Children’s Theatre probe dropped, chief says

Oh, Should the Chief have lied and said that the staff did absolutely nothing wrong, even though there appears to be very clear evidence that things were not right at the PACT (part staff fault, part city fault)?/
Would like to know if this sudden decision had anything to do with pressure from the city “elite” to drop the investigation since PACT is a “beloved local institution” and therefore, above the law for some council members and other city residents.

I know how hurtful this whole investigation was for all the people involved, but I am real glad that this is over!

When is Pat returning to PACT?

Btw, Beatrix Porter’s play opening night is tomorrow nigth! I hope to see her around 🙂

MISTAKES = $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

PACT staff are guilty of shabby accounting practices, the fact that the city was lax in keeping things in order does not absolve the staff from being irresponsible with our money (the fact they they were working with children and/or that PACT is a beloved city institutions is irrelevant).These people, are adults, and are making $100K+ per year–they should have some sense of responsibility.
i am sick and tired of the excuses that some people in our city are making for them and the seemingly blind worship of the staff by residents.
PACT needs to be straightened out and run right without city funds.

Now, When does the INVESTIGATION OF the CITY and POLICE DEPARTMENT start???

How about the INVESTIGATION of the CITY MANAGER and City Attorney. When will that start.

How about the Council Members who forgot to let the CITIZENS KNOW, JUST HOW INVOLVED THERE WHERE WITH THE THEATRE STAFF.. until the END????

Funny how PALO ALTO, SMELLS LIKE A TUNA FACTORY!!!!!!! Going to investigate that????

Did not think so….

Nobody but the management of the theater is responsible for the financial confusions that have been well documented. So, if I leave my door open those who steal my possessions should be absolved?

the Criminal investigation is over- financial crimes are notoriously difficult to sort out. But as a city resident I want to know what was done with city moneys. The civil part of this suit is not over until the city recovers misspent or missing money. Is that what is going to happen or are the principals of this mess going to retire on full pensions without making the city (us, palo altans) whole?

It’s time the theater run as a non-profit and look for their own endowment or else I suggest other groups look for equal treatment. And the city shouldn’t look for residents for more money if they don’t want to pursue a civil case against the PACT management.I am sure the city is not concerned with what the discovery phase in civil proceedings unearths…

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]
In this case, however there seems to be a real need by some to absolve PACT management actions because “they” think the city is mismanaged. I ,for one, do not believe that even if the city is terribly mismanaged (as some say) PACT management could possible justify mingling their own private funds in their bank accounts with city funds. That I’m afraid is not all right. It is usually considered corrupt. Does the inland revenue want to take a look? I hope so.

[Portion removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]

Now that’s it’s over, I think I found the place where the PAPD got their play book for this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSe38dzJYkY

After all is said and done with the blunder of the PACT investigation, the good citizens of Palo Alto are spending over 80 million dollars on a new and improved Police Station. Will they get better service and honest answers for their investment?

Somebody please tell which part of the police investigation was not proper?
There was a well founded suspicion of a crime ( some say there still is) and they investigated.
Some people’s actions are never investigated because they are thought of as being above the law?

Now, whose money is PACT management and whose is the city’s? Who is to say? The Franchiser tax board? The IRS? Or are we going to know because of an administrative investigation? Should the city not do that at least?

It is clear from this mess that PACT must be disengaged from city affiliation/taxpayer financing. Thank you. Stand on your own like thousands of other youth performing arts organizations.

Maybe the Citizens of Palo Alto could,????? VOTE on it? I hope they would vote yes, but that’s just me..

So are the employees going to return the money they STOLE?

Sold lots of advertising space…

ok… can i say “i told you so” now perp walk?

Looking at this entire saga, what strikes me is the fervent passion exercised by both extreme flanks. It’s like we were back in the 90’s and OJ was back on trial. However, at this point, no charges will be filed, the investigation ran its course and soon the administrative inquiry will be finished (I hope).

Personally, I am dismayed by Chief Johnson’s statements that evidence of wrongdoing exists, but that no charges will be filed. The truth is that evidence does not equal proof and suspicion is not fact. It was a potshot at the PACT staff from an officer who has taken a lot of heat for an investigation that has been subject to huge public scrutiny. And while I can understand her frustration at her inability to seal the deal and ring proof, declaring guilt without trial is simply wrong.

