Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:2868
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`No. 15 CR 620
`
`Judge Edmond E. Chang
`
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`BARBARA BYRD-BENNETT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GOVERNMENT=S SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: April 7, 2017
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`JOEL R. LEVIN
`Acting United States Attorney
`
`s/ Megan Cunniff Church
`MEGAN CUNNIFF CHURCH
`LINDSAY C. JENKINS
`Assistant United States Attorneys
`219 South Dearborn Street
`Chicago, Illinois 60604
`(312) 886-1173
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2869
`
`For the record and so no one is blind-sided and my integrity preserved, I need
`you to know and to instant [sic] that prior to accepting my current position, I
`formally resigned my previous relationship with SUPES Academy.
`
`There are several other businesses/companies who currently do work with CPS
`and with whom I have also served as a consultant. I also formally resigned from
`these businesses. I receive no financial benefit from their continued work with
`CPS, and they were assured that they would not be prohibited from future work
`with CPS. This was agreed upon by the Talent Office and City Hall prior to my
`acceptance of the current position I hold at the District.
`
`I also hope you will make this clear to your direct reports. The insinuations are
`being [sic] more intolerable.
`
`If I need to provide any greater clarification to anyone, please advise.
`
`Thanks for you’re [sic] cooperation.
`
`Barbara
`
`
`
`September 13, 2012 Email, attached as GV Exhibits 89.
`
`
`
`Within months of joining CPS, Barbara Byrd-Bennett found it necessary to stamp out
`
`rumors of impropriety in her dealings with The SUPES Academy. She did not want her integrity
`
`impugned. She wanted the rumors to stop. She then sent that message down the chain of
`
`command at CPS. And it was all a lie. As Byrd-Bennett knew, she stood to benefit financially
`
`from contracts CPS awarded to the SUPES Academy and Synesi Associates. She ultimately
`
`expected to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars upon her return to SUPES for pushing CPS
`
`contracts to the SUPES Entities. She sold her integrity and sold out the students of the Chicago
`
`Public Schools, and then she worked to enrich herself and her co-schemers at the expense of CPS,
`
`its students, its teachers, its administrators, and the City of Chicago.
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:2870
`
`
`
`To account for Byrd-Bennett’s corruption and greed, to send a clear message that
`
`corruption will not be tolerated at any level, most especially at the highest levels within
`
`government, and to recognize Byrd-Bennett’s cooperation with the government’s investigation,
`
`the government respectfully requests that the Court impose a sentence of 89 months’
`
`imprisonment, which is 66% of the low-end of the advisory Guidelines range.
`
`I.
`
`
`
`Byrd-Bennett’s Corrupt Scheme
`
`When Byrd-Bennett accepted employment with CPS, first as a consultant and then as Chief
`
`Executive Officer, she did so knowing full-well the on-going struggles within CPS. Like so many
`
`of the inner-city school districts in which Byrd-Bennett had worked during her long career within
`
`education, CPS faced countless challenges, from budget and financial woes, to student
`
`achievement and performance gaps, from teacher strikes and closing schools, to conflicts within
`
`and between teachers and administrators. As a mentor and coach within The SUPES Academy’s
`
`Chicago Executive Leadership Academy (CELA), Byrd-Bennett worked directly with and
`
`supported the highest-level officials within CPS. She already had an insider’s view of CPS
`
`before becoming a part of CPS.
`
`
`
`That knowledge and unique perspective are aggravating circumstances when considered in
`
`the context of the corrupt scheme that Byrd-Bennett and Gary Solomon engineered: she knew her
`
`victims, she knew their weaknesses and struggles, and she chose to defraud them anyway. As a
`
`consultant and then as CEO, Byrd-Bennett used her position to steer CPS contracts to Solomon,
`
`Thomas Vranas, and the SUPES Entities in exchange for bribes and kickbacks to be paid following
`
`her employment with CPS, ongoing benefits such as sporting event tickets, and future employment
`
`with the SUPES Entities with the expectation of a signing bonus. Byrd-Bennett agreed to cheat
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:2871
`
`and deceive CPS from the get-go, to eliminate any opposition to her efforts to expand contracts
`
`for the SUPES Entities within CPS, and to line her pockets with money obtained from a cash-
`
`strapped school district through her fraud. The scheme succeeded: through the collective efforts
`
`of Byrd-Bennett, Solomon, and Vranas, the SUPES Entities received contracts with CPS totaling
`
`more than $22 million. Solomon and Vranas personally pocketed more than $2.9 million from
`
`the scheme.
