawyers are feeling very optimistic about the chances of getting any large damage award on this case, and they may well be feeling that their valuable time and effort would be better spent working on other cases than working for "free" on this case with little hope of ever being compensated for their work. Vranesh may have to pay his lawyers out of his own pocket to get them to continue, and that's going to be very expensive for him.
Parkside
on Aug 26, 2015 at 1:00 pm
on Aug 26, 2015 at 1:00 pm
JV is not the only target. The trouble continued this week at WG with another ouster. People don't believe the accusers because some of them provided false information, changed their stories and continue to retaliate.
PUSD resembles a twilight zone episode called "It's a good life." It's about a boy who controls a town and banishes anyone who displeases him. Google it for the full plot summary. Some of it will sound all too familiar.
Birdland
on Aug 26, 2015 at 4:39 pm
on Aug 26, 2015 at 4:39 pm
The 5th grade banquet will never be the same.
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 26, 2015 at 6:48 pm
on Aug 26, 2015 at 6:48 pm
The WG community has lost the heart and backbone of the school. Principal aside, they have lost some of the most gifted, dedicated teachers and staff in the district. Good luck.
Walnut Grove Elementary School
on Aug 26, 2015 at 8:46 pm
on Aug 26, 2015 at 8:46 pm
@sad, There are still plenty of excellent long term WG teachers and some enthusiastic and talented new ones have joined in the last couple of years (many from other schools in the district). Just because you may not know every teacher doesn't mean that "the heart and backbone" is lost. Change isn't necessarily a bad thing. The school has no problem recruiting teachers.
Walnut Grove Elementary School
on Aug 26, 2015 at 9:06 pm
on Aug 26, 2015 at 9:06 pm
Good grief! In what kind of world do we say a person shouldn't even try to defend themselves! Let's do away with all courts and hearings and just have people ruled guilty or innocent here on the Weekly comments.
What I find interesting is the only allegation of direct sexual harassment and the " I want to f*** you" comment that was crowed about on these blogs was left out of the decision all together. Was that because it wasn't credible? What else was left out of that document?
Last I checked this was a free country and citizens had the right to a vigorous defense which includes appeals.
As for the other male employee who was recently forced forced from Walnut Grove by the exact same group of women, I wish you well a pray you will be able to return to our school.
Vineyard Hills
on Aug 26, 2015 at 9:31 pm
on Aug 26, 2015 at 9:31 pm
Damon I think you missed my point. Too be honest I don't have one side or the other. What my point is that in a Civil Trial the witnesses will be grilled on the stand for both sides and this will be decided by a jury and not an Admin judge. It will be interesting to see how the civil trial plays out.
Foothill Knolls
on Aug 27, 2015 at 12:43 am
on Aug 27, 2015 at 12:43 am
@Marci: What I find interesting is the only allegation of direct sexual harassment and the " I want to f*** you" comment that was crowed about on these blogs was left out of the decision all together. Was that because it wasn't credible? What else was left out of that document?"
Not exactly sure what you mean by "direct" sexual harassment. The numerous examples of sexual harassment and hostile behavior given in the ruling are already enough to get anyone fired from any workplace many times over. No need to pile on further with even more examples if there are any. And please don't give anyone the idea that sexual innuendos, sex jokes, and the use of vulgar sex words in a workplace are acceptable as long as the person stops short of directly propositioning a co-worker for sex because it's not.
Walnut Grove Elementary School
on Aug 27, 2015 at 7:14 am
on Aug 27, 2015 at 7:14 am
Damon,
You remind me of the Panel Jusge who took allegations of swearing as fact but ignored proof some of the districts witnesses were telling fibs. Also no mention of the teachers themselves swearing. It's interesting and makes me wonder what else was left out.
Someone was posting for weeks here about the "I wanna f**** you " comment and it didn't even make the decision. Again it's interesting. What else is missing?
Two years to report allegations of violence and swearing but they moved very quickly to lay claim to 250 thousand in cash.
