Gary Ikeda Will Deign To Speak

High atop his tower (probably on Mount Doom) Gary Ikeda, former head counsel at SPS, is NOW going to speak to the Board's investigator. Somehow he remembered his law school training and realized he could speak if he got a client(the Board)/attorney privilege waiver. This story was in the Seattle Times.

District lead counsel Noel Treat said this:

Treat, in a reply e-mail, advised Ikeda to "please cooperate fully and answer any questions" of the investigator, Seattle attorney Patricia Eakes.

On Friday, Treat told Ikeda that because Eakes is legal counsel working for the school district, no waiver of the attorney-client privilege is necessary for him to cooperate.

"To the extent you believe otherwise, please consider this a waiver to the extent necessary for you to be interviewed," Treat wrote in his e-mail, telling Ikeda that Eakes would contact him next week.

What Gary thought:

"However, I do think clarification is necessary as to the issue of my not responding to the questions of the investigator when she called me and said that she was conducting an investigation on behalf of the school board," Ikeda wrote. "I told her that before I responded I wanted to know the purpose of the investigation. She told me she couldn't say. I asked her if our conversation was covered under the attorney-client privilege. She told me it was not. I asked her for what purpose would my comments be used. She told me that she couldn't say. I told her that in that case my comment was that the information I received regarding the small works program had come from a staff attorney. The conversation then ended."

C'mon on, Gary. You've done investigations before; this was all new to you?

The Times asked a Seattle U law professor about this issue:

Strait said based on what is in the auditors' report, Ikeda didn't adhere to his ethical duty to look out for the best interests of the district by reporting problems to top administrators and the School Board.

McKenna should be concerned about whether Ikeda understands that is also his obligation at the UW, Strait said.

I'm thinking that Gary's boss, Rob McKenna, who has ambitions to be governor, did not want this taint affecting that goal and gave him a big push. McKenna's office had no comment.

I'm hoping that Gary Locke will follow suit but I think he needs a big push in that direction.

Comments

Anonymous said…
How much ya wanna bet he will suffer from "poor recollection" alot....

grumpy
SP said…
Quote from Ron English on 3/02/11 about his supervisor, Gary Ikeda:

"Both independent investigative reports demonstrate that I did what I could to bring Silas Potter’s activities to light. On several occasions I objected to his activities and discussed them with Fred Stephens. I objected to a misleading report issued to the School Board and brought that to the attention of both Fred Stephens and my supervisor, Gary Ikeda. I was prevented from speaking to Board members by standard protocols issued by the Superintendent and reinforced by Mr. Ikeda."

That's the whole problem in a nutshell, and Gary Ikeda seems to have been part of the problem, also.

The district's Communication Protocol was approved by this Board in 2009. It has got to go away also.
see: Eake's Independent Investigation Report- Supporting documents (on the Board's webpage)-
Exhibit K- p.1
Exhibit L- p.2
Exhibit R- p. 103
Exhibit R- p.113-115 "Communication Protocol"
Northender said…
So who do you think Mr. Ikeda will pass the buck to - that seems to be the pattern of behavior here - it wasn't me - he did it. Just once, I'd like someone involved in this to step up, say yes, we made a mistake and we're terribly sorry. Ha!
I agree re: the communication protocol - I know folks who have tried for 3 years to get problems with a manager solved and have gotten nowhere. Its a frustrating place to influence change. Hoping Dr. Enfield has the courage to do something about it.
Still closed said…
Let's all remember that a "closed door" policy also means "doors" in the Castaneda sense as well and that Ikeda was interim Human Resources director for much of MGJ's time here. When he was'nt, the Director reported to him.

Closed "doors" indeed.

Keep pulling. There's lots more.
Trapped inside said…
And before his recent attempts at re-casting himself, so was Mr. (I am not a crook) English "a part of the problem".

He's just still there.
Michael H said…
On the communication protocols it should be noted that those restrictions were a part of MGJ's contract. I looked at Enfield's contract and that section was removed.

