80 responses to “AtPac Lawsuit – the Greg Diaz Deposition (updated 5sep2011)”

1. 

   Barry Pruett

   03 September 2011

   I confess. In 2007, I secretly met with Dick Cheney. He and GWB got wind that Diaz was going to be appointed to the highly influential position of Nevada County Recorder. We decided to contact their plant within the office, Pollard, in order to thwart Diaz. In April 2008, Diaz got wind of the plan and got rid of Pollard. Frustrated with the situation, and at some point in 2009, we paid Blackwater to copy the software from one server to the other, then had them subsequently scrub the server and framed Diaz. We were all in on it…it was a vast rightwing conspiracy.

   LikeLike

2. 

   Mike Thornton

   03 September 2011

   You’re still obfuscating Barry. Frankly, I thought you’d be better at it than you appear to be.

   LikeLike

3. 

   Chuck Whitten

   03 September 2011

   Mike-
   The Diaz deposition is readily available, so I suggest very strongly that you read it. As it stands right now you’re making a fool of yourself. In the deposition, Diaz is complaining about Pollard reporting problems to AtPac concerning the functionality of the software. He readily says that that was her job. He also says that when he held the same position Pollard did, that he was not required to report such things to his clerk-recorder, but that he is different from that previous clerk-recorder. There is a point where Diaz says he told Pollard that he was not trying to replace AtPac, but was looking for another software provider. That’s a long way from the collusion you’re claiming. Only someone who engages in such behavior would so freely make that accusation. As to my knowledge of Jackie Pollard’s political connections, I do not know Jackie Pollard, I only know Barry Pruett in the context of my previous job, and I could not care less about those connections. This is a small community, and simply knowing someone is not much of a reason to believe there is unethical or questionable behavior. Frankly as I read this deposition I kept thinking that Greg Diaz political career is over. His own comments have ended it. All anyone who may campaign against him would have to do is provide the public with Diaz own comments to destroy him. I have to say that in 35 years of journalism I have never met a P.R. person I would trust or could respect. You’re no exception. Again, I recommend you read the entire deposition before you continue making a fool of yourself.

   LikeLike

4. 

   Barry Pruett

   03 September 2011

   Now that you mention it…it was not Diaz who was actually deposed and admitted to breaching the contract. Dick Cheney and I planted a representative from Halliburton to pose as Diaz and force the confession. Steve and Mike have found us all out. LOL.

   LikeLike

5. 

   Todd Juvinall

   03 September 2011

   Chuck Witten, it is not possible for a stubborn mule to admit he is stubborn. Thornton is a Einstein in his own mind.

   LikeLike

6. 

   Chuck Whitten

   03 September 2011

   Mike-
   I finally found what I think you’re referencing, but it’s a reach. Diaz complains that Pollard was providing AtPac with information about the Request For Proposals when he was looking for a new software provider. He admits he did not let AtPac know about the RFP, but Pollard was talking to them about it. It’s apparent that the “confidential” information she was giving to AtPac was the information on the RFP, which AtPac, as the existing provider, should have been receiving, and should have been public information. Diaz’ complaint is that Pollard was letting AtPac know about the RFP. You can find those comments on pages 83 and 84 of the deposition. If you continue reading you’ll find that Diaz was upset that AtPac was talking with Pollard and he comments, “If Jackie wants to run for clerk-recorder, she can.” Diaz testimony documents a man who appears to be paranoid. On the one hand he says he trusts no one, while, on the other, he signs documents without reading them! Once again, I encourage you to read the deposition before continuing with your comments. If you can set aside at least part of your slavish behavior, I fear you’ll be embarrassed by your comments. At least you should be.

   LikeLike

7. 

   Mike Thornton

   03 September 2011

   Gee, Chuck, you’re a little hot under the collar, guy.
   Barry, is still paying games about his relationship with Pollard and you clearly have it in for Diaz, so why would anybody take your interpretation as being the objective fact.
   It seems to me that I’ve been pretty clear, that I don’t know what Pollard has done or hasn’t done. I simply think it should be checked out.
   Now if you want to talk about people “projecting” their own faults onto others, maybe you might want to go and stare into the mirror for awhile. You seem pretty quick to start accusing people of nefarious motives. Maybe yours aren’t as “pure” as you’d like to convince yourself they are.

   LikeLike

8. 