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`The Consulting Agreement and CPS Contracts
`
`In approximately December 2011, while Byrd-Bennett was working as a consultant for the
`
`SUPES Entities, Solomon and Vranas negotiated a Consulting Agreement with Byrd-Bennett.
`
`Pursuant to the terms of the Consulting Agreement, Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities
`
`agreed to compensate Byrd-Bennett with a percentage of the gross revenues of any contract
`
`awarded to the SUPES Entities if, among other things, Byrd-Bennett provided sales services for
`
`the contract. Vranas sent Byrd-Bennett several drafts of the Consulting Agreement by email.
`
`Although the general terms of the Consulting Agreement were settled by late January or early
`
`February 2012, Byrd-Bennett did not sign the compensation agreement until in or about April
`
`2012.
`
`
`
`Byrd-Bennett was under no illusion that she could legitimately maintain her consulting
`
`arrangement with the SUPES Entities when she joined CPS. In a series of emails with Solomon,
`
`she expressed her concerns about terminating her other lucrative consulting arrangements due to
`
`the potential conflicts of interest arising from her employment with CPS. As she told Solomon,
`
`The bottom line is that each has thought that I need to take a leave to avoid
`conflict of interests etc. [One company] is particularly concerned because they
`want to respond to the after’s school RFP and they do 7-11 million with non
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:2872
`
`public but the $ flow through CPS….Ugh!!!! I have just reduced my income
`significantly and there is no telling what [another company’s representative] will
`do and if I will be able to re-engage when I am done with CPS. Oh well ……
`maybe the attorney’s [sic] will figure out something and given there is ni [sic]
`written agreement, I need to figure out lot….Never a dull moment (:
`
`
`April 27, 2012 Email, attached as GV Exhibits 38. Byrd-Bennett knew, however, that her
`
`arrangement with Solomon and the SUPES Entities was different. Her place at the SUPES
`
`Entities was secure. As Solomon reassured her, “When this stint at CPS is done, and you are
`
`ready to re re re retire, we have your spot waiting for you. Hopefully, with even more work and
`
`more opt.” April 29, 2012 Email at GV Exhibits 47.
`
`
`
`Vranas signed the Consulting Agreement on behalf of himself, Solomon, and the SUPES
`
`Entities on May 29, 2012, nearly a month after Byrd-Bennett’s effective starting date as a
`
`consultant with CPS. Byrd-Bennett never disclosed this financial arrangement to CPS and, in
`
`fact, was prohibited by the CPS Code of Ethics from having such a financial arrangement. Based
`
`on the terms of her undisclosed Consulting Agreement with the SUPES Entities, Byrd-Bennett
`
`stood to gain as much as 10% of the revenues generated from the SUPES Entities’ contracts with
`
`CPS. That was the general understanding of Byrd-Bennett, Solomon, and Vranas with respect to
`
`the October 2012, $2.09 million contract and its extension: Byrd-Bennett was to receive $254,000
`
`upon her return to the SUPES Entities.
`
`
`
`The honest services fraud scheme did not end once the October 2012 contract was finalized.
`
`Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities had promised to reward Byrd-Bennett for steering
`
`contracts to the SUPES Entities. While there was no explicit agreement as to the amount of
`
`money Byrd-Bennett would receive for steering the $20.5 million contract to SUPES, that contract
`
`was also part of the scheme to defraud and to obtain money and property from CPS through bribes
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:2873
`
`and kickbacks. Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities promised to give and gave Byrd-
`
`Bennett a flow of personal financial benefits in exchange for official actions to steer contracts to
`
`the SUPES Entities. Likewise, Byrd-Bennett’s efforts to secure business at CPS for Synesi’s
`
`school turn-around program and her pushing of Vendor A to sponsor CELA were part of the
`
`scheme to defraud.