We should make sure that whoever gets the permanent position does not have a contract where the Board agrees to limit communication.
Anonymous said…
Mr. Ikeda isn't new to scandal. Remember when the state failed to file an appeal in time and it cost the state 18 million dollars? And then the AG's office tried to lump all of the blame on one low level attorney, who then sued and got herself some money and her job back because it turned out that "broad managerial" in the office? Guess who was the top "manager" responsible? Gary Ikeda. Always been a sleeze, always will be a sleeze.


In the know
Anonymous said…
Mr. Ikeda isn't new to scandal. Remember when the state failed to file an appeal in time and it cost the state 18 million dollars? And then the AG's office tried to lump all of the blame on one low level attorney, who then sued and got herself some money and her job back because it turned out that "broad managerial" in the office? Guess who was the top "manager" responsible? Gary Ikeda. Always been a sleeze, always will be a sleeze.


In the know
Arturo said…
I didn't want to go to far back to post these links:

Where there's smoke, there's fraud. Smoke/Fraud This article mentions Sarbanes-Oxley, but Sarbanes-Oxley doesn't apply to governments.

Here's another article:
7 Ways Board Directors Can Deter Fraud
7 Ways
Trapped inside said…
Wow Anonymous! Folks like you and Michael are why I love this blog!

Lets all pull together and avoid the snipes, eh Michael?

The best thing MGJ did here was pull our community together. Lets not pull ourselves apart.
Anonymous said…
Gary Ikeda...Ron English...Strategies 360...

I was looking up Ron English and found this.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_eP-TQH6WbX0/Sj7qOWXLxsI/AAAAAAAAILs/FaDxuUryvuQ/s1600-h/MINDstyle+-+San+Diego+Comic+Con+2009+Exclusive+Popaganda+Circus+Sideshow+Obese+Alien+Vinyl+Figure+by+Ron+English.jpg

The beauty of google not knowing the difference between Ron English and Ron English.

Bloated alien bureaucracy.

Oompah
MAPsucks said…
Do you want to see his poor "recollection" skills"?

In April 2010, nine months after the Board awarded its first contract to NWEA, Ikeda lied to the SAO with:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/49558061/NWEA-SAO-Assertions

Either he's a moron or he confused her after-the-fact disclosure in 11/09 with a lawful one during contract formation.
SP said…
Michael H-
The Communication Protocols I was referring to (between the Board and staff) are different (but related) from the Board/Superintendent Communications clause in MJG's contract.

I'm glad you brought this clause up (and very glad that it was dropped in Enfield's contract).
I cannot believe that the Board would actually have wanted to have that clause- where did it come from originally? (is it from MGJ's input or from earlier District contract wording?)

Basically the Board agreed to bring "any and all critisisms, complaints, suggestions, communications or comments regarding the Superintendent's performance of her duties" to her attention promptly. Wow, what a dereliction of duty that must have been daily by the Board members! And it was their contract to MGJ!

The contract also stated that Board members "shall refer all personel appeals, complaints, and other communications concerning the administration of the District to the Superintendent or her designee for investigation and report to the Board."

"Wow!" is all I can say. How could the Board possibly think that this was possible or ever would actually happen? MGJ and Cheryl Chow signed this contract in 2007, with guess who....yes, Gary Ikeda as General Counsel!

A policy doomed from the Start...
GreyWatch said…
When Nickels came in as Mayor, he did something similar in terms of communications, but my memory is hazy.

As I recall, City staff were required to run everything through the Mayor via an established chain of communication (er, command), essentially eliminating direct contact with the council. Again, I can't remember the details, but I recall at first thinking it wasn't such a bad thing as Schell's free-for-all approach was chaotic -- nobody knew who was doing what. I felt it made sense for the head of the organization to know what was going under his watch.

I shortly concluded it was more about spin and image control. Consistent messaging. Nickel's imprint on everything. Etc.

Popular posts from this blog

Tuesday Open Thread

Nepotism in Seattle Schools