Evidence that AA overcharged, billed for work not done, did work that was not requested, or cheated BA schools, intentionally or unintentionally.  These claims in the wrongful
termination lawsuit were presumably made based on the results of Sisney's investigation, about which he said in January 2009, "
the information I’ve found, the documents I’ve
collected and the conversations I’ve had suggest issues that rise to the level of criminal behavior
".  The information and the documents should be helpful in proving these claims.
Depositions can be taken to confirm the conversations.  Expert witnesses can be called to provide information about normal and reasonable charges and whether work was

Evidence that AA did work and billed for it before anyone in the District contacted them to request the work.  This would include the 26 invoices that Dr. Sisney cited as proof of this in
the documentation provided with the police report, listed in the search affidavit under item 3e
.  It would also be helpful to include an explanation of how it would be impossible for BA
staff to call AA and request work without having entered the work order in the TMA system, and how, if they did somehow call AA for an urgent repair before entering the work order, it
proves that BA staff and AA were engaging in criminal schemes.

Evidence that AA engaged in a criminal scheme with BA Schools employees to avoid the Competitive Bidding Laws of Oklahoma (to support this claim in the federal lawsuit); list of
laws AA broke while scheming to avoid Competitive Bidding Laws; summary of AA's responsibilities regarding overseeing BA Schools' adherence to bidding laws and explanation of
how they failed in these responsibilities

Evidence that AA had been given unauthorized Master Keys and security codes, and explanation of why it's AA's responsibility to make sure BA Schools gets the appropriate internal
authorization before giving master keys and security codes to vendors

Explanation and supporting evidence that total payment to AA for FY 2007-20008 in the amount of 613,000 proves illegal activity; explanation and supporting evidence that total
payment to AA since July 2002 in the amount of 3,100,000 proves illegal activity

Invoices with dates changed, invoices without work orders attached, invoices with invoice dates before the work order was entered in the tracking system; list of what laws were
violated; explanation of what policies were violated; evidence that the board members and AA were involved in breaking these laws and policies.  
All of these illegally-paid invoices are
listed in the documentation provided with the police report and listed in the affidavit.

The policy or law that shows that blanket purchase orders were "wrongfully used" for HVAC work.  This would support the claim made in the wrongful termination lawsuit.  An
explanation of how the superintendent could be ignorant of the use of the blanket purchase orders he recommended to the board - wrongful or otherwise - would also be helpful.

The policy which states that, at the time, work orders were required to be entered before money could be encumbered and HVAC work requested, and that work orders were required
to be attached to invoices before they were paid.  This would support the claims in the police report that the existence of
invoices without work orders attached proves that AA did work
that was requested by BA schools, but was not entered into the TMA system first, as required by a policy that not in effect until months later.  Providing a copy of this policy would
support the claim in the wrongful termination lawsuit that the process was "backwards", and that the practice of entering some work orders after the work was done proves that 1)
money was
typically not encumbered before work was done, in violation of state law, and that 2) this "backwards" process was intentionally and knowingly done by school employees
and AA, proving that "AA has for several years engaged in a criminal scheme, associated with some employees of the Broken Arrow School District...".  It would show that the
invoice, which exceeded the blanket purchase order
, repeatedly pointed to by Sisney as the discrepancy that sparked his investigation, was not merely an isolated error, but was in
fact an example of business as usual in the criminal scheme.

Explanation of why 3 board members out of 5 are solely responsible for making sure bidding procedures are followed; explanation of why the other 2, the superintendent, and the
CFO do not share any responsibility for this

Evidence that the blanket purchase orders for HVAC work were negotiated with AA and approved by 3 board members without the knowledge or approval of the other 2, the
superintendent, and the CFO

Evidence that the 3 board members worked behind the scenes to shut out other HVAC vendors

Evidence that Sisney tried to resolve billing questions in a professional and collegial way, as opposed to accusing Rampey and BA staff of conspiring to cheat the District.  Evidence
that the discussion with Rampey - Sisney's first time to meet Rampey, according to the board members' counterclaim - was merely "looking into their business practices", as stated in
the federal lawsuit.

The evidence that Sisney was relying on when he removed or transferred employees who were "either knowing participants in the criminal enterprise with AA or consciously 'winking'
at the theft by deception".  The wrongful termination lawsuit states that Dr. Sisney was made aware of
information that led to the discovery of possible violations, and it was this
information that he was allowed him to determine that the employees were involved.  

Communication from Sisney to the board in April that bidding laws were being broken, and list of actions that Sisney requested the board to take.  This would support the statement in
Sisney's letter to Mann that he repeatedly informed the board in April about bidding violations and billing problems.  Evidence that this was communicated repeatedly, after the
meeting with Wilkins, Updike, and Rampey where the overcharging/illegal billing accusations against Rampey were first brought up.  Emails, letters, phone/conversation/meeting
logs that show were, when, and how Sisney 'repeatedly informed" the board, and what actions he suggested they take.

