Saturday, April 01, 2006

Placer County Grand Jury report: REFUTATION OF TRUSTEE’S CHARGES

Read details of the March 21, 2006 Placer County Grand Jury Report:

Go to Grand Jury Report

5 Comments:

At March 25, 2006 11:40 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don't you just love that the Grand Jury agrees that the law was broken, but then criticizes Klein for bringing it to light?

Klein should have been more careful sending this case to the Grand Jury. They are probably 25 elderly Democrats, and he clearly had too much faith in the Grand Jury to be fair. Instead, they produced a report that deals him some partisan payback. My guess is he won't make that mistake twice.

 
At March 26, 2006 7:52 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I didn't know there were 25 Democrats in Placer County....

 
At April 11, 2006 10:02 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Democrats or Republicans this Grand Jury Report is the most thorough and unbiased report I have ever had the honor to read.

 
At April 12, 2006 12:05 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bull shit. Anything titled "Refutation of Trustee's Charges" is about as biased as you can be.

If they wanted to be fair and unbiased, how could they title it that when the central charge, that the law was broken, is proven TRUE by the grand jury report?

I can't believe the lengths that some people will go to vilify Aaron Klein for blowing the whistle on illegal activities.

 
At April 13, 2006 12:09 PM, Blogger Aaron Klein MUST Resign said...

According to the Grand Jury:

The 2005-2006 Placer County Grand Jury conducted an extensive investigation leading
to its Findings and Recommendations. Based on the facts, the Grand Jury makes the
following findings (as further detailed in the Findings section):

1. The Foundation could, in fact, operate legally as an intermediary.

2. The Foundation had no intent to suppress donor names.

3. Filing errors were made, but they were due to inexperience, inattention to detail,
and confusing underlying documentation.
>

4. The filing violations were minor and easily correctable.

5. The former President was far removed from the process of making the filings and
had no participation in causing the violations.

6. Complainant failed to exert reasonable due diligence before making the
complaint. The complaint is utterly without merit.

7. Although not the total basis for the former President’s decision to seek a
retirement settlement, the complaint was a contributing and unjustified factor.

8. Complainant’s insistence that the Foundation be barred from supporting Sierra
College bond measures by donor solicitation as an intermediary is an unfounded
opinion.

See Page 2 of the Grand Jury Report
Refutation of Trustee's Charges Against Former Sierra College President

 

Post a Comment

<< Home