The letter below has been passed around to various groups of DMUSD parents on Facebook and through e-mail.
It was written by Sharon McClain's attorney, Dale L Gronemeier, to DMUSD private counsel Dan Shinoff and Education columnist Marsha Sutton in response to Sutton's interview with Dan Shinoff published April 15 in the Carmel Valley News.
Source: Gronemeier-Shinoff Retraction Demand
April 26, 2010
Via e-mail and registered mail
Daniel R Shinoff, Esq.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
2488 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92106-0113
Re: McClain re DelMar USD
Dear Mr. Shinoff:
This letter is a demand on behalf of Dr. Sharon McClain that you retract the following false and defamatory statement that you are recorded as making in your April 15, 2010, interview by Marsha Sutton that was published in the Del Mar Times on April 15, 2010:
- False statements that the Board of Education did not agree to, and that there was no documentation to support. change §8-E of Dr. McClain's employment contract:
Ms. Sutton's transcript records you as saying for "the $16,000 issue" 1 that "there is no paperwork to support a change in her contract," "there was nothing that indicated that there was action taken to increase her salary" and "that" 2 wasn't what the board had in mind in any event. As you well know because have received the document on multiple occasions, the Board of Education agreed on June 17, 2009, to the change proposed by Dr. McClain - but then, after it hired you, the Board's majority, and you refused to acknowledge the Board's action. A copy of the minutes of that Board action is attached.
The foregoing false statements by you were made in a broader context of your falsely blaming Dr. McClain for the breakdown in settlement negotiations by your innuendo that she was, without justification, insisting that the Board implement the Board's June, 2007 [sic], action - most specifically reflected by your statements "...and she retained an attorney, and everything became predicated upon the board capitulating to this demand for a salary increase which had never been agreed to" and "there were all kinds of threats of litigation." As you well know, settlement negotiations were sabotaged by the Board majority because Dr. McClain made a settlement proposal and proposed a mediator to try to get the matter settled, but the Board declined to even respond or further negotiate in response to her last settlement offer.
These statements have a defamatory sting because they attribute to Dr. McClain the conduct of demanding that the Board do something it had not agreed to do in the broader context of your falsely asserting that Dr. McClain's insistence on doing so caused the breakdown of attempts to consensually resolve the issue.
- False statements Ihat Dr. McClain refused to permit the expression by you and the Board of the asserted causes for her termination.
Ms. Sutton's transcript records you as saying [s]he chose not to have those heard in open session despite the fact that she asked for an open session - and "[s]he didn't want to have an open session to discuss the charges."3 Dr. McClain did not choose to prevent you from stating the grounds for termination, and she wanted an open session to discuss the charges. Dr. McClain formally communicated to the Board that she wanted the proceedings on March 31 in open session rather than closed session; she neither wrote anything rescinding that request nor orally stated that she wanted anything to occur in closed session. If you chose not to articulate the purported cause(s) for the Board majority's action, it was your unilateral choice to do so - presumably because you recognized the utter bankruptcy of the purported cause(s).
The interactions which you attempt to mischaracterize as Dr. McClain choosing not to have the cause(s) heard in public arose from sneaky conduct on your part to which Dr. McClain objected. Shortly before the proceedings began, you told her that you and she should speak for 20 minutes. A fair-minded person would have communicated this expectation in advance rather than trying to disadvantage his adversary by communicated it at the 11th hour. Dr. McClain took exception to your belated notification because she only expected to speak for around 5 minutes. She told you that she thought your belated notification of this expectation was wrong and that she only expected to speak for about 5 minutes. Having been challenged by her for you sharp practice, you responded by agreeing that you would only speak for 5 minutes. Dr. McClain said nothing indicating that you should not state the cause(s) by which the Board majority was purporting to terminate her contract. On the contrary, she expected you to state such cause(s) and to respond to whatever you or the Board majority had dreamed up. But Dr. McClain is not long-winded, and she knows that there is no valid cause to terminate her contract. So she would have had a short message if you had articulated the purported cause(s).