Emails, meeting notes, or conversation logs where Sisney tried to convince board members that he needed to investigate and they refused to allow him; any other emails, letters, or
meeting/conversation notes that show that they blocked him from investigating; evidence of his thwarted attempts to report violations and suspected corruption to authorities

Evidence that Sisney tried to get the agenda item added for the board to address the bidding/payment issues, and that someone prevented him from adding the agenda item.  Since
the board can't take the action he said they should have without addressing it in open meeting, and he controlled what they discussed in their meetings, it would have been up to him
to put the item on the agenda.  Alternately, evidence that Stover tried to add the agenda item but Sisney or the 3 blocked him.  Alternately, board meeting minutes where the board
voted to table the agenda item, or voted not to direct Sisney to investigate.

Notification in July from Sisney's attorney to the board that bidding laws were being broken.  List of laws that Sisney's attorney told the board were being violated.  List of actions
Sisney's attorney requested the board to take regarding the questions about bidding.

Confirmation that Shari Wilkins did benefits work for AA before becoming a board member.  This would support the conflict of interest implied in the wrongful termination lawsuit.

Evidence that shows that Sharon Whelpley took any action against Sisney for no legitimate reason, but only out of loyalty to AA because of the their contribution to her campaign.   This
would support the claim in the defamation lawsuit that Whelpley was influenced by her relationship with the Rampeys.

Confirmation that AA billed BAPS for work done at Hudkins' office; evidence that Sisney and his counsel did not know prior to filing the lawsuit alleging this that Rampey had already
provided them proof that the work was done at Sequoyah Middle School and the job location on the invoice was a typo.

Emails showing that Mann and the board members were breaking Open Meetings laws to sneak around behind Sisney's, Stover's, and Updike's backs to plot against Sisney.  This
supports the claim in Sisney's 10/01/2008 letter to Mann that he has
emails showing Mann's involvement, and the implication in the letter that Mann and the 3 have been violating
Open Meetings laws by meeting secretly.

Explanation of what the 3 board members did to "commandeer" the school board as stated in the federal lawsuit, and why rule by majority in this case constitutes "commandeering"
rather than simply "rule by majority".

Explanation for how Rampey's informing the District that AA would no longer be providing services is considered "absolutely, without warning" when in fact it was after several Rampey
had made several attempts to discuss the accusations Sisney had made against AA, and Sisney had refused to take his calls or set up a meeting.

Evidence that the board members incessantly pressured Sisney to apologize to Rampey, with "numerous telephone calls and messages"; that Shari Wilkins "continually insisted"
Sisney apologize; that the apology that the board members demanded was "for inquiring into their business practices" and not for spreading accusations against Rampey of illegal
practices with no evidence; evidence that the apology was their idea, not Sisney's as indicated by Shari Wilkins' email and corroborated by Stephanie Updike's reply

Evidence that the Rampeys pressured the board members not to extend Sisney's contract

The new evidence that came to Sisney's attention between August 2008 and September 2008, that shows that, contrary to his statements in August that there was "no malfeasance in
any shape, form, or fashion" but only internal "administrative procedures and practices that need attention", there was after all reason to believe AA and the board members had
engaged in criminal schemes.  This supports the claims made in the defamation lawsuit in September:  "serious errors, audit exceptions, and statutory violations had occurred in
regards to the Rampeys and Air Assurance".  Since these are the issues that Sisney said he brought up in the May meeting with Rampey, it would be good to explain how the "
inquiries and issues he had discovered
" before that May meeting caused him to believe in May that AA had committed crimes, then believe in August that they had not committed
crimes, then in September believe once again that they
had committed crimes.

Evidence that Mann, Hudkins, Rampey, or any of the 3 board members publicly accused Sisney of stealing from the district and blaming the Rampeys, or publicly communicated any
attacks on his character or professional conduct orally or in writing.  There must be at least one witness that can confirm this, because defamation isn't defamation if there is no
audience.  A deposition should confirm this.

Evidence that Rampey told Stover or anyone else that he wants Sisney gone.  Stover can confirm this in a deposition.

Evidence that Rampey said, "that lawyer [Mann] has been hired to help get rid of Dr. Sisney."  Sisney stated his intention to provide this evidence in his letter to Mann, "we will be taking
testimony to determine if that statement is true or not."

Evidence that the meetings held "in a surreptitious way" between Rampey and the board members 2 at a time were arranged by Rampey, as stated in the defamation and federal
lawsuits, and not by Stover as directed by Sisney, as alleged in the board members' Counterclaim.