   Mike Thornton

   03 September 2011

   So we finally get to the point that indeed Pollard was having unauthorized communications with AtPac. But we don’t really know what those conversations included and if she was having other types of conversations with Diaz’ political enemies.
   Nor do we know if any of these unauthorized communications put the County (read taxpayers) at financial risk or if they violated any type of employment/confidentiality agreement(s) she may have signed.
   But according to Chuck and others, nobody should care about any of this. We should simply say that “Diaz is paranoid.” and be done with it.
   I know some of you don’t care about logic or consistency, but c’mon….

   LikeLike

9. 

   George Rebane

   03 September 2011

   IF Ms Pollard only communicated RFP info to AtPac, information that she had no reason not to communicate as a senior member of Clerk-Recorder’s staff, THEN would those have been considered “unauthorized communications with AtPac.”? If Diaz considers such communications with a legal and qualified RFP respondent ‘unauthorized’, then was not Diaz conducting a fraudulent procurement process for the county, and in the process violating a slew of laws?

   LikeLike

10. 

    Mike Thornton

    03 September 2011

    “If” is the point, George.
    We don’t know what was discussed.
    You don’t know, I don’t know and neither does Chuck Witten.
    I don’t know why you seem to think it’s unreasonable to even ask the question(s)?
    The only answer that I can come up with it that, RR is a rallying venue for the anti-Diaz, pro-Barry crowd. No matter what happens, as far as you guys are concerned it’s all about making Diaz look bad.
    The other question is: Who is Jackie Pollard and what is her relationship to the folks that are out to get Diaz (including AtPac)?
    Maybe there’s nothing there, but once again, why is it wrong to even ask if there is?

    LikeLike

11. 

    George Rebane

    03 September 2011

    MikeT – What indication have I given that “it’s unreasonable to even ask the question(s)?”
    RR has maintained all along the primary concern about the proper operation/conduct of our BoS and county exec staff as revealed in the AtPac suit. The qualifications and conduct of Greg Diaz is a secondary matter to me that derives its importance as an indicator or metric.
    But so that there’s no misunderstanding, from everything I have seen, Mr Diaz does come across as a very unimpressive elected officer who has underserved the people of Nevada County. But my conclusion is not set, and after doing some more noodling, I’ll provide details of my take in a future post. In the meanwhile, please let us all keep asking the difficult questions and see where it takes us.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Chuck Whitten

    03 September 2011

    Mike-
    You don’t seem to get the point that Pollard was simply doing her job. Much further on in the deposition he admits that. Diaz’ bone of contention is that he was not being told about functionality problems with the AtPac software, not that Pollard was giving AtPac or anyone else information they shouldn’t have had based on confidentiality. The only indication of violation of confidentiality is Pollard apparently providing information on the RFP. Information to which AtPac was entitled. You can certainly criticize Pollard for not complying with Diaz order to provide him with cc’s of her correspondence with AtPac, but even that would be questionable, since Pollard was performing the functions of her job in her communications with AtPac! The communications were not unauthorized, they were required. Diaz was angry that Pollard did not copy him on every communication she had with AtPac. That sounds like Micromanaging to me. Could you imagine how overwhelmed the Clerk-Recorder would be if he made such a demand of every one of his employees? Again, I would suggest that you provide information, if you have it, that Pollard violated confidentiality requirements, or that she provided information she shouldn’t have to any other person. I have no means of collecting such information, unless someone provides it to me. You are basing all of your comments on nothing more than conjecture. There is nothing in the deposition, or any of the other depositions that indicates Pollard, or anyone else, did anything unethical, or illegal. You think I should pursue this based on your opinion?
    Sorry to disappoint you Mike, but I’m not hot under the collar. I cannot stand people who take things out of context and use them to push their own agenda. I was truly shocked by Diaz’ deposition. I was shocked by what he did not know, and what he did not understand, by his own admissions. I really don’t care who the clerk-recorder is, but I don’t believe the person should be incompetent. My real concern is with the board of supervisors. I believe they’ve failed horribly in allowing this to happen. This has cost someone in excess of $2-million! You can say the insurer paid it, but someone paid the insurer, and that someone is you and me, through our taxes.
    Gee, Mike, I think you’re ignorant.

    LikeLike

13. 

    Todd Juvinall

    03 September 2011

    The answer is whomever Thornton likes he treats well all others not so well. This is the tactic of a liberal, nothing more, nothing less. He needs one of Crabbs tinfoil hats.

    LikeLike

14. 