Foothill Knolls
on Aug 27, 2015 at 8:15 am
on Aug 27, 2015 at 8:15 am
@Marci :"You remind me of the Panel Jusge who took allegations of swearing as fact but ignored proof some of the districts witnesses were telling fibs. Also no mention of the teachers themselves swearing. It's interesting and makes me wonder what else was left out. Someone was posting for weeks here about the "I wanna f**** you " comment and it didn't even make the decision. Again it's interesting. What else is missing?"
Marci, you've got to be kidding me. Let me make sure that I've got this straight: You're telling me that you're upset with the recent ruling because some totally anonymous internet poster - one whose name, age, and place of residence you don't even know - made an accusation on these forums which wasn't mentioned in the ruling? And you're telling me this just three sentences after suggesting that I'm the one who is unable to properly distinguish between allegations and proof?
Birdland
on Aug 27, 2015 at 9:36 am
on Aug 27, 2015 at 9:36 am
Damon,
I am not upset at all, just making an observation. A reliable source, who was at the trial and opposing Vranesh, told me that the comments on this blog about "I want to F*** you were true and actually made by a witness at the hearing. Apparently that wasn't the only thing left out of the decision.
I called the OAH and they make it very difficult and expensive to get the actual transcript. Perhaps some anon blogger will now post that it wasn't said? IDK
Civic Square
on Aug 27, 2015 at 12:11 pm
on Aug 27, 2015 at 12:11 pm
I suppose if Vranesh appeals then the transcript would be part of the appeal and available for us to look at? Perhaps if that happens, PW can get a copy and post it. Just an idear
Canyon Creek
on Aug 27, 2015 at 5:17 pm
on Aug 27, 2015 at 5:17 pm
sort of feel sorry for Ms. V and the kids if the entire transcript is available due to the appeal. Hard for them to read what Mr. V said to these women.
Foothill High School
on Aug 28, 2015 at 9:31 am
on Aug 28, 2015 at 9:31 am
The "professional victims" at Walnut Grove also seemed to have successfully gotten another person removed from Walnut Grove. First it was the female custodian that was the daughter of the CSEA president that they claimed to be threatened by (this could have all been fabricated too), next the principal, and now another custodian.
Someone named "The Truth" on another thread, apparently one of the teacher/professional victims now insinuates the latest one to be removed is connected to nails in tires. If that was the case, someone would have been arrested, but they have not so again this is all insinuations and innuendo. In my opinion, this is what the Wg "professional victims" seem to specialize in.
Basically the custodians and the principal, who was affiliated with the anti-drug Mothers With a Purpose group, would know what teachers are going off campus without permission. Seems like one of the complaints from the "professional victims" were they were not given enough bathroom breaks.
The custodians would be cleaning the bathrooms and be able to see any suspicious substances or objects that could be related to drug activity. They would also be able to spot who is coming to campus, could witness suspected criminal activity, could see teachers heading off campus when they are not supposed to, could see visitors sneak in, etc.
Now a second custodian after being barred from the kindergarten area several months ago has been suddenly removed. Are the children being put in the kindergarten playground area with absolutely no adult supervision while the teachers take "bathroom breaks?" Is there no supervision of these children?
So just what is going on in that kindergarten area that is a danger to children that the custodian(s) could see that the teachers and the superintendent (interim) are covering up?
I would hope that the Pleasanton Weekly reporters are on the way to Walnut Grove and the District office and the police station to find out what is going on and will report back to the residents of Pleasanton.
Foothill Knolls
on Aug 28, 2015 at 10:45 am
on Aug 28, 2015 at 10:45 am
@Wg watcher :" but they have not so again this is all insinuations and innuendo. In my opinion, this is what the Wg "professional victims" seem to specialize in. "
Very amusing to read your long insinuation-filled and innuendo-filled post in which you rail against other people engaging in insinuations and innuendos, Wg watcher.