Chief, put up or shut up. If you could prove something, you’d have filed charges, but you cant.

That said, I think that would wrong to criticize the police for conducting an investigation n good faith, and I haven’t. I think particularly given that the PAPD has attempted to conduct an impartial investigation, Johnson’s parting shots were even more unfortunate, as they betray a bias that, while it may not have impacted the investigation, surely will only serve to strengthen suspicions of police misconduct and anger at the department as a whole.

I find it strange that Jon Parsons, the administrative attorney for Pat Briggs is quoted by the Weekly (online her on May 1, 2008) at having said Briggs has been handling finances like this for a long time, perhaps 20 years, see quote below copied and pasted from the 5/1/08 article

Parsons said that years ago, perhaps more than 20, Briggs asked what to do about leftover traveler’s checks once the city’s advance was reimbursed. He said she was told that it would cost more to reimburse parents and donors for the small amount of leftover funds than the reimbursements would total, and that she should keep the checks for future trips or other uses.

I’m assuming that he got this information from his client Ms. Briggs. They are basically admitting that this has been going on for the last 20 years. I’m curious to know how many years the city keeps all of it’s financial records. I would bet it isn’t 20!

Also, to “guy” you are of course entitled to your opinions as we all are on this forum, but just to correct you, the police department has no place in filing charges against anyone. They are the fact finder, they present what they have found to the district attorney, and it is the district attorney that issues charges and prosecutes defendants – criminal law 101.

still more questions – it’s fairly clear that you have no legal education. While it is true that the police do not file charges, the police can choose to submit a case to the DA for prosecution. In this instance, the case was not even submitted to the DA for consideration because the police determined that there was insufficient evidence. So while I did write incorrectly, implying that the police are not involved in filing charges is simply wrong. The police can decide that charges will not be filed by not submitting the case, as happened here.

Ferdinand II – the DDA was providing legal commentary and while he had been “discussing” the case with the PAPD, if you go back to previous articles it was clear that the case had not been submitted. The PAPD obviously wanted to see what the burdens of proof would be, “very high” according to Johnson, and the only way to do that was to speak with the DA’s office. However, the case had NOT been submitted and WILL NOT be submitted. There are several reasons to not submit the case, lack of evidence to support the intent required of embezzlement and there not being evidence of crimes not past their statute of limitations, but the DA could not press charges because the probe was “dropped” prior to being submitted.

Guy,

I’ll cede the technical point to you for the sake of argument. But then what are you saying? That the DA would prosecute even when they have stated publicly that the evidence has no merit?

Ferdinand – I was arguing the technicality mainly for the sake of argument. It has been my experience that most often, the decision of whether a prosecution will occur happens by the police chief, the question as to what charges and what punishments will be sought occurs in the DA’s office. This happens mainly because the Chief and police department works with the DA to determine what burden of proof needs to be met, if the police can gather that evidence, they submit a case and it generally goes to trial, if they cannot meet that burden of proof, it is never submitted. This allows the DA to look tough on crime and supportive of law enforcement (“I’ve prosecuted 95 percent of the cases brought to me…”). In this case, I think the PAPD wish they could have submitted the case, but knew the DA wouldn’t prosecute and they would look like impotent fools. So, while technically only the DA can file charges, the de facto decision is generally made by the police chief looking at the evidence they have versus the burden of proof the DA would need.

lifebug quotes Chief Johnson as saying “I know they’re guilty but I don’t have enough evidence to prove it”. Not so. She is quoted as saying have evidence of “serious financial mismanagement and other possible criminal activity”…there wasn’t proof “beyond a reasonable doubt at this time”.

guy has fairly clearly stated the problem with submitting a case and who is responsible for what action(s). Thank you.

Many posts either misstate what is written either by the PAPD or the newspapers or offer opinion as fact. And the newspapers may or may not report accurately or completely what they learned in an interview.

Chief Johnson has issued recently at least two lengthy statements about the police investigation. I believe they are factual although without all the information people want and may not have a right to. Before accusing her of improper procedure, be sure of your facts.

Bob,

Johnson refused to apologize because “We did it with as much professionalism as we could”. Was breaking up a rehearsal instead of waiting a half hour as professional as she could muster? Was Yore’s act of terrorizing kids as professional as she could muster? These ARE facts.