    Bob W

    03 September 2011

    At this point, and directly after Chuck’s comment, a word to the wise is in order. Don’t believe for one minute that the brunt of the cost of this is being absorbed by the Risk Pool. And don’t even try to leave Lamphier out of this ether. Just to help out those of you who are intellectually challenged, this is about cost first and closed session second. Third and so on will evolve.

    LikeLike

15. 

    Eric Anderson

    04 September 2011

    From what I can tell (I’ve read the 3 depos available), it may have transpired this way:
    Diaz has good reason to dislike AtPac: Office efficiency issues, better solutions likely, customer service, Pollard and AtPac untrustworthy.
    Diaz looks for another solution, Pollard tells AtPac and does so deliberately behind his back.
    Pollard dismissed.
    AtPac hurt inside and doesn’t take business choices against them well.
    AtPac asks for good chunk of cash to export data, then ups it, twice. AtPac says it’s going to take a looonggggg tiiiiimmmme to convert.
    Too long from Diaz’s POV. Frustrated Diaz talks to IT.
    Monaghan and Russ look at situation but recklessly (probably Russ) say they can come up with covert login for Aptitude: ISPHYDOUX
    Monaghan gives it the nod and the login paperwork is sent to Diaz to sign via McClusky who reports to Monaghan through Russ
    Diaz signs it and is likely aware of its implications but, for the depo, claims plausibly deniable excuse that it was just too routine to bother reading, (Ha!).
    ISPHYDOUX given to Aptitude who use it to gain access to the AtPac server.
    Nothing is clear about what Aptitude got other than data (but, any software company (AtPac) that leaves non-binary source code with “valuable trade secrets” in human readable text files on a server outside of their own locked premises needs to get out of the software business, or maybe find a polital mob to latch onto and together make an opportunistic and apparently damageless claim of being wronged even through their pouty busines behavior forced the government officials to look for a way around them (to save time and money Tea Partiers!)).
    Anyway contract almost signed between County and AtPac to convert data but since IT had already breached the contract with the unauthorized access why not bail on the contract and let IT convert the data without bothering with AtPac. It’ll save time and money too! (but we’ll have to be sneaky about it).
    Monaghan checks with County Council and says lets do it ourselvves, Diaz says ok. Not clear if County Council knew the whole story (ISPHYDOUX and its already past use and implications).
    AtPac getting alarmed and finally tells County about their concerns.
    Apparently County didn’t convert the data themsleves but Aptitude did!
    County IT (Russ, Monaghan, Barale) and Diaz have emergency meeting – too late, we’re busted! Barale and Diaz can’t really recall the meeting in depos (Ha!).
    AtPac enlists political mob at some point and pursues legal case.
    Pruitt finds “nice” way to get leverage for his election which will then further the cause of the political mob.
    Russ fired for sleeping with his supervisee and maybe AtPac issue too.
    Pruitt creamed in election, mob spanked.
    At least a year after the breaches, County scrubs server to common DOD standard, reduces chances that mob can speculate about the awesome code Aptitude got from the unprofessional AtPac (Big stinky when mob finds this out).
    Depositions happen (we haven’t seen Monaghan’s or Russ’s yet).
    Depo’s show apparent contract breaking whether or not it materially mattered to AtPac, looks bad to jury even though it might be the very type of frivolous lawsuit mob rails against (but not so when they bring the suit!)
    Depos get out to public.
    County sees the writing on the wall, settles. Taxpayers out money (some more direct than the other).
    If frivolous lawsuit, mob is to blame for Taxpayer loss. If significant lawsuit, Monaghan, Diaz and Russ to blame.
    Significance will only be known with Monaghan and Russ’s depos, if then.
    In my opinion – corruption? Pretty small amount. A mountain out of a molehill but wrong nevertheless. Standard stuff in the private sector, Wall Street anyone? Free markets? Small Business? Pretty much the same story.

    LikeLike

16. 

    Mikey Mcd

    04 September 2011

    As a thriving member of the private sector I cannot accept this unethical, immoral behavior as “standard stuff.” I would not transact business with anyone that considered such acts as “standard stuff.” Somehow it is easy to believe that it is “Standard stuff” for government (yes, perhaps Wall St. too). Is this still standard operating procedure at the Rood center? Taxpayers should thank Atpac for shedding light.
    BREAKING: Pruett reluctantly ran for Clerk/Recorder. He felt like someone that considered stealing to be unethical should be in such an important position. He asked others to step forward to run (calling me to brainstorm names- including my own), in the end he threw his own hat into the ring. IMO Pruett underestimated the impact of Diaz’s connections at The Union and was hurt by the length of time the court case took to prove Diaz’ guilt.
    It should be safe to say that whoever runs next for Clerk/recorder’s office should have an easier row to hoe.
    Time to move on.

