Anyone who knows him well would have expected former San Mateo County Community College District Chancellor Ron Galatolo to defend himself vigorously in a manner that is both plausible and astounding.
In the interview that ran in Wednesday’s Daily Journal, Galatolo, facing criminal charges of corrupt relationships with district contractors, was adamant that he engaged in no illegal or inappropriate behavior. Aside from some seemingly minor DMV-related accusations and what Galatolo acknowledged was an innocent mistake on his income taxes, the bulk of the interview focused on his absolute and resolute insistence that he never violated financial disclosure laws, that he had no financial interest in the companies of district contractors with whom he had close, personal friendships, and that he never engaged in a “pay-to-play” scheme to direct contracts to these friends.
His assertions have the air of internal credibility: It is clear he absolutely believes he is innocent. He proffered no squirming version of the facts. He makes no excuses, offers no apologies. He vigorously defended his friendships with these contractors and flatly stated that he carefully adhered to the rules governing the reciprocal exchange of goods and services.
It was quintessential Galatolo — bold, confident, assertive and aggressive.
I have known Galatolo for most of his two decades as chancellor of the community college district. Our relationship has been mostly professional — first as a journalist and later during my own executive tenure at the San Mateo County Transit District. But we always have been friendly and even friends, although certainly not of the kind that has been the focus of the investigation by the office of District Attorney Steve Wagstaffe.
I admire Galatolo’s long and substantial record as a builder at the college district. All three district campuses have been modernized and beautified, and Galatolo gets a large share of the credit. He built new classrooms and student facilities, new campus housing for faculty and new community/student health and athletic centers. He has been innovative and visionary.
He also operated as someone who would not be dragged down by bureaucratic protocol and red tape, a quality we sometimes admire and even encourage in a public official. He didn’t break the rules so much as he tended to see them as problems to be solved, or brushed aside.
Still, his blithe dismissal of the need for financial disclosures may be legal, as he said, but it shows an astounding disregard for his role as a high-profile public official with a responsibility to set a higher standard of conduct and appearances. Here, his sensibilities were naïve, at best.
His record is one of boldness in the spirit of achievement. His friends and allies, including, for many years, the majority of the district’s Board of Trustees, were devoted to him and believed in him and what he was accomplishing.
His critics, including a minority of the trustees, saw him as a bull in a china shop, a bully, a grandstander who got too much credit for the transformed college campuses and gave too little credit and deference to the trustees, his bosses.
Perhaps it was only a question of time until Galatolo’s aggressiveness would open the door to someone determined to cause him trouble. That appears to have arrived in the person of former Vice Chancellor Eugene Whitlock, the originator of a whistleblower complaint that led to the criminal charges. Without Whitlock, it could be argued, there would be no criminal case.
The question, of course, is whether there is one now. As Galatolo and his attorney, Chuck Smith, point out, Galatolo has been the object of a string of public declarations by Wagstaffe. It is unusual, to say the least, for this much publicity to be generated by a prosecutor in this county. As Galatolo also said several times during, pre- and post-interview, there is another side to the story.
Now, we have heard it and it is a plausible version of the facts — plausible enough to imagine that Galatolo can offer a vigorous and potentially successful defense, should the case ever get in front of a jury.
And there is the final point, I suppose.
Undoubtedly, the four years have been excruciating for Galatolo, who, for decades prior, had a reputation for excellence and achievement. Now, Galatolo insists that as he reviews the evidence, the case against him appears increasingly insubstantial. As he and his attorney said, the prosecution has yet to produce evidence that “one dollar” has lined Galatolo’s pocket. Follow the money, they said, and it will lead nowhere.
After four years, it would seem that it is time for this case to lead somewhere.
Mark Simon is a veteran journalist, whose career included 15 years as an executive at SamTrans and Caltrain. He can be reached at marksimon@smdailyjournal.com.
(17) comments
I am not sure which story the Simon's detractors are reading - I read the article at 715 a.m. this morning and Mark never gave off - any indication - that he was in support of the perpetrator.
