Woodland Sports Park project pitched as 'patent-pending' SportaFence by former employees
Does the location shown in this video look familiar? It should. The video was shot at the City of Woodland Community and Senior Center Sports Park. And those people in the video are City of Woodland employees. The "SportaFence" was actually produced in a collaboration between the City of Woodland – whose employee(s) planned the fencing system while on the City of Woodland payroll – and its vendor/fabricator, the S&S Fence Company of Sacramento.
Dan Gentry was the Parks and Recreation Director at the time. Gentry was one of several managers who accepted a "golden handshake" as a result of city budget cuts.
The SportaFence design – touted as "patent-pending" by the company made up of former city employee's Gentry, Richard Kirkwood (former city manager) and Joan Drayton (former financial director) – could legally be the intellectual property of the employer, the City of Woodland. A response to the RFP for the Sports Park fencing was received by the city on January 28, 2009. The SportaFence Web site domain registration occurred on May 11, 2009. According to Parks and Recreation Commission minutes, Gentry's retirement was effective July 31, 2009.
Click here to read about the SportaFence team.
Note: This article has changed as information became available.
Posts
28 comments:
I found the below at Lawfirms.com
If an individual invents something while they are working for someone else (i.e. their employer), the ownership of the product or intellectual property will depend on the capacity in which the individual was employed. If an individual created the work on their own, in a way completely unrelated and unconnected to their job function, the individual owns the intellectual property. On the other hand, if the individual created the intellectual property while functioning within the scope of their employment, the law determines that the employer is the owner of the intellectual property and has all legal rights and claims that any owner would have. Essentially, if a company hires an engineer to invent and create for the company, the company owns all of the things the employee engineers and creates.
To 5:20 PM - good research. Let's consider that Gentry (while supposedly accepting the golden handshake) was actually on the City payroll until January 31, 2010 because of a management "severance" package. IF he and his cohorts came up with this idea between August and January - wouldn't that still make him "functioning within the scope of employment"? One has only to look at the video showing trees in full leaf-out to think that the video was shot in summer or autumn - not winter.
Also - and about the Parks guys moving the pieces about. Were they paid for this video functioning withing the scope of their employment? Or - were their parts just a days work in the City?
Can a public entity "own" an invention? I'd certainly like to think so - it might repay the City in a small way for the hundreds of thousands of dollars spent on the Taj Mahal.
Lucy you have some explaining to do. If I were Mark Deven I would start asking for all records and not have Carey Sullivan get them since he was hired by the Kirkwood and part of the loser team. So I would be suspicious if any records were missing under Sullivans watch.
Someone needs to investigate this.
From the AG office
The starting point for any analysis concerning the misuse of public funds begins with the principle that public funds must be expended for an authorized public purpose. An expenditure is made for a public purpose when its purpose is to benefit the public interest rather than private individuals or private purposes.
Once a public purpose is established, the expenditure must still be authorized. A public official possesses only those powers that are conferred by law, either expressly or impliedly.
The California Constitution and a variety of state statutes make it clear that public funds may not be expended for purposes that are primarily personal. Such expenditures are neither for a public purpose nor are they authorized.
The prohibition against using public funds for personal purposes does not mean that no personal benefit may result from an expenditure of public funds.
For example, the payment of a public employee’s salary confers a personal benefit on the employee, but it is an appropriate expenditure of public funds because it is procuring the services of the employee for public purposes.
The misuse of public funds occurs when the personal benefit conferred by a public expenditure is not merely incidental. The term “public funds” is not limited to money, but includes anything of value belonging to a public agency such as equipment, supplies, compensated staff time, and use of telephones, computers, and fax machines and other equipment and resources.
http://ag.ca.gov/ethics/accessible/misuse.php
5:29
You make a great point. The invention might actually belong to the company that created the fences... in other words the fabricator the city used to make them. It all depends on who came up with the plans, and in this case I believe the City of Woodland did. The employee in charge was Dan Gentry.
9:37
Yes, a public agency can own patents and copyrights. As an example, I think you would be surprised at the intellectual properties the University of California owns.
There was a different version of this fence in use for years at Klenhard field. After enough kids got cut and injured making plays on those fences, they were removed and a permanent fence put in. They were unsafe. Just look at the gap between sections.. Someone trying to catch a fly ball could get their arm wedged and broken in the gap.
These guys can't avoid a lawsuit if it came at them with big flashing lights.
I guess my initial concerns reading this artical are different than most. I was thinking about a possible conflict of interest of a city employee (assuming Gentry was still employed at the time of the purchase)putting out an RFB (request for bid) on equipment that they themselvs sell. All city employees are required to "request" permission to seek employment outside of the city just for this purpose. If Gentry was employeed at the time of the bid, did the city know he was walking both sides of the fence? We the bid process considered competative? Or was a bid process even completed?
