UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Case 3:16-c1-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 17 IUOGE KATHLEEN CARDONE ILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS EL PASO DIVISION ‘SEALED INDICTMENT, a CRIMINAL NO. EP-16-CR Pint, CT 4: 18 USC §371-Conspiracy to Defiaud the United States: CT 2: 18 USC §§ 1349 & 1341-Conspeacy fo Commit Mail Froud; CT 3: 18 USC §§ 134) & 2-Mail Fraud, and Aiding and Abetting Mil Fraud; CT 4: 18USC. §§ 151346) £371 ~ Conspiracy to Retaliae against a witness; CT S: 18 USC. § 1623 -False Declaration Before a Grand Jury CT 6:18 USC. § 1001 ~False Stements FP16CRO693 COUNT ON (8US.C.§371) (Conspiracy to Det Te Dofendarts. AND JURY CHARGI ‘All mes relevant o this Inietment INTRODUCTION Defendar MIMI ws on employee-administrator of the El Paso Independent Sehoct District (EPISD). During most of the period, he served as an EPISD Associate Superintendent Defendant ATTAIN ys an cmployee-adesinistator of EPISD. During ‘most ofthe peti, he served as an EPISD Assistant Superintendent-Sevondary Sehools Division Defendant JOHN TANNER was an employee of the EPISD. During most of the period, he served asthe Principal of Austin High School EIR oso eno o te ESD, Ds iow ofthe penog Resend san Aslan rincpal of Abst igh SchoolCase 3:16-c1-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 17 5. ESEA, Title 1, NCLB: Title |, Part A of the federal Elementary and Secondary Eayeation Act of 1965 (ESEA), also known as the “No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),” was enacted in 2001 to help ensure that al children have en equal opportunity {o obiain a high-cualiy education and reach proficiency on academic achievement standards. 6, Title | Funds /AYF: Tule I, NCLB provides federal financial assistance to public schools ‘with disadvantaged children (children from low-income families) by measuring each school and school disrct's progress toward mesting mandated goals based on Adequate ‘Yearly Progress (AYP). [AYP goals include four indicstors: reading/language arts and math test performance, ‘attendance and graduation rates. When a school district misses AYP, the state is required to take at least one of several specified corrective actions against the district, including, but not limited to, requiring the institution of new curriculum, replacing the relevant personnel or removing speific eampus(es) from the district's jurisdiction 17. TAKS: From 2007 through 2011, every eligible tenth grade Texas public high school ‘student was required to be assessed, fr the purposes of evaluating Texas high schools for federal accountability, NCLB, using the Texas Assessment of Knowledge and Skills (TAKS) test, which included assessments for progress in reading; writing, social studies, mathematics, nd sience 8. “Subgroups” or “federally required student groups" are groups of children clasiied by special needs, including: Limited English Proficiency (LEP); Special Education (SPED);, Economically Disedvantaged; Hispanic and African-American, among others. NCLB. established the number of students that constitute a subgroup. The subgroups are st at fifty (50) students or more foreach school 9. Accountability for Subgroups: The data cllected and reported tothe U.S. Deparment Of Education (DOE) and the Texas Eduction Agency (TEA) for NCLB accountability purposes i required tobe accurate. Dala fora subgroup is required tobe repo if there are 50 or more students inthe subgroup, Ifa subgroup at campos falls below fity Students, the campus 1s no longer messured forthe performance of that subgroup for “accountability” purposes; those student are absorbed into the campus population as a ‘whole and ther isa greater chance thatthe campus wll meet AYP. 10. LEP- Limited English Proficiency (subgroup). EPISD received federal Tile I funds based upon the understanding that every student, including those clasifed as members of the LEP subgroip, would take the designated test for accountability, specifically, the tenth grade TAKS west Ia Spanish speaking student was new to EPISD, for up to three years, ifnecessary, they could take the TAKS test in Spanish, the Linguistially Accommodated Test (LAT). The scores of the LAT did not count to measure NCLB accountability, but the students status ‘8s LEP was included inthe numbers comprising the subgroup.Case 3:16-c1-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 3 of 17 11, SPED: NCLB devominates Special Education (SPED) as a disadvantaged subgroup. 12, Priority Schools Division (PSD) -The EPISD Superintendent created the PSD at thejend of the 2005-2006 school year to address academic needs at fifteen EPISD campuses ‘which were either academically unacceptable or did not meet AYP for two consecutive years, and at an additional seven campuses which were labeled borderline by NCLB. “accountability standards end needed serious intervention. Five of EPISD's high schools were designated as Priority Schools. 