Top Ten Reasons I Hate Jonathan Vernick

 1. Vernick likes to hurt people—I am very sorry to have to report this, but in my encounters with him from January 27, 2015 to February 24, 2015, I observed a definite streak of sadism in his personality. On several occasions, he showed delight in my having to suffer.

 

2. Vernick is a con artist—My favorite Vernick con was when the house was sold on February 12, 2015 (and Vernick telephoned to tell me so; also, the IRS records verify this is when the building was sold) and then on Febraury 15, he telephones and asks if I would like to stay! I was confused; he telephoned a second time (left a message on my answering machine) saying I would be leaving after all. My best guess: Vernick wanted to renegotiate our original deal and somehow thought if I would agree to stay, he could then make a new agreement.


3. Vernick corrupts those around him—From his employees who were forced to lie to tenants about why they were being evicted (repairing the building) to getting the Client Rights’ Group representative to do his bidding, he always tries to manipulate others to do unethical/unlawful acts.


4. Vernick is in cognitive decline with dementia—It is obvious that 25 years ago when he first started as an executive director he was probably a sharp conman; today, his various manipulations are fairly transparent with someone with a sufficiently high I.Q. (my I.Q. is 135).


5. Vernick has mismanaged the funds at Baker Places. While it is difficult to know if this mismanagement has been intentional (embezzlement) or just incompetence, it’s clear the finances at Baker are in a mess. See: the 2008 audit of Baker Places from the San Francisco Controller’s office and the IRS tax forms (see: November 30, 2015 post on this blog).


6. Vernick has been in the same position for 25 years— I believe Baker Places needs fresh blood.  At some point he will need to retire and now is better than any time before.

7. Vernick has corrupted the Baker Places Board of Directors—I hold the Baker Board responsible for failure to oversee his incompetence and also failure to respond to my requests for meetings with them. This is why he has gotten away with so much: there is no oversight of what he is doing.


8. Vernick has not responded to request after request to peacefully resolve the conflict between him and me. You think I like having to meet with attorneys, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, auditors, work on this blog, post info sheets in public places such as on street light lamps, and on and on…? But my honor is at stake and thus I will continue the good fight… 

 9. Vernick has defrauded me out of my studio apartment—This whole mess started when Vernick wanted both a) the extra $200,000 my vacating from the Francis Street apartment would bring him and b) evicting me a second time from the Fulton Street apartment. If he was not going to honor the original deal (exchanging one apartment for another), he should not have made it. He could not do it in the first place as an attorney was needed to draw up a written contract, as required by law.  

10. Vernick has poor judgment—This fraud case has gone public because Fancher Larson of the Client Rights’ Group (at 1663 Mission) manipulated Vernick into signing a document which left Baker Places exposed to civil charges. Larson had intended to file fraud charges against Baker but I refused to allow her to do so. How does it happen that I could have defunded Baker if I had chosen? In my mind, this shows a man of poor judgment who is unfit to be an executive director of a nonprofit.