Foothill High School
on Aug 28, 2015 at 10:53 am
on Aug 28, 2015 at 10:53 am
Damon, defender of the district, just how many long term staff members need to be voted off the island (excuse me, Disneyland) before the community gets to know the real story about what is going on at Walnut Grove and what happened at Foothill so that a Social Studies/AP Psychology teacher/Swim Coach resigned in one Board meeting packet, then records show they obtained a whopping $40,000 settlement in the very next Board meeting?
It is time for the press to get to the bottom of this nonsense.
Foothill Knolls
on Aug 28, 2015 at 11:11 am
on Aug 28, 2015 at 11:11 am
@Wg watcher: "... before the community gets to know the real story about what is going on at Walnut Grove..."
You want the real story about what happened at Walnut Grove? I take it that you didn't read the detail-filled publicly released ruling against him then. Here it is below. You can read all about it from his use of b- and c- words to elementary school teachers on an elementary school campus, to his "accidental" deletion of a PUSD laptop hard drive. You're welcome.
PW Vranesh Ruling: Web Link
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2015 at 11:23 am
on Aug 29, 2015 at 11:23 am
The real story of what went on at WG is in the unedited transcripts of the teachers with investigator Shon Davidison. They engaged in gender biased name calliing and it was recorded. Stories also changed when the women were before the OAH panel from what was said to Davidson..
They were on the districts website until the district took them down after payouts were given to two achers because the district did not protect the teacher's identities.
Registered user
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2015 at 11:28 am
Registered user
on Aug 29, 2015 at 11:28 am
Thanks Damon, for posting the link. I took the time to read the whole report, and it's a bit shocking. The main shock is that Vranesh has continues this charade. He could have walked away, licked his wounds, and quietly gone on with his life. Sadly, he chose another path. I hope this is now the end of the path, that he can finally realize it's time to move on.
There are many quotes from the report that can be culled, this is merely one that I feel that encapsulates the report and this sad situation:
"Respondent engaged in serious misconduct involving District employees and District property, which had a severely adverse impact on the District"
I truly hope this report ends this whole mess. I recommend reading the report if you have strong feelings either way on this issue.
Canyon Meadows
on Aug 29, 2015 at 11:33 am
on Aug 29, 2015 at 11:33 am
Can we please stop! Mr vranesh please stop this by not appealing! You are hurting so many people.
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2015 at 12:54 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 12:54 pm
Why are people trying to deny a person his due process?
Even murders get a fair trial and this was far far from a
murder.
Why are people so scared of an appeal or a civil trial? Seems to me people are scared an appeal or civil trial won't be so biased in favor of emotional women... Like this so called hearing so obviously waa
Or maybe people are just scared they might have to explain why their stores changed so much.
Foothill Knolls
on Aug 29, 2015 at 2:33 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 2:33 pm
Here's the part of the ruling describing the erasure of the hard disk of the PUSD laptop assigned to Vranesh. Makes one wonder what was on the hard disk that was apparently so incriminating that one would go through so much trouble to completely erase it before returning it to PUSD:
...............
DESTRUCTION OF DATA ON DISTRICT’S LAPTOP
43. When Respondent was employed as principal at Walnut Grove, the District issued to him a Macintosh laptop which contained a Hitachi 2.5-inch laptop hard drive.
44. On November 18, 2013, at 12:35 p.m., Dr. Faraghan sent Respondent an email directing him to return all District property in his possession. Approximately 18 hours after Faraghan issued this directive Respondent engaged in a complex and intentional course of action that successfully destroyed all of the data stored on the District’s laptop. In mid-December 2013, Respondent returned the laptop to the District without reporting that he had erased the District’s data.
45. When Christopher Hobbs received Respondent’s laptop he discovered that the that the hard drive was operating but there was no data on the disc. He then sent the hard drive to DriveSavers to recover the data, but DriveSavers was unable to do so. The hard drive was then sent to Kivu.
