Posted by DECATUR, Ala., Aug. 18, 2008 – Based on questions asked of potential jurors and court filings in the federal trial of Alabama State Representative Sue Schmitz (D-Toney) on fraud charges, part of the ongoing federal probe into alleged wrongdoing in the two-year college system, the Alabama Education Association’s (AEA) name may be heard a lot in this trial and court filings show AEA’s leader made at least three trips to the grand jury.
Federal Judge R. David Proctor asked questions previously submitted by opposing parties in the case including how many of the 75 or so members of the potential jury pool were AEA members (5) and how many had an issue with AEA (0). Prosecutor David Estes wanted to know how many people had a payroll deduction for A-Vote, AEAs PAC, deducted from their paycheck (2Y, 2N, 1 Maybe). Estes wanted to know if potential jurors, if so instructed by the judge, could say they would only consider the guilt or innocence of Rep. Schmitz and not the guilt or innocence of other parties who may be mentioned or testify at the trial.
Defense attorney Jake Watson wanted to know if any jurors felt there was any problem with Rep. Schmitz being a member of an organization like AEA “that protects teacher’s interest?” No one indicated a problem. The younger Watson asked if anyone had a problem with AEA contributing money to politicians and if anyone had voted against Schmitz (0, 2 voted for her).
Court filings made by attorneys for Rep. Schmitz indicate AEAs chief, Dr. Paul Hubbert, has on three occasions been in front of the grand jury looking into Schmitz’s alleged use of her position as a legislator to get a job in the two-year system. The government claims Schmitz produced little if any work in the position they contend she acquired through “illegitimate” means. Attorneys for Schmitz say in court filings asking people for help in finding work is the way people get jobs.
“It is a fact that Mrs. Schmitz is a State legislator. It is not illegitimate or illegal for her to be a legislator and in need of a job. Her status as a legislator has inevitably become a part of her resume. The government is attempting to stretch and twist this into a crime or a scheme and artifice. There is nothing unlawful or illegitimate about requesting the help of others when looking for a job. To say otherwise creates a slippery slope that criminalizes the use of acquaintances and professional associates or associations and without a doubt criminalizes what has traditionally been the most effective means of finding a job. Evidence that Mrs. Schmitz asked others for help in finding a job is irrelevant to any fact that is of consequence and is inadmissible.”
In an interview for the Parlor given several weeks ago, Hubbert was asked if he contacted former two-year chancellor Roy Johnson about finding a position for Schmitz:
“As I told some of the investigators, I made a call to Mr. Johnson when she was forced out in Madison County. I think she went most of two terms before the board changed its policy and she bumped into me one day in the hall and said, ‘You know I’m going to have to resign, they’re going to force me out.’Apparently there’d been some change on the board and it ended up one of the board members ran against her for the post. I don’t know all the details politically. Anyway, it was a political thing because she had won several awards as a teacher.
So she said, ‘Can you help me?’ You couldn’t put her back in another classroom situation so I made a call to Mr. Johnson and asked him if he had anything he could give her that he thought she could do well.
That’s all that was ever said. And, I guess a month or so later I heard she’d been hired by the CITY program. He just said he’d look into it as I recall and that was all that happened. That’s the only person I ever recall talking to Roy about.”
As to the broader investigation, Hubbert admits “yes, yes there were some problems [in the two-year system]. Obviously some people have accepted that. Bryant Melton’s pled guilty, the [former] chancellor’s pled guilty, and some others have pled guilty. ”
AEA’s head man says he and Johnson were close. “In the House, he was a long-term supporter of ours on the floor. I’ve been close to a lot of legislators. Yes, he was close to us and he did a lot of the work for us on the floor and handled bills for us because he’s such an effective debater.”
The AEA’s chief also says he recommended former legislator Betty Carol Graham for a position at Central Alabama Community College by telling a college president, “I know a gem of a person and I think she can do you some good work and I think you ought to consider her.” That recommendation was before Johnson’s tenure as chancellor of the two-year system.
Hubbert argues there’s been too much of a broad brush applied to everyone with efforts by the governor, chancellor, and State Board of Education aimed at ridding the Legislature of educators:
“…If there is some person not doing their job, somebody didn’t oversee them. There is not one (person working in the two-year system) serving in the Legislature that doesn’t have someone over them to oversee whether they’re doing their job or not. There’s not a single exception to that except possibly a president. I do believe that one’s job requirements could disenfranchise one from the opportunity of serving, I don’t believe in double dipping. You ought not to draw the same pay for the same thing at the same hour. [But] nobody ever looked to see if they were doing their jobs, they just made a carte blanche policy. That’s what I fussed about.”