13, Campus Directors: In order to monitor the progress of the campuses in the PSD, the EPISD Superintendent created the position of Associate Superintendent to oversee the PSD. Additionally, he created six positions ented “Campus Director” and designated six individuals to work es Campus Directors with supervisory roles at Priority School campuses, 14, The United States Department of Education (DOE) is a federal regulatory agency of the Executive Branch of the federal government whose mission is 10 promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering. educational ‘excellence and ensuring equal acess. Among other activities, the DOE enforces federal, laws prohibiting discrimination in programs thet receive federal funding, including NCLB. 15, PEIMS: the Public Education Information and Management System (PEIMS) is a State ‘of Texas computer tracking system which contains all the student demographic data for cach district in the State, including data indicating whether a student is coded as being part ofa subgroup, such as LEP or SPED. 16. PEIMS Snapshot. TEA mandates that a “snapshot” ofthe district's PEIMS data be taken ‘the last Friday in October of each year and sent to TEA. The purpose of the snapshot submission is so the State of Texas ean identify which students wll be taking the TAKS, inthe Spring; which students taking the TAKS for accountability tet in the tenth grade are members of subgroups; and other relevant data whieh i later passed on to national company located outside of th state of Texas which prepares the tests foreach student ‘based on the studext's demographic description. 17. TEKS: TEA mandates Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) which are basic academic requirements for student mastery of each course taken (0 obtain a credit necessary for graduation. 18,Graduation Cohort: One Element of NCLB AYP is a campus’ graduation rate, Graduation rate is based on the percentage of freshmen who graduate in four years. A ‘r0up of students ho enter a high school as freshmen and gradual ae seniors after four yearsis also know as the “cohort.” 19, Credit for Attendance: Section 25.092 of the Texas Education Code requires, in part, that a student not be given eredit fora course unless he of she was in atendance atleast 90% of the days the course was offered. To award a student eredit for a course attended for less than 90% of the time 2 petition from the student must be heard and granted by a 2(Case %:16-c1-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 4 of 17 formal Auendance Committee who may give credit to the student based on guidelines defining “extenuating citcumstances” established by the district's Board of Trustees. A student who is attendance for atleast 75 percent but less than 90 percent of the days a class is offered may be given credit or a final grade forthe clas if the student completes. 2 plan approved ty the schoo!’s principal that provides for the student to meet the instructional requirements ofthe class. 20. Credit for Foreign Transfer Students: Texas Administrative Code, Section 7426(a)(2) requires that a schcol district must ensure that records of out-of-country transfer students are evaluated and tht the student is placed in appropriate classes “promplly.”| 21. Credit for Graduation: Texas Administrative Code, Section 74.26(c) mandates that @ sudent may only 2am a credit for a course for high school graduation if the student, receives a grade which isthe equivalent of 70 on a seal of 100, based upon the “essential, ‘knowledge and skis foreach course.” 22, Removal from the LEP subgroup: Texas Administrative Code (TAC) mandated specific criteria tha must be met in order to remove & student from the LEP classification subgroup: {89 TAC, Section 1225 (b): For exit from a bilingual education or English asa second language program, a student may be classified as English proficient at the end of the school year in which a student would be able to participate equally ina general education, allEnglish, insirucional program. 89 TAC, Section 1240: The district shall notify the studen’s parent of the reclassification as Znglish proficient and his or her exit from the bilingual education or English as a second language program as required under Texas Education Code , Section 20.056(a) The parent of a student enrolled in a district which is required 10 offer bilingual education or English as second language programs may sppeal to the ‘commissioner of education ifthe dstict fils to comply with the law othe rules. 