Johnson says she hopes “that people would realize we get paid to conduct criminal investigations when we have reasonable cause to believe that crimes have been committed.” Apparently, she’s thinks the costume sale was probable cause. Sounds more like fantasy than fact to me.

However, it appears she is speaking the truth when she said “I haven’t even thought about it,” when asked about the cost of this fiasco. Her LACK of thought is what caused this whole mess.

Johnson said she has no idea how much the criminal investigation has cost.

“I haven’t even thought about it,” she said.

Gee don’t you think that our chief police would have a bit more curiosity than that? Shouldn’t she wonder how her department is spending the tax payers money?

Daniel wrote:
“Was breaking up a rehearsal instead of waiting a half hour as professional as she could muster? Was Yore’s act of terrorizing kids as professional as she could muster? These ARE facts.”

Daniel, I still don’t understand why the police could not wait until the children were out of the building to close the theater… Some of those kids were really confused/agitated about the situation. And you are right, they only needed to wait an half-hour for the rehearsals to be over. Sad!

But I also have to say that the presence of a group of photographers from our local press snapping photos of every single child that entered the theater when it re-opened was also very stressful for many.

And how ironic it is that the local press did not bother to write a single review of the play that was opening on that same week.

I just saw the photo on this article! If you double click on it you can see the following message: Parents and youth at the theater shield their faces from the camera. Photo by Norbert von der Groeben.

That is real interesting, Norbert! In your web site the statement is the following: The best part of being a photojournalist is the access a camera grants. People let you into their lives and trust you to be honest with your work. It’s not only a great honor but also a privilege to be trusted like that.

Norbert, why do you think the youth at the theater shield their faces from you… Do people really let you into their lives, and do they really trust you?

Here is a link to Nebert’s site: http://www.norbertphoto.com/bio.htm

Just a ponder(I had written ‘quick ponder; clearly not my forte), but as I understand it, the Children’s Theater is not considered a ‘fund-generating’ branch of the city. It is run at a deficit, which is the cause of much of the ire directed toward the theater, the Friends, and the participants in this forum. The moneys generated by charging the public to attend performances and charging for classes, seminars, and the summer conservatory defray a large portion of the costs. The remainder for budgeted items is covered by the city.

Initially, the entire cost was funded by the city, except for the buildings donated by Lucy Sterne and the thousands and thousands of volunteer hours put in by parents and other citizens, including my great-grandmother. Over time, the needs (or willingness to provide services) increased, so the Friend’s of the Theater organization was set up as a public/private partnership to come up with MORE MONEY, not given by the city. Money was raised for improvements, additions, and trips (all of which were theater-related and educational).

So if you look at the trend, it is more self-sufficiency and less dependency on the city dollar/tax dollar.

When I was a kid there was a constant problem with costumes piling up everywhere. Costumes wear out. Kids come in different sizes. Fashions change, which doesn’t matter for Little Women or Rapunzel, but certainly does for, say, High School Musical and other newer shows. Old costumes also involved endless buttons and HOOKS! often on the back of costumes for girls, which are hell on the old quick-change. The fire marshall was always on PACT’s back, saying, get these old costumes out of here, they constitute a fire hazard! But throw them out? That would be plain wrong.

Meanwhile, funding sources other than city money became more important as the programs grew and grew, due to the dedication of its staff. Outreach plays began at the elementary schools, which included any interested student old enough to participate. The Conservatory was born. Someone said, hey! Let’s sell some of the old costumes off, and raise some dough. Questions were raised as to how to write the checks, and queries went in to the city. Sometimes they answered one way, sometimes another, but as one city official told me personally in 1999, “It doesn’t really matter so much as long as the money is earmarked for the theater. We can’t really spend it on anything else.”
People began to donate their old halloween costumes and navy uniforms, out-of date tuxes and worn out ballet shoes. The sale was a hit.

Likewise, when trips were suggested, money was raised. ‘Extra’ performances served the purpose of a charity auction, an opportunity to allow children to travel and perform, to travel and compete, like the band or the choir. The amount needed was determined, the drive went forward, the money was collected. Rubber ducks and t-shirts were sold. Each parent paid a sum for his or her child, which was a part of the total. But additional funds were needed for scholarships, etc., and these funds were raised by the Friends.