The evidence that was so compelling that Gerber and Miller decided to "retire without incident" when they were confronted with it

Evidence that work was done by AA before the money to pay for it was encumbered ($77,000 invoice); explanation of why the 3 board members and not the other 2 or the
superintendent were responsible for making sure the money was encumbered before work was requested from AA; evidence that the 3 board members failed in this responsibility;
explanation of why AA was responsible for making sure the District encumbered funds before asking AA to do work; evidence that AA failed in this responsibility

Evidence that AA and/or someone in BA Schools was responsible for setting the fire at the storage facility; reasons for believing that there was evidence at the scene that showed
illegal business dealings between BA Schools and AA.  The police affidavit is wholly based on Sisney's claims of bypassing bidding procedures, illegal payments to AA, and a
conspiracy to destroy evidence.  The affidavit's purpose was purported to be seizing the evidence before Dr. Gerber or Mike Rampey could destroy it.  The evidence that substantiated
the fear that Gerber or Rampey was likely to do this should be included.

Invoices and other records, expected to show evidence of covering up illegal business practices between BA School and AA, that were seized from the storage unit and from BA
Schools in the police search authorized by the affidavit after the fire at the storage unit.  Since these documents were allegedly tampered with to prevent detection of the illegal
collusion between the District and AA, they should show strong evidence of the coverup.

Analysis of the original audit request, signed by Sisney, and the updated audit request, signed by Stover, showing that the items to be looked at were reduced, limited, or eliminated.  
Evidence that Gerber was behind the changes, and that his reasons were to prevent the auditors from discovering certain information about the District's dealings with AA.

The board policy at the time that set a deadline on when a board member could request an agenda item.  This will serve to show the outrageousness of  Maryanne Flippo's attempt to
add an agenda item, and eliminate any conjecture that the board itself should have some say in what they discuss at board meetings.

Evidence that all board members had access to legal counsel, or alternately, explanation of why 4 of 5 board members should not have any access to legal counsel

Evidence that board members were able to add agenda items to discuss any District business that they believed was important for the board to discuss, or alternately, explanation of
why board members should not be able to discuss at board meetings any District business two or more of them believe is important, unless the superintendent wants it discussed;
explanation for why a "great" superintendent would want to use this rule to eliminate certain discussions that board members feel are important

Evidence that Sisney attempted to communicate with the 3 board members and that they refused to communicate with him  

List of specific actions that the board members took that constitute "retaliation"; evidence that supports these specific claims; explanation of why each action can only be explained as
"retaliation", and not as any action taken in the course of their duties, or any action taken to protect themselves or the District from adversarial actions taken by someone else

Evidence that there was no legitimate reason for the board not to give Sisney a good review and contract extension.  Evidence that until he started investigating, there were no
significant issues relating to his job performance.   Evidence that the board had no reason to fire Dr. Sisney other than retaliation for his "threatening to investigate and expose the
scheme".  Personnel records would be good to show this.  Maybe interviewing selected people currently working at the ESC.  "Active Parent/Hey" can suggest who should be

Evidence that one of the board members had asked the Bixby superintendent about his interest in the BA superintendent job.  The defamation lawsuit mentions an email Sisney
received informing him of this
.  Also in his 10/01/2008 letter to Mann, Sisney says, "We have also confirmed that one of the three Board Members you have been advising contacted a
nearby Superintendent asking if he would be interested in the Broken Arrow Superintendent's position."  The email and the confirmation mentioned would be good to provide.
"The issues raised above will soon be explored in depth with the advantage of having witnesses under oath. At the very least-- you will be a witness. My experience is that Truth is a powerful force. The
truth has an interesting way of making itself known. We will do everything we can to make sure that happens and fully expect it will."

  Dr. Jim Sisney Superintendent of Schools
  Letter to Doug Mann, 10/01/2008
As of 01/07/2010, no depositions have been taken by Sisney in either case.  The deadline for Discovery has passed in the Federal case; at this point it appears that
Sisney has provided a total of 18 pages of documents as evidence in that case, none of which is any of the evidence he claimed to have in his press releases, lawsuits,
police report, or letters.  Sisney has asked for an extension of the Scheduling Order in the defamation case.
The following evidence would probably help Sisney support the claims he has made in his lawsuits.  At this point, it does not look like he has included any of it in either
of his lawsuits.  He has claimed to have in his possession some of the items in the list (in red); other evidence remains, after over a year, unidentified.  Did it ever exist,
or did he just make "unsubstantiated and conclusory statements of alleged wrongdoing", and file lawsuits which were "in bad faith, vexatious, and for the purpose of
oppressing the District"?
A Handy Checklist