23. EPISD Official Bilingual Education Polley, Adopted February 8, 2000 and in place through June 6, 2913, regarding Bilinguel Education, PROGRAM EXIT, tracked the Janguage of Sectloas 1225 (hand 1240 of the TAC. 24, Rewards for Mecting AYP: ESEA Section 1116(6)(2) provides that, should a local ‘education agency mect ot exceed the Site's definition of adequate yearly progress as defined in 1111(6(2\(A)Gi), the State may make institutional and individual rewards, Including bonuses and recognition as described elsewhere in 1117(0). ‘The Grand Jury alleges and incorporates the Scheme and Artifice to Defravd alleged in Count Two as if fully set cut herein. Beginning on or shout February 1, 2006 and continuing to and including on oF about September 30, 2013, in the Western Distict of Texas, the District of Columbia and elsewhere,‘Case 3:16-c1-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 5 of 17 the defendants, conspired and agreed togetier, wit other employees ofthe El Paso Independent School District (EPISD) known, but not charged herein, and with others unknown to defiaud the United States and an agency of the United States, that is, the defendants, by deception, conspired to impsi obstruct and defeat the legit fanction of the United States Department of Education, and Overt Acts in furtherance of the conspracy, and to effect the objects thereof, at least one ofthe conspirators herein committed one or more of the following overt acts, among others, in the Wester District, of Texas, and elsewhere: 1. Onor at at s Campus Improvement Leadership ‘Team meeting, defendant igeussed the LEP rosters of students atthe PSD high schools and gave a directive 0 adjust the rosters by reclssifying LEP students out of the tenth grade. 2 On of about 2008 through and including on or about 2010, at meetings of EPISD Principals, defendan, and others repeatedly gave high school Principals “marching orders” to ‘put up bariers” to prevent students in the LEP subgroup rom going ont the tenth grade. 3. In. about July 2008, defendon EM implemented an EPISD strategy cof withholding cress obuained by studems who had transferred (o EPISD from Mexico ‘ntl the students hed completed the 9” grade t EPISD, at which ime the students would be placed inthe 11" grade. 4. On or about Decenter 12, 2007, denon EI issu « memo to EPISD High School Principals and Leaders reparding Reciassfeation of Sophomores in ‘which be wrote anong other thing, "Pease note he allached regulation reguding mid. ‘year reclassification of 10” graders.” “Please note this reclassification process aids us in Honoring student regarding thr recent academic efforts. Furthermore rings them cone se closer o graduating ina timely fashion with their pees.” 5. Onor abo an IT sen an email message to defendant, and others stating, among other things, “When speaking wih parents, please do not tll them that if their students pass fall semester 514 Case 3:16-c'-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 6 of 17 classes, they can petition to move to 10* grade at Christmas. ‘That is against policy ~ ‘hey will remain © graders through May, 2009 regardless of eredit performance during this school year. On or about August 12, 2008, che defender, AA soy an esi message directing Campus Directors and others to el the ninth grade for their entre first year at EPISD, irespective of the foreign credits 10 ‘hich they were ented. In oF about March 2009, defender’ IM ssued a directive that students identified as having poor math skills would be pulled out of their enrolled classes 10 attend TAKS math tutoring, On or shou Spent 2,208, en «hi priority" memorandum to High School Direstors Nest Coorators and ELL Leaders concerning an opportunity to exit student from LEP satus toa stats that didnot cout against you,” which also read, in par “if you in any way are predicting a remote ing under the 50 10%, geting as many students ASAP o 11 F I sais pesto Spe 23 209 I oc EPISD Campus Diet listing the mer oem pede steal Were tha dt cssifed EP incach ESISD highschon During a 2009-2010, school year Principal's meeting held at Butterfield Teil, the ‘defendant emphasized that October 29, was the “snapshot” date for subgroups and provided instruction conceming the use of “leaver codes" that would not affect AYP accountability. In or about the Spring of 2011, defendant, instructed an ‘administrator at Ei Paso High Sehcol not to reflect in the school's records the fact that ‘reds that were avarded to students who had not been enrolled inthe clas fr which the credit was awarded, had been eamed through the “credit recovery” methods. no swt Sai, Ober 24, 2005s dys ir tthe PEIN sapsot dt, 3 ‘Campus Director, x the direction of deference te Bois Figh Schoo! LEP subgroup siz by causng eof sehen. anerps. of approximately 77 students to reflect they didnot have the appropriate number of eres to be classified as sophomores. ‘Throughout the 2009-2010 school year defendant, JOHN TANNER, directed an Austin igh School administrator to change previously properly marked absences of students {2 make it appear as ithe student were present on days designated by the State to meesure the atendance rate On or about a dete unknown, inthe 2009-2010 schoo! year, defendant, JOHN TANNER, told an Austin High School administrator to “make the attendance happen, no mater hati takes,” and to “target the second and sixth period." 