The foregoing false statement has a defamatory sting because it is made in the broader context of your interview responses suggesting that Dr. McClain has something to hide and did not want the purported cause(s) part of the public record. Your interview then makes conclusory assertions that Dr. McClain failed to comply with the law and failed to perform her job as Superintendent, implying there is substance to the cause(s) but relieving the Board majority and you of the responsibility of articulating them - all with the false innuendo Ihat Dr. McClain has something to hide.
- False statement that Dr. McClain is lying about knowing the cause(s) for the termination of her contract.
Ms. Sutton's transcript records you as saying, with respect to the "charges," 4 "... I heard she said. 'I have no idea what they're talking about.' Well, that's just not true." But it is true. What Dr. McClain knows is that she has followed the contractual process of responding to every potential "cause" to terminate her contract that you have drafted for the Board majority by responding as required by the contract - i.e., by rebutting what was false in such documents and by remediating where there was even arguably anything to remediate. Dr. McClain is quite aware that you have been, since you were hired last summer, trying to create a paper-trail to justify the termination of her contract, but she is also quite aware that she has always appropriately responded pursuant to the provisions of the contract to each such attempt and that, after she has done so, the Board majority has not reasserted any such potential causes. So she was and is mystified as to what purported cause(s) the Board majority allegedly relies upon. Dr. McClain is therefore requesting that the Board majority communicate to her the purported cause(s) upon which it relies.
The foregoing false statemcnt has a defamatory sting becausc it asserts that Dr. McClain is lying to the community as to what her knowledge of the Board majority's purported cause(s).
- The false assertion that Dr. McClain broke the-law by releasing your (redacted) invoices to the District.
Ms. Sutton's transcript records that she asked you "Was her releasing your invoices [last December] a violation of the law?" and that you responded "Yes." The invoice's descriptions were redacted - redacted by another attorney on behalf of the District and not by Dr. McClain. Redacting the invoices was not even necessary because the only information that would have been in them would be foundational information about the existence of a privileged communication, which is not privileged information. Your invoices are a public record; the public is entitled to know the fees that are being paid to you. The invoices have no legend indicating that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege (nor are they nor would that insulate them from public disclosure. The invoices were available to Dr. McClain in the ordinary course of her duties. Nothing was done by you or the Board majority to protect any arguable confidentiality until you were upset that the amount of your fees had been disclosed to the public. While I can understand that you are unhappy about the disclosure of how much your income has been fattened by this engagement to do the Board majority's dirty-work, it is simply untrue that Dr. McClain violated any law by disclosing those invoices.
The foregoing false statements were presumably made in the course of your representation of the Board of Education of the Del Mar Unified School District. They create liability for slander and conspiracy to libel for your client, for you, and for your law firm. Demand is made that you retract each and every one of them. While even a retraction would not necessarily eliminate the legal harm, Dr. McClain would prefer to avoid litigating these issues and would forego suing for the defamations if they are appropriately retracted. However, in the event they are not appropriately retracted, she reserves her legal remedies for defamation against your client, your firm, and you.
Sincerely yours,
GRONEMEIER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.
By Dale L. Gronemeier
Attorneys for Sharon McClain
cc: Board Members via e-mail
Marsha Sutton via e-mail
Client via e-mail
- "The $16,000 issue" refers to paying the sum in §8-E, initially specified for a non-STRS retirement account designated by Dr. McClain, in salary instead, minus the District's STRS contribution so that the amended amount would be revenue neutral for the District.
- "That" refers to the $16,000 issue.
- There are other prefatory statements in response to the same question "[I]s there more to it than that issue" that mischaracterize the interactions between you and Dr. McClain at the March 31 Board meeting for the purpose of supporting this defamatory statement.
- The "charges" refer to the Board majority's purported causes for terminating Dr. McClain's contract.
|