Just FYI
COMMUNITY SPORTS PARK- PHASE I
• Portable fence
• Close-out project with Council
Activities Since January 20, 2008 Report
• Portable fencing RFP received Wednesday, January 28, 2009 Curious on who might have submitted that.
SportaFence.Com
Regstered to
Faulkner, Thomas
549 Olmsted Dr.
Glendale, CA 91202
Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record created on 11-May-2009.
http://videos.apnicommunity.com/Video,Item,42578902.html
Thomas Faulkner, Tucows, Lunar Breeze and LunarPages all seem to be connected domain and Web hosting individuals or companies based in southern California (Glendale and Anaheim).
The date of the domain registration (May 11, 2009) is interesting, which comes after the RFP (January 28, 2009).
Problem - Mark Deven allows city employees to do personal business on company time. Chief Sullivan is a prime example. Sullivan partiicpates in Rotary, the Chamber of Commerce and SADVC on duty using his city cell phone and his city computer. Sullivan even lists is city web address on the noon time rotary page as a contact point for him.
Deven allows employees to goof off on city time. This is part of the culture Deven has maintained from Kirkwood and expanded on.
I would like to see the written employment agreements these individuals had with the city.
Section 2870 of the CA Labor Code has a number of requirements that all must be met to protect the employee's inventions from claims by the employer -- these are:
1. no equipment, supplies, facilities, or trade secrets of the employer are used in their creation;
2. not developed on the employer's time;
3. not the result of any work performed by the inventor for the employer; and
4. not related at the time of either conception or reduction to practice to the employer's business, or actual or demonstrably anticipated research or development of the employer.
I'm sure there are cases that expand the meaning of the statute, and I have not done any research on this issue.
3:48
First, you make a ridiculous accusation and then your attempt to substantiate it is weak. Attending chamber and Rotary events is perfectly acceptable for a civic leader. That's called outreach and being in touch with the community. And who is to say it's on "company time?" A salaried manager does not have to "clock in" and "clock out" between 8 and 5. You're really showing a Walmart mentality toward employment.
As much as I criticize the city, I think it is absurd to think Deven "allows" employees to goof off. If you think you have observed staff off-task, it's on the employee or their direct supervisor, not Deven... he has to work with what he was given and he can't monitor hundreds of employees at once. I know Mark Deven enough say that he would not tolerate "goofing off."
It will, however, be interesting to see how Deven responds to the SportaFence company... he may think it's not even worthwhile to pursue any claim or legal action. I think what this story shows is that the City of Woodland is rid of some cancer... and you can trace their deeds back to poor or unethical use of their positions. I'm thinking specifically of 1) The grotesque spending on the community center, and 2) The inside deals with Petrovich – the downtown multiplex and the Gateway projects.
"Dan, Joan and Rick worked together for over six years with the City of Woodland, California. Through team work, the City planned, designed, financed, and implemented an award winning, environmentally sensitive, state-of-art Sports Park Facility. The first phase of the facility included four lighted synthetic turf combination softball/soccer fields, and a dedicated lighted synthetic soccer field. Once operational, the city began shopping for a durable fence that could quickly and easily be setup for varying sport events. A broad search was conducted for a fence that could be used on a synthetic turf field, as well as, a product that could serve other purposes. Not finding anything available, they turned to S&S Fence, a well-known reputable local fence contractor who has been doing business in the greater Sacramento, California area for over 20 years."
"A broad search was conducted for a fence that could be used on a synthetic turf field... Not finding anything..."
The fence was not available, so it had to be designed.
So did S&S design and make it on their own or was it designed by the city and S&S made it? Considering Gentry's ego, he would tell you that he designed it.
The city managers of this town have a history of making excuses for top management to do many things unrelated to their job titles while on taxpayer time. This is a prime example of just how far a senior manager will go with so much slack. The current police chief does so many things that are not related to keeping our community safe and the city manager makes excuses for him.
The police chief and Dan Gentry are close friends and go on many golfing trips together. It is obvious that Gentry came up with the idea for Sullivan to run parks and Rec after he left so they could continue to work on this fencing project and so Sullivan could smooth the way for them.
How many hours do you think Gentry spent on this project while on the taxpayers clock? Did you know that the police chief appointed himself as the Construction Project Manager for SADVC's building renovation and does all of this work on taxpayer time? He is also doing Rotary Club work on taxpayer time, but the city manager sees it as good community networking.
Excuses for the top brass but all other city employees would get diciplined or fired for breaking these rules.
And they call themselves "Public Servants."
So glad our tax dollars are making a coniving few rich! It sickens me.
The commercial contains a voice-over which is Dan Gentry's voice.
Gentry pitches a question to a person he identifies in the commercial as a City Parks and Rec. worker. Gentry asks the worker (his subordinate) for a tesimonial about the ease of use of the fence.