`
`
`
`On or about June 26, 2013, the CBOE awarded the $20.5 million sole-source contract to
`
`The SUPES Academy for leadership development services for CELA. On July 1, 2013, Byrd-
`
`Bennett emailed Solomon, stating, “Anything u can provide to me or a designated person relative
`
`to the future college and weddings for the boys might be helpful.” GV Ex. at 99. Solomon,
`
`Vranas, and the SUPES Entities intended to compensate Byrd-Bennett for her assistance in
`
`securing this contract. In August of 2013, Byrd-Bennett emailed Solomon, “Have my contract
`
`ready (: [.]” GV Ex. at 111. Solomon responded, “Ready and waiting. Always on my desk.”
`
`
`
`
`
`B.
`
`Byrd-Bennett Eliminated Opposition within CPS
`
`As a high-level consultant and then CEO of CPS, Byrd-Bennett was uniquely positioned
`
`to ensure that the corrupt scheme succeeded. Her leadership role within CPS gave her authority
`
`to set goals and requirements for programs and training. See, e.g., August 24, 2013 Email,
`
`attached as GV Exhibits 114 (“The CEO determined that principals should not be out of their
`
`buildings during the week to attend CELA sessions. This is why sessions are being held on
`
`Saturday. It is up to the CEO to determine how to respond to the complaints about Saturday
`
`sessions.”). Her background within the education industry and with troubled inner-city school
`
`districts gave her credibility to diagnose problems and prescribe remedies. See, e.g., June 14,
`
`2012 email, attached as GV Exhibits 58 (“Let me also add that in my assessment the Chiefs
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:2874
`
`(current) also require much more work. If inward tom think of them as independent
`
`Superintendents leading a district with the autonomy CPS has declared, there are probably on 4-5,
`
`I would identify.”).
`
`
`
`Byrd-Bennett sharply rebuked challenges to her authority. See, e.g., December 7, 2012
`
`email, attached at GV Exhibits 100 (“At our meeting I will inform him [Steve Gering] that I am
`
`taking this over via Sherry!”). As the Court recognized at the sentencing of Gary Solomon, Byrd-
`
`Bennett effectively fired Gering when he voiced concerns within CPS about the $20.5 million
`
`contract.
`
`
`
`Byrd-Bennett installed loyal friends in high-level positions within CPS. These friends
`
`supported Byrd-Bennett and her agenda. Solomon offered to help some of these friends find
`
`employment in exchange for deep principal professional development at CPS (GV Exhibits at 47).
`
`These friends accompanied Byrd-Bennett to dinners where they, too, were wined and dined by
`
`Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities.
`
`
`
`And Byrd-Bennett actively lied about her relationship with the SUPES Entities to other
`
`CPS personnel: “Although I was instrumental in developing this tool [the Synesi Toolkit] and I
`
`know its value, you need to know that I am receiving no financial benefits from the potential
`
`engagement.” August 28, 2012 Email at GV Exhibits 81.
`
`
`
`Byrd-Bennett effectively conveyed to the Chicago Board of Education, CPS’s procurement
`
`department, and the CPS employees who reported to her that she would only accept SUPES for
`
`leadership development and training; that the scope of SUPES’s work must be expanded to a wider
`
`audience within CPS; that CPS was incapable of conducting the training itself or with other
`
`providers; and that she was acting in the best interests of CPS. She corrupted the process entirely.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:2875
`
`She made it happen. See December 2, 2012 Email at GV Exhibits at 94 (“I know we calculated
`
`PG and St. Louis….what is it for Chicago, assuming we hit the full amount? And finally, this
`
`would be the same for Synesi when I make it happen, yes?”). No one other than her co-schemers
`
`understood the full scope of Byrd-Bennett’s motivations for securing contracts with the SUPES
`
`Entities: college funds, wedding funds, a signing bonus, being the “highest paid person on the
`
`planet” on the day she returned to SUPES/Synesi, gifts, goodies, Target runs, “extermination”1
`
`checks, and lucrative employment as a consultant for the SUPES Entities, where she would make
`
`more money while doing less work.