All of these efforts allowed the theater to do more without requiring that the city pay for it all. Thousands of more hours were put in by volunteers, selling hot dogs, sorting costumes. The costume racks stopped smelling bad ( I am not exaggerating, In The Snowqueen I wore a complete fur suit that had my grandmother’s name in it from 1933. Fur is not easy to wash, and it had greasepaint and baby powder all over the inner neckline. Good for one halloween, but no longer functional for four performances under the lights!). City money tended to go for staff (not a penny wasted, each did the work of three people) upgrades to the building, safety concerns, etc.

My question is, if money was raised by the theater or the Friends, for the theater, how is that owed to the city? Is there a clause that says that have to pay the city back every penny of operating expenses before spending on, say, a new light board? I don’t think so. And I know that as a taxpayer if donate money to the theater, it is earmarked for the theater, and for the city to use it for any other purpose is, I believe, unlawful. If unbudgeted amounts were advanced by the city, and paid back with donated funds, how is that embezzlement, or missappropriation of any kind? If I donate money to the Junior museum for snake food, can it be used to pay for a large egg sculpture in the plaza? I don’t think so. It can’t be used to fix the street or provide sandbags or even buy a microphone cover for city hall. If you donate money to reseed the little league field, can the city sieze it and use it to clean up after the horses in the may fete parade? Somebody enlighten me, please (not you perpwalk, I still need to know what YOUR cause is so I can help you write a grant).

I am generally quite pro-police, my kids collect the ‘baseball cards’ However, I would appreciate our Police force bringing charges if they think they can prove them or dropping the whole thing completely, not resorting to libel or slander or whatever you call saying something bad about someone that you can’t prove (if the paper quotes you but you SAID it, I’m not sure which that is).

We do need oversite in our town, to make sure that money goes where it is supposed to go, and doesn’t get spent somewhere else.

Love to all,
Katie

Narnia,

Up until this whole investigation started, it was standard (i.e. written) policy for the City to issue a check to employees as a travel advance. The check is written out to the employee, so it really could only go into our personal private accounts. The policy requires an expense report and a payback of any unexpended funds within 30 days after the trip.

Katie, that was a nice summary of how PACT is funded. I hope this will all blow over soon. But I believe serious damage was done to City morale in all departments. I don’t understand why this wasn’t just kept as an internal affair like the Utility Department scandal. I guess Fireman’s double standard applies because that is an enterprise fund that MAKES money for the City. PACT is much loved, but it isn’t a “money maker”.

CH insider,

If the moneys are in the PACT member private bank account and not all expenses are duly recorded and matched against those checks then the PACT managers W2 will have had to reflect it. Tax laws require tax payments for those moneys if they are not refunds. I’m afraid that whatever wrongs, if any, the city did do not exonerate PACT management from their fiduciary duties and certainly not from the payment of taxes over unrefunded moneys.
I am hoping that an investigation can clear all these matters.

As for the city not being able to get rid of that department, yes they can either by attrition, dissolution or simply reduction of funds ( with the legal provisos for the employees rights).

I see Daniel uses costume sales as the cause of the investigation. It was the incompetent (not enough proof) handling of taxpayers’ money that had to be carefully looked into as Narnia has stated.

As far as Chief Johnson saying she hadn’t even thought about the cost, she has to wait until the accountants do their job before she can even ask what it is. Should she have speculated? Nonsense.

Many (not all, of course) of these comments appear to be based on scant knowledge of the details of the investigation, city accounting practices, or the inner workings of the Children’s Theatre. They represent gut reactions to a few newspaper articles. I trust that if there had been culpability on anyone’s part, Mr. Yore and Ms. Johnson (at the behest of the City Manager) would have found it because they were predisposed to do so. From their own descriptions, they have had unlimited resources (overtime and travel, for example) for their investigation. Let’s move on, as the Chief of Police suggests.