46. Brian Da Costa performed a forensic analysis of the hard drive on respondent’s laptop. Da Costa attempted to recover data that had been stored on the hard drive and ascertain when it had been deleted. Da Costa was unable to recover any data from the hard drive. His examination of the hard drive revealed that it had been wiped or encrypted with random data, thus scrambling the contents of the hard drive. Da Costa’s examination further revealed that the hard drive had been re-partitioned on November 19, 2013 at 6:31 a.m. Da Costa opined that the hard drive had been mounted as an external secondary drive on another computer, which enabled the full erasure of the system drive. Although this is not a simple process and certainly not one that could occur accidentally, one could learn how to do it from instructions on the Internet. Da Costa also explained that deleting documents from a computer could be quickly and easily achieved without erasing the entire hard drive. In light of Da Costa’s persuasive testimony, respondent’s assertion that his destruction of the data on his laptop was an accident is found to be dishonest.
PW: Adminstrative ruling against Vranesh: Web Link
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2015 at 3:19 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Damon, why are you so hellbent on reading something into the document that just isn't there? You continually cherry pick. You seem way too personally invested into this. Why would you assume there was anything but pictures of his kids he didn't want the district to have? You tell people on other threads not to rush to judgment, yet here you are judging he must have had something to hide rather than assuming he was just trying to get his own data off the drive
Funny how you are against an expert on the police shooting post, yet here you seem to think that this expert is Steve Jobs? He's not. His description of erasing data off a hard drive is dramatic and laughable to mac users. Anyone who has worked in computer support for 3 seconds can tell you much easier ways to get data off a harddrive then what the expert described. Also anyone who has worked in computer support for 5 minutes can tell you users often make mistakes and cause operating systems to be erased while trying do another function. If the PUSD IT support wanted to, they could be making backups of everyone's PUSD laptops and other devices, but for whatever reason they don't do it. It has suddenly become an issue when they are trying to fire someone. PUSD runs a lazy network, they could have firmware passwords, users without local admin permissions, they could have had management software install on their devices but they don't. They basically tell people here's a laptop or other device, if anything goes wrong ask the smart kid at school to help you or wait a month or 3.
The judge referred to the destruction of the hard drive several times, when there is no mention of anything but erasing data off a hard drive. An erased hard drive isn't destroyed, it's erased. The hard drive is not damaged by erasing data. What exactly is the data the district is claiming is gone???? I am guessing they never name what data is gone because they don't know. How can they claim data is gone if they can't prove it was ever there...It's laughable. It takes seconds for someone who knows what they are doing to reload a operating system, removing an operating system is not destroying a hard drive or laptop.
The OAH decision leaves a person with more questions than answers.
If you want to take a quote try this one. The judge apparently says it's been proven the assistant superintendent swears at and to people, but it's ok because she just swore and didn't use anything gender-specific. Isn't foul language foul language? Why are we so hung up on the gender specificity of the foul language? Because it's easier to get someone fired if you can say they were sexually harassing someone. Seems sexist to me.
"While Respondent found that Deputy Business Superintendent Luz Cazares had used
profanity while talking with Respondent about a District employee, Van Dermyden found that Cazares’s use of profanity did not establish a bias against Respondent based upon his gender. "
Canyon Meadows
on Aug 29, 2015 at 3:21 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 3:21 pm
The hearing before the oah was his due process. It invilved witnesses, evidence and the cross examination of witneeses by vranesh lawyer. So again lets stop this debate and all move on please!
Foothill Knolls
on Aug 29, 2015 at 3:38 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 3:38 pm
@Why : "Also anyone who has worked in computer support for 5 minutes can tell you users often make mistakes and cause operating systems to be erased while trying do another function.....The judge referred to the destruction of the hard drive several times, when there is no mention of anything but erasing data off a hard drive. An erased hard drive isn't destroyed, it's erased."