Selective reading is rampant.
How convenient to have your own column to spin Galatolo's alleged corruption as only a friend could. You, along as you correctly point out, "a majority of the district's Board of Trustees, were devoted to him and believed in him and what he was accomplishing." While ignoring that he was lying and misusing bond money to build an extravagant country club campus instead of the necessary renovation improvements identified in the language on theballot.
While you admire Galatolo’s long and substantial record as a builder at the college district, I question why the campuses were expanded while enrollment was declining and why taxpayer funding was used by Galatolo and other administrators to travel abroad on recruiting junkets for international students. Trust in government is at an all time low and Galatolo's arrogance and narcissism, IMHO, is a prime example of why.
I don't believe I was spinning his alleged corruption. I was describing his point of view, which is not the same as saying I subscribe to it. Indeed, I don't believe there is anything in the column that could lead you to the conclusion I believe he is innocent. If there is, please cite it. I tried to describe the situation fairly -- giving him credit for his achievements, noting a personal style that could easily rub people the wrong way, describing his attitudes toward the rules and stating that it is plausible for him to offer a defense, acknowledging that there are two sides to the story. Perhaps you don't think there is, but up to now, we had heard only one side. None of this is same as saying he is innocent. As for lying and misusing bond money, none of that is alleged in the criminal complaint. The only certain assertion I made in this column is that this has gone on too long
Mark - you tend to be a contrarian but isn't it time to let the legal process work this out? Your defense of the indicted chancellor smacks of a friendship that is difficult to explain. We have all had to sever ties with individuals over our lifetime, not always easy, but sometimes morally required.
Dirk -- if you read the column closely, and as I noted in the above reply, I don't believe I defended him. As for letting the legal process work this out, the only definitive point I made in this column is that the process has gone on for four years and maybe it's time for the process to get moving.
The fact that he had a "close personal friendship" with a contractor should be a red flag, even if there was no fiscal impropriety (which will be determined in court). At the very least, the connection -- and the gifts receive, even if offset by gifts given -- should be revealed before the trustees vote. Because at the very least, even if this were a wild goose chase on the DA's part (I don't think it is), the even appearance of malfeasance is bad for what is a world-class community college system, as well as a distraction from the District's job of educating students.
I understand people build up relationships over time, but the former chancellor didn't consider appearances, which he should have. The local contracting world is small, but not that small.
A point I made in the column -- it is astounding that he was so unconcerned with how this might look to people.
As Mr. Simon says, "I admire Galatolo’s long and substantial record as a builder at the college district. All three district campuses have been modernized and beautified, and Galatolo gets a large share of the credit. He built new classrooms and student facilities, new campus housing for faculty and new community/student health and athletic centers. He has been innovative and visionary."
Mr. Simon and I have had a correspondence over the years about his view concerning "nice buildings and beautiful campuses." As a higher educator and former employee of SMCCCD, I told him that nice buildings doth not an education make. The graduation rate during Mr. Galatolo's reign was low - I reported to the Board in January 2020 (pre-pandemic) that the District's average 3-year graduation rate for a 2-year degree was only 18.1%, well below the national average 25% for public community colleges. Why?
I reported that the District Scorecard obfuscates the real tragedy inherent in these statistics. In an average year, the District had about 1,450 new first-time full-time students. Three years after beginning their education, only 265 (18%) graduated. That meant 1,175 students were left behind to drop out, stop out, or drag along. For an educational institution funded among the best in the state due to San Mateo property values, do citizens want "beautiful campuses" and lavish sports facilities or educated people who can join the workforce and contribute to their community?
My comments have no bearing on the criminal case. In America, a person is innocent until proven guilty. Mr. Simon has defended Mr. Galatolo before and has a right to do so. However, he has a personal relationship with Mr. Galatolo which makes me a little skeptical of his opinion.