My attention has switched from the Theatre to city management and the Palo Alto Police Department. I question the wisdom of Ms. Johnson’s written remarks when she admitted that they had found no culpability despite evidence of “serious financial misconduct and other possible criminal activity.” The City’s sizable legal staff should control Ms. Johnson’s oral and written communications better, editing her statements for potential legal ramifications. Public police accusations without evidence can become libelous. Although Chief Johnson is the highest ranking representative of the the Palo Alto Police Department, she is intemperate in her public statements. Why isn’t City Manager Frank Benest controlling the city’s press responses better and protecting the taxpayers from potential liability?

Better yet, let’s look at the performance of our Chief of Police and City Manager. I believe that Chief Johnson is responsible for submitting and administering her department’s budget and City Manager Benest is responsible for developing, gaining approval for, and administering of the entire city budget. By her own admission, Ms Johnson stated that she had not even thought about the cost of this investigation.

Wow! Many of the commenters in this forum are taxpayers. Doesn’t that bother you more than costume sales?

I know this much: at minimum uncashed checks were floating around the PACT without anyone in the theater being able to account for them. I wouldn’t want these people taking care of my private financial affairs. I do not want them taking care of my public affairs.

No amount of creativity justify the long time lax manner in which PACT treated its financial reporting and accountability.
I understand how hard it is to be creative and involved in a job in which countless hours are spent beyond the call of duty. So do scientists, artists and the many whose jobs have no hours. But all those people by and large abide by their financial fiduciary obligations even though they would have preferred to employ those hours spent on financial accountability and reporting , working for example on the cure for malaria, the study of blindness or even the production of “Krapp’s Last Tape”. It’s so much more pleasant to receive accolades for a public job than no thanks for a “hidden” one well done. The applause is just not there for that. Nevertheless, it has to be done by those in charge. There is no excuse for supporting this manner of acting.
PACT supporters confuse support for creative work with support for failure to account for finances. They confuse support for the person with support, feeble and convoluted excuses for lack of accountability. They are in a defensive mood in which people are elevated to sainthood and nothing they do is ever to be criticized. I don’t know why this reminds me of adoring masses….Well, I do actually.
Briggs should resign. She is the director and the buck stops with her (for the theater) independently of city faults.
Should Palo Altans want to keep in charge someone whose long career ( she has been PACT Director since 1965) is a little longer than the control freak Castro had been in power they are welcome to try to keep things as they always have been. But please respect those of us with a different and reasoned view. In any case it is about time that Briggs leaves PACT and a fresh approach be employed. This crisis just highlighted that no one should be in charge that long (43 years) with or without accountability.
No one is denying Briggs legacy to the PACT (though I don’t think it can be said to be exemplary), her dedication and the outcome of her work. But it’s time for her to go and the best way would be for her to resign and not prolong this sad chapter in the PACT life. It would also restore a modicum of credibility. Whatever we may think, it’s clear she cannot stay there. And clear still, at least to me, l that no one should stay for 43 years.
Leadership requires a path for others. Control freakism just requires a will to stay in power perhaps for the fear that others will not be able to “take the boat to port”.
Nobody is indispensable.
This is my last say on this matter.

I second Narnia’s comments.

A director has to direct more than just the plays. A director of the theatre must direct the theatre as a whole. A director of plays is just that. Accountability for the running of the enterprise is what she was employed to do, not to direct plays alone.

Chief Johnson doesn’t know how much the investigation cost. Does Benest not have quarterly or semi-annual budget reviews for all departments?

Wouldn’t Benest be just the tiniest bit interested in how much this very visible investigation was costing over 11 months? Wouldn’t the city council, in it’s oversight position, be at all interested? Apparently not.

Town Square,
Despite the lengthy police investigation evidence was too thin to bring charges against the directors of the Children’s Theatre. Yet Police Chief Lynne Johnson, chose to sum it up by stating despite “serious financial misconduct and other possible criminal activity,” there isn’t proof “beyond a reasonable doubt at this time.” Closing the investigation vindicates the Palo Alto Children’s Theatre. Instead of admitting that she can’t make a case, the Police Chief ends the investigation with a tone of self-righteousness and an insinuation of guilt. I think this is a classic example of irresponsible and unprofessional conduct by the Palo Alto Police, who should remain neutral during an open investigation.

PACT staff –

Your names will never be “tarnished” in my book. Any mistakes notwithstanding, to me, you’ve all always been a shining example of inspiration and virtue. I don’t care what the police or anyone else says. You guys are the best.