You're getting silly. If you know as much about computers as you claim, you know very well that the erasure described in the ruling is not the kind that can be done by accident. It's the kind of erasure procedure that is deliberately done by someone who wants to erase all traces of data on a hard disk and make it impossible for professional data recovery services to recover anything. And you should also know that the word "destruction" here refers to the destruction of all data on the hard disk, and not the physical destruction of the hard disk itself. Please don't insult my intelligence and the intelligence of PW readers by putting up long, wordy posts filled with nonsense.
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2015 at 5:04 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 5:04 pm
What the expert described was a ridiculously, dramatic, and absurdly long way to erase the data on a hard drive. It was as if the last time he erased the data on a hard drive was 1998. There are other much easier ways to do it, especially on a mac. In case you didn't know, methods to securely erase data, which means it can't be retrieved, are features of almost every modern day erase function.
Is that short enough for you to understand?
If you don't believe me ask Jeff Bowser, he works in computers apparently, or go to the Apple genius bar and ask if what the "expert" described is the only way a novice user could erase data.
Sorry your intelligence was insulted, that was not my intent.
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2015 at 5:11 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 5:11 pm
Directly from the decision:
59. Destruction of computer hard drive
79. Respondent also denies that he purposely destroyed the hard drive of the
laptop.
It's my guess that the judge didn't understand software removed off hard drive isn't "destruction of a hard drive" The hard drive is still fully operational.
Walnut Grove Elementary School
on Aug 29, 2015 at 5:49 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 5:49 pm
@Why, Clearly you know so much more than the expert computer person, the judge, and the panel. It's so cool how you know these things without even examining the actual computer or reading the actual transcript. I'm glad that JV has you on his side so that you can be called up at the next trial to save the day with your genius and cause everybody to do a complete 180 on the entire case. Yay!
Vineyard Hills
on Aug 29, 2015 at 6:17 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 6:17 pm
Since most people do not want to carry around two laptops, most everybody has personal information on their work computer. Could be emails and/or attachments.
If I were his lawyer, I would have instructed him to wipe his computer drive before returning it. Quite likely there he used his personal email from that computer on more than one occasion and there was a chance that there was privileged correspondence between him and his lawyer that they would not want the district to see (potential strategy in a future legal case), or other personal emails that are none of the district's business. It is possible he even made a copy of the hard drive first to capture emails that will help him prove his case. If there were district emails helping him with his case, I am sure if the lawyers ask the district for them in a disposition that the district will claim they cannot find the emails being requested.
If the district wants to see emails to or from district employees, they have that ability to do so with the district email system.
I have to laugh on this issue as well. Several years ago the district "lost" data from their website when their server sent down, and they started a new website. The main web pages were all recovered and moved over but all of the district's board minutes and other documents could not be recovered. How convenient!
I would also state that Vranesh was only instructed to return the district property and was not instructed to leave it as-is. In fact, if the district really thought there were some useful files on his computer, they would have taken position of the computer immediately instead of just instructing him to return the physical computer.
The standard Macintosh disk utility wipes the data by writing different patterns to it so data cannot be recovered. This is a standard part of the Macintosh and Apple recommends you do this to remove personal files from a computer before giving it to somebody else. No special utilities are required. The judge was misinformed.
Foothill Knolls
on Aug 29, 2015 at 6:58 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 6:58 pm
@oldtimer: "The standard Macintosh disk utility wipes the data by writing different patterns to it so data cannot be recovered. This is a standard part of the Macintosh and Apple recommends you do this to remove personal files from a computer before giving it to somebody else. No special utilities are required. The judge was misinformed."
No he wasn't. Yes, you can completely erase INDIVIDUAL files with Apple's "secure delete" feature which is a standard part of the Apple OS Finder, but if you want to completely obliterate the contents of a hard disk drive in its entirety so that no one, not even a professional data recovery service, can never ever recover any files (as is the case if, for example, you want to completely delete any and all incriminating data beyond any possible hope of ever being resurrected and used against you), then you need to run something like Apple's Disk Utility program AND you have to run it from a second computer connected to the first because you can't have a Mac delete its own system disk for obvious reasons. That's why complete obliteration of the PUSD laptop's hard disk drive could not possibly have been an "accidental" act.