    LikeLike

17. 

    Eric Anderson

    04 September 2011

    Actually much more easy to beleive it happens in the private sector, its disingenuous to claim otherwise. KBR, Halliburton, BP, Enron …….. How many FOIAs do private companies fear for everything they do?

    LikeLike

18. 

    Bob W

    04 September 2011

    As long as you guys continue to accept a BOS that lets this happen you will deserve everything you get. The reason this went as far as it did is because all of you that keep trying to direct the blame somewhere other than the BOS don’t have the brains to put two and two together. Amazing!

    LikeLike

19. 

    Mikey Mcd

    04 September 2011

    Eric Anderson, I am sure that such behavior does occur in the private sector, but to call it “standard stuff” is unacceptable. It ain’t standard for any people I transact biz with. Thankfully, in the private sector we still get to choose who we patronize; often based on trust. If you hate BP don’t buy their gas…

    LikeLike

20. 

    Paul Emery

    04 September 2011

    Eric Anderson provides a pretty good look at the situation as I see it. I just finished reading all 350 plus pages. AtPac attorneys did a pretty good job setting up Diaz for some pretty rough going if there ever was a trial which of course everyone knows would never happen because it virtually never does because insurance companies usually pull the plug and settle before costs go over the top. Since the case is settled any further information will be for historians or later challengers to Diaz in the next election. Of course there’s the possibility of recall but I’d be surprised it that happens at least from this crew since it’s time consuming and expensive. It’s much easier to blog away and not get your hands dirty. We’ll see.

    LikeLike

21. 

    Eric Anderson

    04 September 2011

    “Eric Anderson, I am sure that such behavior does occur in the private sector, but to call it “standard stuff” is unacceptable. It ain’t standard for any people I transact biz with. Thankfully, in the private sector we still get to choose who we patronize; often based on trust.”
    I’m completely with you there. Thing is you don’t always know do you.
    It’s too bad our society is that way but it’s nothing new, humans have been doing it to each other for tens of thousands of years. Only education and transparency will move us away from it. Too bad there so little transparency in the private sector and the transparency in the public sector seems to primarily serve as manipulatable fuel for the complaining and harrassment by those out of power. The more prone to manipulation and dishonesty the complainers are, the worst off for society as a whole.

    LikeLike

22. 

    Chuck Whitten

    04 September 2011

    Eric-
    You’ve written a great deal, some of which I can accept, some of which is quite a reach, and some of which I completely disagree. You’re immediate statement, “Diaz has good reason to dislike AtPac” is a tremendous leap. You support that with, “Office efficiency issues, better solutions likely, customer service, Pollard and AtPac untrustworthy.” First of all, the office efficiency issue could be based in a variety of things other than the software, for example, bad management, bad employees, bad morale, poor training, etc. The better solutions point and customer service were posed by Diaz in the deposition, but he’s the only person who has expressed those issues, and apparently only expressed that to Jackie Pollard and apparently to no one else. He says he complained about it to AtPac, but never put anything in an official form, even as an email. As to Pollard and AtPac being untrustworthy, I don’t know how many times I have to point out that it was Pollard’s job to maintain contact with AtPac. Diaz even says that. Take a look at pages 92 and 93 of the deposition. Diaz agrees there that Pollard is supposed to be talking with AtPac. His complaint was that Pollard was not informing him enough about problems with the functionality of AtPac’s software. As to Diaz’ complaint that Pollard was talking to AtPac about the RFP, SOMEONE was supposed to be telling them about the RFP, and Diaz freely admits he was not. She, it appears, was trying to comply with a requirement that the existing vendor be informed of the RFP. It appears that Diaz made the discussions with his staff confidential in order to specifically keep AtPac in the dark and blindside them. I’d like someone to explain to me how that is “professional” on Diaz’ part. Are employees supposed to blindly follow the edicts of their bosses, even though those edicts may be in violation of ethics, law or policy?
    I agree entirely that government and business, bend or break the rules, but that does not make it right. It may be that AtPac’s charge for getting the materials needed by the county and Aptitude off the server were exorbitant, and that their timeline should have been more definite, but that’s what happens when people are in conflict. It does not justify violating AtPac’s expectation that the county will protect its intellectual property. It seems you would agree that if I leave my wallet on the seat of my car, and forget to lock the door when I leave, that I, rather than any thief, am at fault if the wallet’s stolen. That’s a flaw in logic from my standpoint.