`
`
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Obstruction
`
`In the summer of 2013, Catalyst, a news magazine that focuses on the Chicago Public
`
`Schools, published an article questioning the awarding of the $20.5 million, sole-source contract
`
`to SUPES. The article drew attention to the relationship between Byrd-Bennett and the SUPES
`
`Entities. Following that article, the CBOE Inspector General launched an investigation into the
`
`SUPES Entities’ contracts with CPS. Byrd-Bennett, Solomon, and Vranas were aware of the
`
`article and the investigation. The Inspector General requested Byrd-Bennett’s employment
`
`contract and compensation information from the SUPES Entities, as well as email correspondence
`
`regarding Byrd-Bennett. In consultation with Solomon, Byrd-Bennett deleted her emails, emails
`
`
`1 In his proffer, Vranas explained that Byrd-Bennett had assembled a list of items she needed from
`a Target store. Solomon obtained the items, which he and Vranas paid for, and then delivered
`them to Byrd-Bennett’s driver. Vranas also explained that Byrd-Bennett asked Solomon to
`acquire anti-surveillance equipment to debug her office because Jean Claude Brizard had believed
`that the mayor was listening to his conversations via a surveillance bug hidden within his
`(Brizard’s) office. Vranas purchased debugging equipment but never used it within Byrd-
`Bennett’s office.
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:2876
`
`in which she and Solomon plotted to defraud CPS and to enrich themselves. She also understood
`
`that Solomon and Vranas were doing the same with their own emails.
`
`
`
`On April 14, 2015, two FBI agents knocked on Byrd-Bennett’s door at approximately the
`
`same time that searches of Byrd-Bennett’s residence and the SUPES Entities were occurring.
`
`Byrd-Bennett agreed to speak to the agents, and then she proceeded to lie in response to nearly
`
`every question posed.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`D.
`
`Cooperation
`
`Within a few weeks of her interview and the execution of the search warrants, Byrd-
`
`Bennett sought to cooperate with the government in its investigation. She agreed to participate
`
`in proffer-protected interviews with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, the FBI, and the CBOE Inspector
`
`General. In her initial proffer, Byrd-Bennett minimized her conduct and was not entirely truthful.
`
`Thereafter, however, Byrd-Bennett participated in numerous proffer sessions in which she
`
`admitted her conduct and provided truthful information regarding her co-schemers and the honest
`
`services bribery and kickback scheme. She accepted full responsibility for her conduct. She
`
`provided truthful information regarding other areas of interest to the government and the Inspector
`
`General. At the government’s request, Byrd-Bennett met with law enforcement from outside of
`
`the Northern District of Illinois. Byrd-Bennett also testified before the grand jury and truthfully
`
`admitted her conduct. She cooperated months before either Vranas or Solomon attempted
`
`cooperation. The government was able to investigate and ultimately resolve the full scope of
`
`criminal conduct at issue because of her timely and complete cooperation. She should receive
`
`the benefit of that cooperation.
`
`
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:2877
`
`
`
`Because of her truthful cooperation and substantial assistance, the government moves the
`
`Court to depart from the low-end of the advisory Guidelines range and impose a sentence of 66%
`
`of the low-end of the range.
`
`II.
`
`Applicable Guidelines Range
`
`The government agrees with the U.S. Probation Officer’s calculation of the advisory
`
`Guidelines range for Byrd-Bennett.
`
`With regard to paragraph 62 of the Presentence Investigation Report, the government
`
`agrees that the sixteen-level enhancement, pursuant to Guidelines §§ 2B1.1(b)(1)(I) and
`
`2C1.1(b)(2), is appropriate because the value of the benefit received in return for the bribe was
`
`more than $1.5 million but less than $3,500,000. The government disagrees with the Probation
`
`Officer’s use of a calculation of 10% of the total value of all contracts at issue to arrive at that
`
`conclusion, however. Instead and as supported by the evidence, the value of the benefit received
`
`in exchange for the bribe was approximately $2.9 million. As set forth in the government’s
`
`version of the offense, the SUPES Entities earned more than $10 million in profits from CPS in
`
`connection with honest services fraud scheme. Solomon and Vranas received direct payments in
`
`connection with those contracts totaling more than $2.9 million.
