Audio By Carbonatix
Miami-Dade County taxpayers have already shelled out more than one million dollars to settle two women’s claims that ex-Miami Northwestern High School principal William E. Clarke III sexually harassed them. And Clarke continues to draw a $91,000 annual salary while working in an attendance office.
Now William Clarke wants even more of the public’s money. Or rather his lawyer does. W. George Allen has twice asked the school district to pick up Clarke’s legal tab. Allen’s bill, according to the school district: $75,290.45.
Reached by phone at his office, Clarke declined to comment for this story. Allen did not return numerous phone messages. But in his letters to school board attorney Phyllis Douglas, Allen makes it quite clear that he believes the public should pony up more dough for Clarke’s lasciviousness.
Douglas disagrees. She has refused to submit Allen’s bill to the school board for a vote, citing Florida statutes that absolve the district from responsibility to pay Allen for his work.
When news happens, Miami New Times is there —
Your support strengthens our coverage.
We’re aiming to raise $30,000 by December 31, so we can continue covering what matters most to you. If Miami New Times matters to you, please take action and contribute today, so when news happens, our reporters can be there.
The first case, that of former Northwestern activities director Jacqueline Hazel, went to trial. In November a federal civil jury ruled in favor of Hazel, who claimed the principal offered her a wad of hundred-dollar bills in exchange for sex. The district’s legal team (including Douglas and Allen) decided not to appeal that decision and agreed to pay Hazel $635,730. In February Clarke’s secretary Sonja Renee Miller, who contends Clarke chased her around a conference-room table, accepted a $400,000 settlement from the district. The school board approved both deals at its February 10 meeting.
On March 1 Allen wrote to Douglas: “Will the School Board pay my fee? What must I do to get the Board to pay? Thanks for any help or suggestions. Bill [Clarke] is not in a position to pay.”
In her March 3 reply, Douglas explained that, under Chapter 230.234 of Florida statutes, the school board is only obligated to pay an employee’s personal attorney if that employee wins in court. “Under the terms of this statute, the Board cannot pay your fees incurred in the Miller and Hazel cases. I’m sorry that I can’t be of any help to you in this matter, but can only recommend that you look to Mr. Clarke,” she wrote.
“I am of a different opinion,” Allen responded on March 17. “The settlement was not an admission of guilt. If the Board had pursued an appeal, both the Board and Mr. Clarke would have prevailed. By reaching a settlement, the Board was successful, and both cases were therefore successfully defended and reasonable attorney fees should be paid…. Since [the Hazel] case was tried and [the Miller] case avoided trial, but both were settled, the Board and Clarke enjoyed a successful defense and the Board derived a substantial benefit from my services.” Then he added a gentle threat: “I therefore entreat you to reconsider, as I would hate to have to litigate against you and the Board.”
Douglas stood her ground. “I am afraid I cannot recommend that the Board pay your attorney’s fees in the Hazel and Miller cases,” she answered on March 24. “In the first place, I don’t know how we can consider these cases ‘wins,’ especially in the Hazel matter.” She points out that the Hazel jury found that Clarke repeatedly propositioned Hazel, then demoted her when she wouldn’t submit to his advances.
“While I am sorry that Mr. Clarke appears unwilling to pay your bill, you know that it was never contemplated that the School Board would pay your attorney’s fees if we did not prevail in these cases,” Douglas added.
To date Allen has neither responded to Douglas’s March 24 letter nor sued the board.
This exchange has taken place as a critical date approaches. Before June 30, the end of the school district’s fiscal year, superintendent Roger Cuevas must recommend whether to renew the one-year contracts of principals and other administrators. (Only top administrators such as Cuevas are given multiyear contracts.) The last school board meeting before then is scheduled for June 23.
Cuevas’s second-in-command, deputy superintendent of schools Henry Fraind, declined to comment on the status of Clarke’s contract. Given that the district has left Clarke virtually unpunished for his expensive behavior, it is quite possible that he could receive a raise and an assignment to another principal’s position.
“Come June 30 this man could go back to a school,” says one high-ranking district official, incredulously. “In the real world, you would have fired this guy.”
June 30 is important to Clarke for another reason: That’s when Phyllis Douglas will retire from the district. If George Allen decides to write another sternly worded letter to the school board attorney after that time, it will land on the desk of Douglas’s successor, Johnny Brown.
Might Brown be more responsive to his entreaties? Well, Clarke and Brown have at least one thing in common: the support of school board chairman Solomon Stinson. Stinson is Clarke’s friend and mentor, and was the leading advocate of Brown’s appointment as the new attorney. In the February and March school board meetings, Stinson maneuvered the debate to rule out a national search for Douglas’s replacement, then nominated Brown, a sixteen-year veteran of the board attorney’s office. Brown beat out his long-time colleague Patricia Bass for the post in a 5-4 board vote.
How would Brown answer Allen’s request for the $75,000? “I haven’t spoken with [Douglas] about that,” Brown says. “I’m not abreast of it.”