Schmitz is one of those prosecutors say received pay for which little work was done and the government has sought to exclude evidence in the case related to Schmitz’s lawsuit against the CITY program. Attorneys for Schmitz contend that Schmitz “has a binding agreement with Central Alabama Community College (CACC) reinstating her to the position she had with the CITY Program” and since Schmitz “has been reinstated to the very same position within the CITY Program that the government is accusing her of utilizing as part of a scheme or artifice to steal over $177,000 from the CITY Program” the evidence should be allowed in. Schmitz has not returned to work for CITY. The Monday filing says “Mrs. Schmitz and CACC and the CITY Program are currently working to determine the amount of back pay, if any, owed to Mrs. Schmitz as well as whether or not CACC and CITY will immediately move to terminate her.”
Current Chancellor Bradley Byrne told the Parlor in an interview given around the same time as Hubbert’s that some people believe the corruption in the two-year system is wider than it really is:
“Because there has been such great press coverage about certain leaders in the system, there is a misconception that it is more widespread and deeper than in actuality it is. It’s wide enough and deep enough for it to be a major problem, but it’s not as widespread or as deep as some people have thought it is. I would not characterize the situation here that way at all. There were particular leaders here in the system, some leaders here in the department, who didn’t behave correctly; but, I don’t think you can lay that at the feet of the majority of people here in the department or out in the system. The majority of people here in the department, out in the system are good people who work hard and play by the rules.”
On Monday, defense attorneys added Byrne’s name to the list of possible trial witnesses.
Potential jurors were asked which political blogs they read. Five people answered. One read al.com, one the blogs on the New York Times site, one just had his sites bookmarked and didn’t know the names of the ones he read and I didn’t clearly get the names of the other two. Jury selection continues Tuesday morning in Decatur. The trial is predicted to last from 2-to-4 weeks. Judge Proctor told possible jurors that if he could predict the length of a trial he’d be able to predict the future and possibly make some money in the stock market. And, he told one juror who inquired if the trial would be done by 24 September: “If it goes beyond 24 September it’s going to get real interesting…I’m a lawyer’s judge, but I’m not a pushover.” Proctor said earlier he wanted to be efficient but “I don’t want to sacrifice fairness or justice.”
Legislative Dispatch
Purple Dot Connection
2010 Big List
2010 Senate Elections
2010 House Elections
Press Releases
As usual…Helen does a great job of keeping us in the know about these political things. I am sure that in addition to the spoken words in this job search there were lots of nods and winks!
…and by nods and winks you must mean appropriations.
Really, I guess there are not a lot of nods and winks in board rooms when lucrative retirements and bonus checks for CEO’s that manage companies which are losing millions of dollars are given…….. I guess there are not any nods and winks when the govenor rewards a large campaign contributor with a job or one of his area co-ordinators a plum position.. It happens every day. The issue is are they working… I think that some were and some were not. I think that justice will prevail just as it did when a sitting governor (Hunt) was convicted of using his office for personal gain. I think the end result in this case will suprise a few folks.
Well…according to the latest reports from the trial nods and winks were not needed….the words were spoken and messages delivered and the budget stuffed to make room for Sue.
“I don’t know all the details politically” ?
The most powerful man in Alabama politics says he doesn’t know political details?
Please tell me he doesn’t seriously expect people to believe that.
This could get interesting…
What is the world coming to when a person can’t go to their friends and associates and network to find employment. I’ve read nothing that suggest Schmitz was part of any backroom, under the table negotiating to land a cush job. If someone else manipulated the system to get her a job without her knowledge, is Schmitz responsible? If your job performance is lacking, is it a crime, or should you be criminaly prosecuted? Are we going to take the word of Roy Johnson, a convict who admits his testimony is based on attempts to get a lighter sentence. If he does not testify to the satisfaction of the prosecution, I assume he will not expect to receive any favorable treatment? Just asking?!…
Well, when Schmitz is convicted and Johnson gets off light and Hubbert goes unindicted while everyone else associated with Hubbert is ruined, does that mean Hubbert gets the village treatment from the survivors? I hope Hubbert turns himself in… he is in no condition to weather the truth from his turned comrades.