`
`Based on a total offense level of 33 and a criminal history category of I, the advisory range
`
`is 135 months to 168 months of imprisonment. The government requests that the Court impose
`
`a sentence of 89 months’ imprisonment, a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary
`
`to accomplish the purposes of sentencing.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:2878
`
`III.
`
`
`
`For Byrd-Bennett, a Sentence of 89 Months’ Imprisonment is Sufficient, But Not
`Greater Than Necessary, to Accomplish the Purposes Set Forth in The Guidelines
`and 18 U.S.C. ' 3553(a).
`
`A.
`
`Nature and Circumstances of the Offenses
`
`Within the City of Chicago, it is hard to conceive of an institution as important or serving
`
`a community as vulnerable as the Chicago Public Schools. Byrd-Bennett was hired to lead CPS,
`
`to start a new chapter in its efforts to educate Chicago’s students. Instead, hers is yet another
`
`story in the long history of corruption, graft, and greed in Chicago.
`
`Byrd-Bennett and her co-schemers not only deprived CPS of Byrd-Bennett’s honest
`
`services, they undermined efforts to provide leadership and professional development training for
`
`CPS administrators, principals, and teachers – those who have the highest and most direct
`
`responsibility for educating CPS’s students. They deprived other organizations and companies
`
`of the ability to develop and provide leadership and training programs tailored to CPS and its
`
`needs. They undermined other programs within CPS that lost funding in order to pay for the
`
`corrupt scheme. They called into doubt the independence and legitimacy of CPS’s procurement
`
`process. They gave further reason for skeptics of CPS to question its needs, financial and
`
`otherwise, and its ability to provide for the needs of its students.
`
`B.
`
`History and Characteristics of the Defendant
`
`
`
`Byrd-Bennett is an unlikely criminal defendant. She is a beloved wife, mother, and
`
`grandmother. She is highly educated. She does not suffer from addictions and has no criminal
`
`history. She dedicated her life to public service, spending her career in public education.
`
`Because of her talents and abilities, she rose through the ranks of the public education system,
`
`garnering honorary degrees and accolades for her efforts in turning around struggling schools and
`
`
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:2879
`
`school districts. She retired after decades serving students and school districts. Her sentence
`
`must account for a career dedicated to helping students and improving school districts in the most
`
`challenging of circumstances.
`
`
`
`Byrd-Bennett’s motivations in coming to CPS as a consultant and then staying on as CEO
`
`were not simply financial or to burnish her credentials in leading a larger school district in a bigger
`
`city. She wanted to help CPS and its students. She truly believed in the leadership and
`
`professional development training offered by the SUPES Entities. She wanted to develop and
`
`motivate leadership within CPS in order to improve schools and the quality of education provided
`
`to students. She used her skills and expertise to lead CPS through numerous challenges,
`
`including a teacher strike, school closings, financial distress, and other emergencies. Trying to
`
`balance all of the complicated issues and diverse constituencies and interests involved in public
`
`education and within CPS, Byrd-Bennett worked to improve the quality of education for CPS’s
`
`students. Her sentence must account for this.
`
`
`
`Byrd-Bennett’s sentence must also account for her greed. She did not need to take the
`
`job with the Chicago Public Schools, where she ultimately received an annual salary of $250,000.
`
`She did not need the money promised to her as part of the corrupt scheme. She was financially
`
`secure, celebrated, and successful. She had multiple pensions. She had developed her own
`
`consulting business, allowing her to earn hundreds of thousands in additional compensation from
`
`school districts and organizations that looked to her expertise in education. She knew better than
`
`to use her official position for private benefits. She had countless people to turn to for advice and
`
`support. She should never have become a criminal defendant, but she ultimately made numerous
`
`
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:2880
`
`decisions that led her to stand before the Court for sentencing, decisions that were rooted in greed.
`
`Her sentence must account for all of this.
`
`
`
`C.