6Case 3:16-c1-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 7 of 17 15.01 or about 2 dues unknown, in the 2009-2010 school year, defendant RRR asistca defendant, JOHN TANNER, in his efforts to change ‘student alendance records by interviewing students who hed been marked absent by thelr teacher. 16.0n oF boyy Seplembes 20,2009, defends EAI cent an email to defendant caliled, "EPISD High School Credit Recovery ‘Opions,"o which was atached a "Credit Recovery Matix” which, among other things, permined a student who vas denied ered fora course based on the fic that he of she had not met the 90 percent State atendance requirement could "be handed solely bythe pinepa” ifthe stulent had attended the clase atleast 75 percent ofthe ime, regardless Df the fact that no “extenuating ereumstances” were present that eaused the sudens sheenes. 17.00 oF about January 4, 201), defends seo1 an exalt entled “Reminder of Minimester Plans,” to a Campus Director, reminding the Director tha the Credit Recovery Matrix, s copy of which was attached to the email, was “approved for the district.” 18.On or about Febroary 23, 2011, TAKS tests, prepared using high schoo! student demographic information provided by EPISD to a test publishing company, were sent, via Federal Express, from lows City, Iowa to EPISD in El Paso, Texas. 19, On or about April 25, 2011, TAKS tests, prepared using high school student demographic information provided by EPISD (o a test publishing company, were sent, via Federal Express, fom lowa City, Iowa to EPISD in El Paso, Texas. 20.0n or about July 25, 2011, defendant, JOHN TANNER, approved 182 credit recovery ‘orm, restoring credit which had been denied Austin High School students based on the State mandated rules governing excessive absences, which forms provided no basis for the removal ofthe “no credit ("NC") code. 21. On or about July 23, 2011, defendant, JOHN TANNER, approved 454 credit recovery urn, eatoring erat which had been Jenied Austin High School students tweed ou the State mandated rules goveming excessive absences, which forms provided no basis for the removal ofthe “no credit ("NC") cade. 22. On or about June of 2012, defendant, JOHN TANNER, caused the removal of 418 “no credit" ("NC") codes from the records of students at Austin High School to restore credits that counted for graduation of thse studens. 23.1n or about the 2009-2010 school year, the defendant, JOHN TANNER, caused spprosimately 11,(00 fraudulent entries tegarding absences of Austin High’ School, including 2756 changes tothe records of 247 stents in the 2009-2010 graduating cohort of 289 students.Case 3:16-c1-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 8 of 17 fal of 2010 wd de Spine of 20, er maior ee ee ‘ican iil sso tp te all in violation of Title 18, United States Code, Sections 371 counrTwo (18 US.C. §§ 1349 & 1341) (Conspiracy to Commit Mail Fraud) ‘The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates the Introduction and Over Acts alleged in Count One ofthis Indictment as if fly set out herein, Beginning on or about February 1, 2006 and continuing to and including on or about September 30, 2013, in the Wester District of Tesas, the Distict of Columbia and elsewhere, ‘conspired and agreed together with other employees of the El Paso Independent School District the defendants, (EPISD) known, but not charged herein, and with others unknown 1.) to knowingly attempt to devise and devise scheme and arfice to defraud the United Stats Deparment of Eduction, the TEA end the EPISD and 2) o knowingly attempt wo devise and devise a scheme and artifice to knowingly obtin money and property by means of material fuse and faudulnt pretenses, representations and promises both by afimative acs and by deceitful concealment of material facts, both in violation of Tile 18, United States Code, Setion 1341; tht is the defendants conspired with each other and with oes to volte the No Child LeR Behind Act (NCLB) potion ofthe federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in order to make the EPISD campuses in the Priority Schoo! Division (PSD) appear to meet NCLB accountability .case 216-014 1K Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 9 of 17 status by artificially inflaing the EPISD state and federal accountability scores by providing rmaterally false, fictitious and fraudulent information to the TEA and the DOE regarding the grade classification, academic performance, and demographic make-up of students in onder to rnislead the Ui td Sats goverment and te TEA comeing he mame in whch he chan nsf te sents ering mt by EPISD: and in dro sued in te ——— (GRIND ers encouraged EPISD employees to lie about such idoed and threstened EPISD employees who did not follow the defendants’ conduet and in recon regarding the improper adminisvation of education and NCLB cir; ‘SCHEME AND ARTIFICE TO DEFRAUD For the purpose of fathering the objects of he conspiracy, it was pa of the scheme and erie to defaud that the defendants used the following means forthe purpose of executing the scheme and artic to def 1. Beginning in about July 2006 and continuing through June 2013, the defendants, as ‘administrators and employees forthe EPISD, created and implemented a strategy to mest NCLB accountability 10 reduce at-isk student population subgroups in the EPISD to below fifty students each so that the performance of the subgroups" students would not be measured for ‘Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) as part ofthe NCLB accounlabilty standards, 2. Between July 2006 continuing through June 2013, the defendants, as administrators and ‘employees for the EPISD put policies and practices in place tha pplicable and eligible students from taking the tenth grade TAKS tes, and practices which etficially inflated the graduation rates of campuses through the improper awarding or restoration of subject credits ‘These variables to AYP were intentionally manipulated for the purpose of evading, federal accountability and misrepresenting the tue level of academic performance of EPISD campuses 3. An EPISD administrator eteated the Priority School Division (PSD), t identify, scrutinize, ‘and control EPISD school campuses of all grade classifications which had failed to make ‘Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) by NCLB and TEA standards, and which were in the process of falling AYP or would likly fail AYP. 4. An EPISD administrator crested the position of Associate Superintendent of PSD, and Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education, which oversaw PSD and who would insure every measure was taken 19 “make sure the eampus would get out of AYP jail.” 5, Deteno ppinted wo supevise he PSD. °Case 3:16-c'-00699-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 10 of 17 6. When defender IE cr ie EPISD, fends AT os appointed to supervise the PSD. 17. An EPISD administrator created the positions of “Campus Director” which were supervised by the Assoeite or Assistant Superintendent ofthe PSD. Each Campus Director was assigned to several PSD campuses, Although the EPISD administration stated thet a Campus Director ‘vas to facilitate and assia the campus administration, in truth, regardless of the education, certification, or experience of the Campus Director, the Campus Director had more authority than the school Principal ard had the power to set individual campus policy and to discipline and fire faculty ifthey did not comply withthe conspirators’ methods of securing AYP. 8. The defendants and others engaged ina systemic scheme to artificially inflate performance in EPISD secondary schools, articular in Priority Schools, and thereby provided federal and sate ‘education agencies with fase information that aected federal and state accountability measures. 8, The defendants devised methods to reduce the toll tenth grade LEP student demographic by changing the numberof eredts required for LEP students tobe classified as tenth graders; 9, The defendants devised « method 10 reduce the number of students taking the tenth grade ‘TAKS test by creating a policy 10 withhold legitimately eared foreign credits from students \ransferring to EPISD from Mexico fora period of time that ensured the students did not enter the tenth grade in timely ‘manner, in contravention to State law. 10, The defendants devised a method to reduce the number of students taking the tenth grade ‘TAKS test by improperly eeclessifying students from the tenth grade tothe ninth or eleventh arade, by changing passing grades to failing and failing grades to passing and by deleting students’ eedis from their ranscripts. 1, ‘The defendants devised a method whereby students who were removed from classes for ‘TAKS tuloring were awarded false passing grades forthe class from which they were pulled, thus the students received credits for the classes they rarely altended assuring they would graduate with thei cohort. 