Michael B. Reiner, PhD, is a higher education consultant and educational researcher. Previously, he was a professor of psychology and college administrator at City University of New York (CUNY), Miami Dade College, the Riverside Community College District, and the San Mateo County Community College District. mreiner32205@gmail.com LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/michael-b-reiner-phd-14057551/
We see the same behavior in all San Mateo School Districts now, too many superintendents managing too much real estate, swimming pools, athletic fields, while "Education" as outcome is falling behind. There is often no professional pride nor accountability at board or staff level. The teachers are left to their own devices with little backing by administrative staff.
Best Practise would advise to put 80% of budget to teaching and education; CA education code has has that number at 60%; all over the county we see education spending down to 29%-35% of the budget.
The game is played this way:
- superintendent or chancellor lies on ballot measures about asbestos, failing roofs, hot classrooms
- voters feel sorry and approve
- bond money however goes to anything but classrooms ( better offices, real estate, swimming pools, athletic fields, parking lots, etc.)
- the most corruption-prone sectors these days are construction and infrastructure projects - all kinds of malfeasance can happen between "friends".
- all these facilities need to be run by administrators earning the highest salaries and highest pensions
- all these facilities need to be maintained by people, whose salaries aren't covered by bond measures
- more administrators and maintenance people means more teachers get the boot
- budget for education keeps falling, budget for administrative salaries keeps rising
- education outcomes go way down, boards blame "lack of funding" and "underserving" for their own failures
- what is not improved are the classrooms, so a few years later the bond scam game can start again
Voters are easy pray around here - always distracted by 'culture wars'.
But even when a voter points out how the bond measures are unlawful, US courts always protect corruption:
[ https://www.rwcpulse.com/redwood-city-news/judge-sides-with-county-chief-elections-officer-in-case-alleging-deceptive-school-bond-ballot-labels-redwood-city-voter-files-appeal-7207826]
There is no accountability within school boards these days, everybody is following their own political agenda and private enrichment. In Redwood City for example all 5 "trustees" helped build and keep "golden schools" for friends and family - public funding gets funneled into private-type schools called "Magnet Schools".
Similar shenanigans are going on in San Mateo.
It's corruption in its purest form and Mark Simon and Sue Lempert know all about it.
A grand jury should look into this.
Thank you, Mark!
Mr. Bauer, why don’t you believe in full disclosure and state your relationship to Mr. Galatolo, someone who made your career at SMCCCD.
Geez -- all he said is thank you. Yes, he's a former top official under Galatolo and an enthusiastic supporter, but you need to temper your continuing outrage.
Mark, as an outsider to the educational process, with an overzealous love of "beautiful buildings" and pretty campuses, let alone limited knowledge of the data related to limited academic success at SMCCCD given all the money that pours into it, as well as the role that Mr. Bauer played at the district, you should give up your continued defensiveness and learn the truth.
Re: your subsequent response, from Florida, if I recall correctly: wow, are you grumpy.
Thanks, Mark, for yesterday's interview with Ron Galatolo and today's column.
In your interview with the former chancellor, he said that he was looking forward to his day in court. That being said... it appears the interview may have afforded him a day in the court of public opinion. Will his "testifying" through the interview influence his future days in court? IDK
Hi Ray. I suppose it will, but not more than the four or five press releases/conferences the district attorney has held on this issue. If you look at the coverage since 2019, it has all been pretty one-sided.
Hello, Mark
I agree. The DA's position has been one-sided, but why should that one-sided position surprise us? The DA's Office is confident there is reason to believe a crime has been committed and the person charged has committed that crime. In your interview, the former chancellor described why he should not be charged... why should his denials surprise us? Let's see what happens in court.
I don't know the former chancellor, but his "testimony" in the interview was an aggressive response to the charges. I'm just wondering if he will testify in court. It's one thing to answer a reporter's questions and quite another to answer questions under cross-examination in a court of law. Of course, there is no requirement for him to testify, and we should not make any assumptions about this case if he does not take the stand.
Again... I'm just wondering if he will testify in court. However, if he does, the former chancellor might be better served with less aggressive responses than we saw in the interview.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.