Let's be REAL for a moment. If YOUR boss asked you to help make him rich and famous would you have the courage to say "No", even if you did not really want to be in it?
Maybe the employee really thinks the fence is junk but is pressured to say how wonderful it is.
In the real world of office politics, he could be branded a non-team-player and suddenly find himself being reassigned to scooping up dog poop at the dog park, or worse, be the first to get a pink-slip.
This is clearly an abuse of management authority.
If this does not show how brazen our city Deparment Heads have become, I don't know what would.
The former city manager, former parks director and former finance director all partners in this new fence "business."
QUESTIONS: What about that "Park Worker's" testimonial? Did Gentry or Kirkwood get a Model/Actor's Release Form signed from this employee?
Was he paid to do this commercial?Are they paying him royalites for airing it? If not, did he sign a Release stating that he was his own agent?
The Screen Actors Guild (SAG) or American Federation of Radio and Television Artists (AFTRA), exist to help actors sue filmmakers when they have been taken advantage of.
Is a lawyer for this employee going to sue the City?
Department Heads taking liberites, going far outside the scope of their duties; and city managers allowing it.
Looks like this could end up being YET ANOTHER very expensive legal mess.
Any inside information the police chief gets, will go right to his golfing buddy Dan Gentry.
Time to clean house.
It is an interesting question about who owns the rights to the fence and worker comments. I can't wait for the real lawyers to offer an answer.
To those that complain about the Police Chief and his activities - get a grip and a little education.
I know you think you know best but it is clear you never had the expereince of leading an organization.
I am grateful the Police Chief is involved in community affairs. Trust me, the last thing you want is a police chief who is internally focused on the department.
If you ever look closely at police departments that have a reputation for corrouption or incompetence you will find internally focused leadership. Our police department is not corrupt or incompetent.
To the last poster:
"Trust me, the last thing you want is a police chief who is internally focused on the department."
Yes with 2 and possible 3 votes of no confidence from his officers, and gangs and crime making headlines almost weekly now, it would be just TERRIBLE to have a police chief that is focused on the department.
Clearly the police chief will find a solution to gangs, drugs, crime and low employee morale while helping his golfing buddy Dan Dowling to spend SADVC's money to improve his real estate interests.
Or maybe the solutiions will magically come to him while putting "happy dollars" into the Rotary can!
Somebody should really alert the Attorney General and give these idiots a reality check.
I bet Sportafence could get some business from the City of Woodland.....
They're going to need crowd control barricades around City Hall soon....
Someone should ask Chief Sullivan formally if he or his wife, or any members of his family, are invested in this venture.
Here you go, "Someone"
Carey F. Sullivan, Chief of Police
Woodland Police Department
1000 Lincoln Avenue
Woodland, CA 95695
Phone: 530.661.7834 Fax 530.662.5771
E-mail: carey.sullivan@cityofwoodland.org
Maybe the grand jury needs to look into this????
Sorry, I cannot. I work for the big _____. I meant someone that has authority over him like the Mayor or City Manager.
It is late in the year to be giving something like this to the Grand Jury. Wait until July.
Since the following email was sent to S&S Fence, it was discovered that the product did not exist before the RFP. The company has not responded to the email...
To: sandsfenceco@frontiernet.net
Subject: Woodland Sports Park
Date: Sat 03/20/10 02:53 PM
Hello,
I am working on a story regarding the SportaFence company.
What was your capacity in building the portable sports fence for the Woodland Community and Senior Center and Sports Park?
Was the design of the fencing system an existing product you sold to the city or was it designed with the city?
What is your affiliation now with the former city employees?
What is the registration number of your pending patent application?
Thank you.
Regarding : Sorry, I cannot. I work for the big _____. I meant someone that has authority over him like the Mayor or City Manager.
3/23/10 10:05 AM
It is nice to see that the regular complainer about the Police Chief actually works for him. I suspect the complainer has earned disciplinary action, missed a promotion, unhappy with their assignment, or is just an unhappy person.
I has to be one of the above, I am interested to know which it is.
I am a new complainer and I am sorry I am considered a good employee. I am just witness to the continued demoralization of our organization by one man over the years. We wonder why no one cares. We wonder why no one does anything.
I know for sure you do not work here. I guess I could speculate that you are one of our city council members or our city manager that have all had the proverbial wool pulled over their eyes.
Emails to both S&S Fence and SportaFence have gone unanswered. I doubt the patent registration.
Obvoius to me that Chief Sullivan being Gentry's biggest golfing buddy was primed for the assignment at Parks and Rec to green light the sportafence plan so they could use, or keep using, the city's staff and peroperty to promote. The police chief was never really needed at Parks and Rec. He is as guilty as the rest of them.
Post a Comment