Foothill Knolls
on Aug 29, 2015 at 7:11 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 7:11 pm
@oldtimer: "If I were his lawyer, I would have instructed him to wipe his computer drive before returning it. Quite likely there he used his personal email from that computer on more than one occasion and there was a chance that there was privileged correspondence between him and his lawyer that they would not want the district to see (potential strategy in a future legal case), or other personal emails that are none of the district's business."
Nope, it was a PUSD laptop. PUSD property. If he had "privileged correspondence" or any other "personal emails that are none of the district's business" then he should not have been using a PUSD owned laptop for such email. He should have been using his own private laptop or smart phone. You would make a bad lawyer.
Birdland
on Aug 29, 2015 at 10:37 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 10:37 pm
Damon you are flat out wrong with your assessment of the Mac disk utility. Sorry to break it to ya. But on the bright side maybe you can get a job testifying for the PUSD.
Please don't insult the intelligence of PW readers by putting up long, wordy posts filled with nonsense.
And take a break you've wrote about 500 preachy posts in the last two days alone. Get off the computer and play with your elementary aged child for a bit.
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 29, 2015 at 11:02 pm
on Aug 29, 2015 at 11:02 pm
Damon said "Nope, it was a PUSD laptop. PUSD property. If he had "privileged correspondence" or any other "personal emails that are none of the district's business" then he should not have been using a PUSD owned laptop for such email."
Did you write the district's computer or device policy? I believe you are quoting a policy that just doesn't exist.
I think in 1998 you needed two hard drives to delete an operating system. Like I said, stop at the Stoneridge Mall and go to the Genius Bar and verify what I have said here.
You can buy me an ice cream at the creamery to apologize.
Pleasanton Middle School
on Aug 30, 2015 at 6:08 am
on Aug 30, 2015 at 6:08 am
I'm laughing so hard! Damon's always very quick to loudly scream incorrect information in support of his cause. He sounds a lot like someone in the news lately ("you mean like wipe it with a cloth "?)
@why, don't let it bother you, this is standard PUSD puppet behavior. With Damon's level of lying and incompetence he's uniquely qualified for any number of positions: former trustee (and current house husband), union representative, pusd witness, or even deputy superintendent. For the latter he might need to add a few F bombs into his manifestos!
Del Prado
on Aug 30, 2015 at 10:31 am
on Aug 30, 2015 at 10:31 am
@ Qualifications and Why... Nailed it!
I would also like to remind Damon and anyone else fixated on the the supposed destruction/disappearance of data on Vranesh's work computer, that the alleged "derogatory text" that Lynn Cronin claims she received from Vranesh during a Louise Hay conference was not to be found anywhere. Brian Da Costa was directed to retrieve the damning text from Cronin's phone's for evidence against Vranesh. Guess what?? He couldn't find it! He reported that Cronin's phone was so "damaged" that retrieval of such evidence was impossible.
How convenient. Did her phone fall in the pool? Get run over? Smashed with a hammer when she realized she was on the hook to show the world a text message she fabricated to beef up her accusations? How does a phone become so damaged that such an integral piece of evidence cannot be produced? I will also add that Vranesh provided his cellphone records to the court and no calls/texts to or from Cronin were made or received on or around the date of that conference.
This detail was omitted from the OAH judge's ruling. Also omitted, the fact that doors cannot be locked from the inside or that "violent" words like "perp and victim" are part of the general PUSD daily vernacular and behavioral reports.
I guess that's to be expected when the panelists are chosen by the superintendent and PUSD legal team.
Another Pleasanton neighborhood
on Aug 30, 2015 at 10:54 am
on Aug 30, 2015 at 10:54 am
(Post removed because it contained speculative information)