12. The defendants devised and caused to be administered sham credit recovery methods thus giving students credit for courses required for graduation which the students did not earn, in contravention of TEA TEKS and valhout ensuring mastery of the subject or demonswrating mastery ofthe subject. 13, In order to disguise the fact that certain schools were filing aspects of AYP, including traduation rate the defendants encoureged and permitted the administration of credit recovery methods, such as “mini-resters" 10 provide students with original credit for courses they had hot taken, instead of limiting eredit recovery methods to students who had taken, but failed the course, in contravention of State policy and the spirit of “recovery.” 14, The defendants devised methods, including forgery of documents, to forgive excessive student absences in conavention of State standards, resulting in students achieving passing ‘grades and course credit for participating in class less than the TEA mandated 90% attendance vate 15, AL esch EPISD Campus Directors’ Meeting, conspirators required each Campus Director toCase 3:16-c1-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 11 of 17 identify students at their respective campuses who could be removed from the LEP subgroup by reclassification out of the tenth grade; those who could be placed in bogus ered recovery programs and/or TAKS twloring pull out initiatives to regain or stay in their cohort for traduation; or other mears to maintain 2 LEP demographic of fewer than SO students at the ‘eampus to avoid AYP accountability oto atfcially promote students to graduate. 16. Bich Campus Diector was corse foe crying cute diccives of EDISD Aniston of ee TE 5:55, ts'he Ancine Supenandent sf Ge FSD ane Assan supemrenen of Sona) _Edution, to reduce tent grade LEP numbers to 49 students or less end to meet AYP by using and abusing any and all methods available to rse graduation rates; 117, To reduce the tenth grade LEP population to 49 or less students in the PSD high schools, defendants, unnamed coconspirstors and others devised methods to artificially eliminate students ftom appearing in the annual PEIMS snapshot as a tenth grade member of the LEP subgroup; which efforts would make it appear to the DOE and the TEA that the tenth grade did ‘ot have a LEP subgroup for the purposes of AYP and NCLB accountability; 18, To reduce the tenth grade LEP population o 49 or less students in the PSD high schools, defendants and unnamed co-conspirators, though intimidation and discouragement, caused ‘students to withdraw from school oF fil. enroll in schoo! by conducting unwerranted residency ‘checks and through threats and coercion. 19, Defendants and other co-conspirators, including defendant MM created ‘alan to reduce or eliminse the African-American subgroup at certain schools 1 make it appear \o the DOE that no African-American subgroup existed on any EPISD PSD campus. 20. In order to assure meeting accountability standards, defendant, instructed a Campus Diresior to administer the TAKS M (Modified) tet to stadenis who were ‘not designated as Special Education students to assure passing scores. In furtherance of the scheme to defraud the United States and to obiain money and property by ‘material false and fraudulent pretenses, epresenations and promises both by afiemative acts ad by deccifil coneanent of materiel het, dts oo: 10, TIT os oct 2 defendants, on February 23, 2011, April 26, 2011, and on other dates within five years of the date ofthis indictment, sent and caused 10 be sent and delivered by commercial interstate carrier, Federal Express, testing materials from Iowa City, Iowa to El Paso, Texas, which testing ‘materials contained false and fraudulent information regarding the true grade level of LEP students enrolled a the EPISD, and transmitted and caused the transmission by wire, in intestateCase 4:16-cr-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 12 of 17 and foreign commerce, of writings, signs, signals, pictues and sounds, including EPISD campus ratings from the TEA in Austin, Texas to the DOE in Washington, D.C., all in violation of Tile 18, United States Code, Sections 1349 and 1341 COUNT THREE (18 USC. §§ 1341 & 2) (Mail Fraud and Aiding and Abetting Mail Fraud) ‘The Grand Jury r-alleges and incorporates the Intvoduction and Overt Acts alleged in Count One, and the Scheme and Artifice to Defra alleged in Count Two of this Indictment as if flly set out herein, Beginning on or about February 1, 2006 and continuing 19 and including September 30, 2013,_ in the Western District of Texas, the ct of Columbia and elsewhere, the defendants, 5 principals and aiding end abetting each other, did knowingly attempt to