College of DuPage – $2.2 Million dollar loss no more worrisome than a “pimple on the ass of an elephant” says Dr. Breuder.

DuPage Co. (ECWd) –

In what appears to be true to form, the terminated former President of the College of DuPage appears to have more dirt on his hands than realized.

Today was the deadline for defendants to file an answer to the Breuder lawsuit against the College and three current trustees and one past trustee, Kathy Hamilton.  It appears the first to file was Chairman Deanne Mazzochi with her Answer and Affirmative Defense to Plaintiffs Complaint and Counter-Claim.

Yes, a counter claim! 

This filing is very telling and outlines several matters that we are betting will become very problematic for certain people, Breuder just being one of them.

Although there are numerous issues raised in this filing, the most concerning appears to be reflective of the arrogance so many came to know of Robert Breuder.  The College lost 2.2 Million dollars during their violations of the investment policy and Breuder apparently finds that to be no big deal.

• “Even though the College lost $2.2 million as a result of alleged fraud in a municipal investment fund (“IMET”) in which the College had invested, Plaintiff did not promptly inform the Board about this loss and referred to the loss as no more worrisome than a “pimple on the ass of an elephant”.

It’s a pretty sad day when a public sector employee has so little respect for the taxpayer dollars.  How many students could have used those kinds of funds towards reduced tuition rates?  How many educators could have been employed with this “pimple“ amount of money? $2.2 Million would have been a nice tax break for those carrying the tax burden, but in Breuder’s eyes, its just a pimple on the ass of an elephant.

Additional noteworthy, but by all means not inclusive of everything in this brief, are the following bullet points.

• Plaintiff awarded contracts to those who donated to the College and College Foundation – including to architects, general contractors, a lobbyist, etc. – creating a culture of “pay to play”;
• The College spent $600 million in construction based on a small enrollment spike that reflected a misleading and selective view of enrollment figures.
• Plaintiff used College funds and employee time for campaign events, including for parties for political donors, and made employee performance outcomes conditional upon such campaign work
• Plaintiff used College funds for his personal meals and overnight stays at the College’s campus hotel
• From its opening until Plaintiff went on leave, he personally charged the school’s French restaurant over $100,000 for lunches and dinners he hosted. He often dined there and encouraged senior managers to do so too – and to seek reimbursement from the college for the meals and alcohol consumed;

Paragraph 21 – Upon information and belief, Plaintiff improperly appointed members to the Board of the College Foundation so that he could use the Foundation to avoid spending and internal controls restrictions at the College

Paragraph 66-71:

• 66. Upon information and belief, in March 2011, Dr. Breuder became a trustee of the Lincoln Foundation. Upon information and belief, Dr. Breuder executed a conflict of interest form in 2011 that warned it was a conflict of interest for Lincoln Trustees to be involved with the organizations that they represent.
• 67. Upon information and belief, the Lincoln Foundation changed its name to Illinois Performance Excellence. (See Ex. 35, Business Wire, The Lincoln Foundation for Performance Excellence changes name to Illinois Performance Excellence (ILPEx, November 29, 2011).
• 68. Upon information and belief, in 2011, Dr. Breuder directed that the College expend funds on “Examiner Training” payable to the Lincoln Foundation/Illinois Performance Excellence. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff also directed that College funds be used to make donations to the organization, and purchase seats/tables at fundraiser events sponsored by the Lincoln Foundation/Illinois Performance Excellence.
• 69. Upon information and belief, in November 2011, Dr. Breuder asked Tom Glaser what was the level of signatory authority he possessed to approve expenses without Board disclosure/approval.
• 70. Upon information and belief, Dr. Breuder did not alert the Board of the College of the nature and scope of the Lincoln foundation/Illinois Performance Excellence donations.
• 71. Upon information and belief, in October 2012, COD then paid this organization to perform an evaluation of the College. When Trustees at the time asked Plaintiff to describe what the organization was and what they do, Plaintiff failed to disclose to these Trustees that Plaintiff was at the time of payments a trustee for this organization. Plaintiff actions demonstrate his repeated pattern of keeping material information necessary to Board oversight secret from the Board, including in instances where Plaintiff was involved in self-dealing.

It is good to see so much more truth coming out of how things were done during the Breuder reign of terror at the college.  When the other trustees file their answer we will publish them as soon as we can download them.

Enjoy the 80 pages of a long-awaited expose on Dr. Breuder and his actions at COD.

.
Our work is funded entirely thru donations and we ask that you consider donating at the below link.