`
`Additional ' 3553(a) Factors
`
`A sentence of 89 months’ imprisonment is sufficient but not greater than necessary to
`
`account for all of the goals of sentencing. Such a sentence reflects the seriousness of the offense,
`
`promotes respect for the law, and provides just punishment. It provides general deterrence, and
`
`it avoids unwarranted sentencing disparities.
`
`
`
`1.
`
`
`Seriousness of the Offense, Respect for the Law, Just
`Punishment, and Deterrence
`
`
`
`Public corruption undermines the legitimacy of government, the public servants who
`
`
`
`
`
`dedicate their lives and careers for the betterment of their communities, and the services provided
`
`by those public servants. Byrd-Bennett, as the high-level public official, owed CPS, its students,
`
`and the City of Chicago her loyalty, her honesty, and her hard work. As the leader of the Chicago
`
`Public Schools, she had the greatest responsibility to make decisions for the best interests of CPS
`
`and its students. Instead, she made decisions for her own benefit and to enrich herself and her
`
`co-schemers at the expense of CPS and Chicago taxpayers.
`
`Byrd-Bennett, along with Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities, made a series of
`
`rational, calculated decisions to defraud CPS. Like so many other defendants in white collar and
`
`public corruption cases, they weighed the risks and rewards of the scheme before deciding to
`
`gamble with the prospect of becoming rich. They plotted to limit the risks by promising
`
`payments to Byrd-Bennett only after she returned to the SUPES Entities following her employment
`
`with CPS. Their corruption was sophisticated, and it was nearly undetectable. Even after an
`
`investigation was underway into their corruption, they did their best to further limit the risks of
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:2881
`
`being caught and being held fully accountable: they deleted emails and continued to lie.
`
`
`
`The inherent difficulty in detecting and successfully prosecuting public corruption offenses
`
`necessitates significant sentences for those individuals caught committing such offenses; who
`
`justify their corruption as the cost of doing business in state and local government throughout
`
`Illinois; and who obstruct investigations of their wrongdoing. Byrd-Bennett is unfortunately one
`
`more defendant in the long line of high-level public officials who chose to defraud those they
`
`promised to serve. The significant sentences that those high-level public officials received did
`
`not deter Byrd-Bennett, but there is hope that her sentence will deter other public officials from
`
`choosing fraud and greed over honesty and loyalty to those they serve.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Sentencing Disparities
`
`A sentence of 89 month’s imprisonment does not create unwarranted sentencing disparities
`
`between Byrd-Bennett and her co-defendants. The Court recently sentenced Gary Solomon to a
`
`term of imprisonment of 84 months. Byrd-Bennett, whose advisory Guidelines range is higher
`
`than Solomon’s due to her position as a public official, was equally culpable with Solomon in
`
`terms of the execution of the scheme. They plotted together, and they brought Vranas into the
`
`scheme. She is more culpable, however, in that she was the public official who was required to
`
`make decisions for the best interests of CPS and its students. A sentence of 89 months’
`
`imprisonment accounts for her cooperation, her full acceptance of responsibility, and the
`
`aggravating nature of her role and conduct as the public official.
`
`
`
`Similarly, the government intends to recommend a sentence of 39 months’ imprisonment
`
`for Vranas, which sentence is warranted under the circumstances presented. Like Byrd-Bennett,
`
`Vranas cooperated with the government and fully accepted responsibility for his conduct. He
`
`
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 114 Filed: 04/07/17 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:2882
`
`substantially assisted the government in its investigation, and he should receive the benefit of that
`
`cooperation. Vranas was not involved in the corrupt scheme from the beginning, as Byrd-Bennett
`
`and Solomon kept their corrupt agreement between themselves. Vranas later came to understand
`
`the full scope of the corruption, joined and helped accomplish the scheme, and then profited
`
`handsomely as a result, receiving millions of dollars. His recommended sentence accurately
`
`reflects his relative culpability and position, as compared with Byrd-Bennett and Solomon, as well
`
`as his cooperation.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully requests that the Court impose
`
`a sentence of 89 months’ imprisonment for Byrd-Bennett.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`14
`
`