devise and devise a scheme and artifice o defraud the United States Department of Educa 1, the TEA and the EPISD and did knowingy attempt to devise and devise a scheme and artifice to knowingly obtain money and property by means of material false and fraudulent pretenses, represeniations ‘and promises both by affimative sets anc by deceitful concealment cf material Fact; th isthe defendants provided and caused 10 be provided materially false, fctious and frenulent information tothe TEA sad the DOE regarding the grade clasiication, academic performance, td demographic make-ap of EPISD students in order to misled the DOE and the TEA concerning the manner in which the educational need of the students were being met at EPISD in order to make the EPISD campuses in the Priority Schoo! Division (PSD) appear to meet NCLB accountability staus by anificilly inflating the EPISD state and federal accountability 2Case 3:16-c1-00893-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/18 Page 13 of 17 — [ERR 2s eocounged £P180 employs oi tot sch concuct and intimidnted ard threatened EPISD employees who did not follow the defenders! diteton regarding the improper administration of edvetion and NCLB crits, and forthe urpose of executing and atempting to execute the scheme and artifice to defaud and the scheme and arifce lo obwin money and property by means of material fae and fraudulent relenses representations and promises, both by affinatve ces and by deceisflul concealment of teil facts, on February 23,2011, Api 26,2011 and on other does within five yer of the date of his indictment, sat and caused o be sen and delivered by commercial interstate cris, Fedor] Express, testing materials from lowa City, lowa to El Paso, Texas, which testing malcils contained false and fraudulent information regarding the ive grade level of LEP students enrolled a the EISD, all in violation of Tile 18, United States Code, Seations 134Tand 2 ‘COUNT FOUR (18 USC §§ 1513(@ & 371) (Conspiracy to Retaliate Against a Witness) ‘The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates the Introduction and Overt Acts alleged in ‘Count One, and the Scheme and Artifice to Defraud alleged in Count Two ofthis tne sefuly set ou hein Beginning on or sbout the Spring semester ofthe 2010-2011 EPISD school year and continuing (© and including Septernber of 2013, inthe Wester District of Texas and elsewhere, the defendants, JOHN TANNEICase 3:1R-e1-00899-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 14 of 17 conspire with each othe and wih others known and unkown tothe ead jury to rete end (0 lake harm setion aginst a person for providing truthful information to law enforcement olicercelating to the commission of Federal offense in violation of Title 18, United Sites Code, Section 1513(¢); tat is, the defendants, in retaliation for the fact that ceriain employees ofthe EPISD, Teacher Aand Teacher B, had provided and were proving uf infomation to agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, federal lw enforcement offices, concerning the commission of ceria federal crimes, the defendants conspired to terminate and prevent the employment of Teacher and Teacher Bat Austin High School and to harm ther personal and professional reputations, Ly trickery, deceit nd ies, nd vert Act in fuberance ofthe consiraey, and to effect the objects thereof, at lest one ofthe conspirators herein committed one or more ofthe fllowing over cts, among others, in the Westem Distt of Texas and elsewhere: 1. fn ot about the Spring semester of 2012, Austin High School Counselors collected approximately 156 pre-registration forms fom f grade, middle school students forthe 2012-2013 “AS” Cass. 2 Onor about August 28, 2012, Teacher A and Teacher B provided information othe FBL ssneciiny como occuring at Austin High Sehool rested 10 & FBI federal imi investigation. 3, On or sbout January 2013, the defenéan dM insiucted employees of Austin High Sehool to “fudge” student atendance numbers in ceriin Austin High School courses to make i appear tothe EPISD Needs Assessment Committee that Austin had 2210 projected student enrollment in the clases to be taught by Teacher A end Teacher B, 4. On or about January 2013, the defendant, told two counselors at ‘Austin High Schoo! to curtail enrollment in Teaeher Avs Classes because Teacher A was “he star witness forthe FBI against Dr. Tanne.” 