    LikeLike

23. 

    Eric Anderson

    04 September 2011

    “that I, rather than any thief, am at fault if the wallet’s stolen”.
    I’m not saying its AtPac’s fault Aptitude got access to their server, I’m just poiinting out that AtPac seems unprofessional and that’s further cause for Diaz to want to switch vendors. Makes the value of their “trade secrets” suspect as well. Just my opinion, as a software developer.

    LikeLike

24. 

    Chuck Whitten

    04 September 2011

    What I know about software development could be written not on the head of a pin, but on its point. I’ll leave that to others. As I keep saying, I’m more concerned about the board of supervisors, although I’m incredibly disappointed in Greg Diaz, the entire Clerk-Recorder’s office, and the I.T. Department. It’s cost someone a hell of a lot of money. Someone, in addition to suddenly and conveniently retired Michael Jamison, needs to lose their job(s). Diaz seems a likely candidate, but someone needs to take a close look at I.T., Rick Haffey, and the entire clerk-recorder’s office. Then it’s time to call the board of supervisors to account. If a recall is necessary, so be it.

    LikeLike

25. 

    Eric Anderson

    04 September 2011

    Who was County Council in December 2009?

    LikeLike

26. 

    Eric Anderson

    04 September 2011

    Sorry I meant December 2008 when ISPHYDOUX was created? Shulman?

    LikeLike

27. 

    Chuck Whitten

    05 September 2011

    Yes, Shulman was county counsel in 2008, but Jamison should have been counseling far different than he was after it hit the fan. Still, I get the idea he was the new guy on the block and became designated fall guy.

    LikeLike

28. 

    Bob W

    05 September 2011

    I understand what you are saying Chuck, about Jamison becoming the “fall guy”. This illustrates what I have been trying to get across now for months. It seems that the common frame of thought is that the BOS can’t be held responsible. This must be because they didn’t have anything to do with the decisions made in the recorder’s office or that they just relied on County Counsel not for legal advice but to actually make legal decisions. If that way of thinking is appropriate then why is it we don’t elect County Counsel? Just who hires and fires County Counsel? Did we elect the BOS to do what they are told to do by County employees? Is the BOS just five people assigned to give cover to County employees? I think the BOS were involved soon enough to be involved in the workings of the Recorder’s office, if for no other purpose than to blow a whistle. The idea that the BOS was mislead by County Counsel or any other paid professional should reveal that not even one of the Supervisors was or is competent, intelligent, or responsible enough to make the kind of decisions they were elected to make. And they can’t hide behind closed session ether. Any one of them could have stood up at any time and taken exception to what was going on in closed session to the point of removing himself from that closed session in an effort to at least make the public aware that something very wrong was happening and he was taking exception to it. Instead every one of them was thinking that he couldn’t be held responsible because the law protects anything about those closed sessions being divulged to anyone under any circumstances other than a judge in connection with Brown Act violations in the closed session.
    And THAT is why they all need to go!

    LikeLike

29. 

    Chuck Whitten

    05 September 2011

    I agree! Actually I have a tendency to view Pollard as a kind of whistle blower. I definitely do not think the board should be allowed to escape unscathed in this mess. The board members, aside from Lamphier, supported Diaz, while this mess was developing. They had numerous closed sessions to discuss the issues involving AtPac, and, apparently failed to ask any tough questions of the county counsel, the IT people, and Greg Diaz. Assuming they asked the tough questions and got bad information, one of them (Actually ALL of them) should have started looking at the depositions once The Union and KNCO started reporting on them. Instead, board members began complaining that The Union and I were covering the story! What’s with that? Kill the messenger?! There just seems to be all kinds of blame in this mess. Jamison may rightly have been called to account, but Diaz, members of the executive, AND each member of the board should be held to answer. I’ve always wondered if Schulman left under pressure for this thing. It’s probably impossible to ever know.

    LikeLike

30. 

    Bob W

    05 September 2011

    Impossible to know is correct. What we do know is that not one of them had a problem with what was going on including Lamphier. If any one of them did take exception he didn’t have the competence / brains to figure out how to handle it. We are being governed by an ignorant self-serving pack of sheep. The Brown Act is a tool for elected officials and lawyers to cover their actions by having closed sessions. And remember, closed session is only authorized for legal and personnel purposes.

    LikeLike