5. On or about Febriary 25, 2013, the defendant, JOHN TANNER, told EPISD Human Resources investigators that he hed given Austin High School Counselors a directive to “Case 3:16-cr-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 15 of 17 remove students from the list or Teacher As classes pursuant to a directive from Needs ‘Assessment that postions at Austin High Schoo! had to be cut 6. On or about March 13, 2013, the defendant, TTI cmsited the Austin High School Comparative Report for inclusion in the Austin High School Needs ‘Assessment package, which indicated that there was no student interest ina course taught by Teacher A. 7. On or about August 16, 2013, defendant falsely reported to EPISD police that a recent Austin High School graduate wanted 1o speak with the police to Giseuss pressing criminal charges against Teacher B. 8. Onorabout Augus 19, 2013, defendan ii ic bis office at Austin High School, instructed a recent Austin High School graduste that be had researched the criminal statutes of limitations on a 2011 incident concerning Tescher B and tha since the statute was (0 year, it had not run yet 9. On or about August 19, 2013, den EE ce recent Austin High School grate tha "Dr. Tannen” had been removed because ‘Teachers A and Bere taming up with counselor to make fale accstion aginst Dr. Tanner. 10, On or about Augus!23, 2013, deferdan {iii ct with the recent Austin High Seo! graduate and ld in lie officer that hie had been “coached” or encouraged by defer or by defendant, RUAN pss criminal charges ages Pech 11,0n66 2 : in E1 Paso, Texas, the defendants, coached the recent Austin High ‘School graduate to lie to EPISD police regarding his previous declination of charges against Teacher B. Allin violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 371 and 1513(¢). COUNT FIVE (18 USC § 1623) (False Destaration Before a Grand Jury) ‘The Grand Jury realleges and incorporates the Introduction and Overt Acts alleged in Count One, the Scheme and Artifice to Deftaud alleged in Count Two, and the Overt Acts alleged in Count Four ofthis Indictment asf fully set out herein. (On or about September 26, 2013, in the Westem District of Texas and elsewhere, 1sCase 3:16-cr-00693-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 16 of 17 cefenan, , ee ho was lth ine, unde an oth tlhe th in eer jury posting in Paso, Texas, knowingly made fale mates destaration to sid grand jury hati, the defendant PERRIER ict ose the gran jury in regard oa Feder investigation of cond oscuring at EPID, fcuding fad egtnst the government, wir fraud, mail fn and sialon sgsost wines sified fae regarding an incident involving a resent Anstin High Scoot reds, n at he defendant ested tht he resent Aun High School grate cae he defendant and visited he at Astin High School on Ags 16,2012 t sek er help to “ook in presig chugs” against Teacher B, and ie defendant fre ese thatthe recent Austin High Schocl graduate asked her o ge information regarting pressing criminal charges agin Teacher B, when the defend, Mer estoy vas ase nd misleading in tha thereent Austin High Sehoo gradu had ot ni snd had pot called or ise er, ahr, he deter I a ease atv of bers to contact the recent Austin ted contact with her igh School greduate and convince him to press criminal charges against Teacher Bin order to prevent Teacher B from future employment at Austin High ‘School, to injure the reputation ofthe Teacher B, and to disredit Teacher B asa cooperstor snd ‘viness in a pending federal investigation involving defendant, JOHN TANNER, jolation of Title 18, United States Cole, Section 1623. COUNT SIX [18 US.C. § 1001(2)@)1 (Material False Statements to 2 US. Government Agency) ‘The Grane Jury re-lleges and incorporates the Introduction and Overt Acts alleged in Count One, the Schemne and Artifice to Defraud alleged in Count Two, and the Overt, 6Case 316-cr-00892-KC Document 16 Filed 04/20/16 Page 17 of 17 ‘Acts alleged in Count Four of this Inditment as if fll set out herein On or about August 20, 2012, in the Western Diseet of Texas and elsewhere, defend {in a matter within the jurisdiction ofthe Federal Burcau of Investigation (FBI), an agency of the of Executive branch of the United States government, is, daring an interview with agents of the FBI, who were engaged in their official capacity investigating a possible federal criminal ates, he dof II ogy aod ly made mately fae, fctitious and fraudulent satements and represenations in his answers tothe agen questions, 0 wie edn: III est ae al en egal ye ations of a former EPIS administrator, which caused him to make a complaint to the PISD Police against a high school administrator for engaging in eximinal misconduct and Sarthe tld the agents that the EPISD Police officer refused to accept the complaint, when the defendant WER 2 cay stones were meat neal ivesigaos ino being he dna id aed 6 bing te existence of ui lvig he nd tee ng il conn von of Tie 18, Unie Stes Code, Section 1001(a}2. RICHARD L. DURBIN, JR. (WED STATES ATTORNEY By: ‘esistant United Stats Aiaey ORIGINAL SIGNATURE, Sep pURSUANT TO SOVERNMENT ACT OF 2002 ‘GRAND TURY FOREPERSON