Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1571

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)
v. ) No. 15 CR 620
)
GARY SOLOMON, ) Judge Edmond E. Chang
THE SUPES ACADEMY, LLC, and )
SYNESI ASSOCIATES, LLC )

GOVERNMENT=S RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANT GARY SOLOMONS SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Dated: March 13, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

ZACHARY T. FARDON
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 #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 2 of 14 PageID #:1572

For years, Gary Solomon lived a life of privilege as he sold the services of The SUPES

Academy and Synesi Associates to inner-city school districts with struggling schools that served

disadvantaged children. Solomons apparent success with the Chicago Public Schools bolstered

the reputation and credibility of the SUPES Entities with other school districts as well.

Solomons success within CPS, however, was a sham. Solomon and the SUPES Entities failed

to convince the Chicago Public Education Fund (Organization A) that it should fund anything

beyond the $380,000 trial run for the Chicago Executive Leadership Academy (CELA). There

was no future contract. There was no future for the SUPES Entities at CPS until Barbara Byrd-

Bennett became a consultant with CPS.

Together, Byrd-Bennett, Solomon, and Vranas expanded the scope of the original CELA

and then manipulated the procurement process within CPS to steer the October 2012, $2.09 million

sole-source contract to The SUPES Academy. The additional $450,000 settlement and extension

came next. Six months later, CPS awarded The SUPES Academy the $20.5 million sole-source

contract. Throughout this entire time period, Byrd-Bennett, Solomon, and Vranas understood

and expected that Byrd-Bennett would receive a cut from each of those contracts in exchange for

her role in ushering those contracts, as well as any others, through CPS. Solomons claims to the

contrary are proof of his failure to fully accept responsibility for his conduct.

In his sentencing memorandum, Solomon glosses over the significance of his corruption,

arguing that professional development training for CPS chiefs, deputy chiefs, and principals was

consistent with CPS and mayor pronouncements and that SUPES delivered on that training. He

takes statements out of context in an attempt to bolster the success of SUPES within CPS. He

further minimizes his own role in this corruption by arguing that Byrd-Bennett engineered the

1
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 3 of 14 PageID #:1573

bribe arrangement and suggesting he was avoiding the commitment in his failure to respond to

Byrd-Bennetts inquiries about accounts and payments. These claims are diversions, efforts to

deflect the Courts attention from the breadth of his corruption and the extent to which he was the

direct beneficiary. His was a calculated corruption that lasted for years and earned him millions

of dollars. Solomon must be held accountable.

I. There was no future for The SUPES Academy at CPS until Byrd-Bennett became
Chief Education Officer at CPS.

While Byrd-Bennett, Solomon, and Vranas talked between themselves about securing

future work at CPS for The SUPES Academy, there was no future contract for The SUPES

Academy until Byrd-Bennett was employed at CPS. Contrary to Solomons claims that Byrd-

Bennett was already owed money for her assistance in securing the October 2012 contract, there

was nothing owed to her for future contracts with CPS. Instead, Byrd-Bennett used her position

within CPS to not only secure funding from CPS for a second year of funding for CELA, she vastly

expanded the scope of work for SUPES, beyond what anyone within CPS had contemplated. It

was, however, precisely what Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities expected once Byrd-

Bennett joined CPS.

Email correspondence between Byrd-Bennett and Solomon in January 2012 demonstrates

that they contemplated expanding the scope of CELA to principals and aspiring principals; not that

there was any agreement to do so. See January 9, 2012 email re: SUPES for CPS Principals,

attached hereto at Exhibit A. Solomon even suggested to Byrd-Bennett that he had conned Steve

Gering (CPS Employee A) into allowing SUPES to pitch the idea of principal development, despite

SUPESs failure to respond to an RFP for such services. See January 11, 2012 email re: CPS

SUPES, attached hereto at Exhibit B.

2
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 4 of 14 PageID #:1574

Employees for the Chicago Education Fund explained that the Fund never committed to a

second year of funding for CELA, which had provided leadership training to CPSs network chiefs.

See Interview Report of Heather Anichini, attached to GV as Organization A, at 2. Going back

to April or May of 2012, the Fund made it clear that it would not fund a second year of CELA.

See id. at 3. The Fund did not want to fund additional training for CELA for the CPS network

chiefs because CELA was offering no new content that might make the training beneficial. See

id. at 2. Not only was the Fund concerned about how CELA fit into the larger CPS strategy, it

did not understand how CELA fit into the principal training programs that principals were already

receiving through non-profit organizations. See id. at 3. Moreover, it was difficult to measure

whether the network chiefs were doing things differently as a result of the CELA training; and the

Fund wanted more detailed budgets and clear benchmarks for CELA. Id. at 2. The Funds

concerns about a second-year of CELA were heightened once Byrd-Bennett joined CPS as Chief

Education Officer. The Fund also recognized that Byrd-Bennett would not be able to lead CELA

once she was employed with CPS. Id.

Solomons references to the importance of professional development training for CPS

personnel, especially teachers, are a red herring. There is no dispute that professional

development training was an important component in the collective efforts of CPS administration,

the City of Chicago, and CPS personnel to improve the success of the professionals leading and

operating Chicagos schools. The collective efforts of Solomon, Byrd-Bennett, Vranas, and the

SUPES Entities to secure contracts through fraud and deceit to provide those professional

development services are the issue. Despite having what appeared to be unique characteristics

that distinguished SUPES from other leadership and professional development organizations, the

3
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 5 of 14 PageID #:1575

failure of SUPES to obtain additional funding for a second year of CELA from the Fund suggests

that the services performed by SUPES should be considered with a skeptical eye.

As of June of 2012, there was no agreement between CPS and SUPES regarding a second

year of CELA, and there was no set plan for what a second year of CELA would include. On

June 10, 2012, Byrd-Bennett, who was then the Chief Education Officer at CPS, sent an email to

Gering, Solomon, and another individual regarding the lack of plan for a second year of CELA.

See GV Exhibits at 58-59. Byrd-Bennett stated, I am preparing a list of follow up items and an

analysis a [sic] and recommendation for next stepsI need to know if there has been a final

decision and/or plan for CELA moving forward. If there has not been I strongly recommend that

we plan to meet before the end of June for such a planning session. I also would like to ensure

that whatever plan we agree to that there is a start up for August. Id.

Gering confirmed the absence of a plan: I agree with Barbara that we need to connect

following the last CELA session and discuss our plans for moving forward next year. We have

had a number of visionary conversations, but have not put together a concrete plan. Our intention

is to move forward with CELA next year with a focus on the Deputy Chiefs and their continued

development. And, continue a level of support for the Chiefs, though not as intensive. Id. at

59.

Byrd-Bennett responded to Gering, directing him to meet with Solomon and another

SUPES representative to write the plan: I have no assistant and no time to sit at the computer to

complete. Who in your shop or who do you recommend to work with mesit with you and

connect with Gary/Tim to write the plan? We need capture all of the thinking and discussions on

4
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 6 of 14 PageID #:1576

paper ASAP[.] We need to capture the thinking and discussions on paper ASAP. Let me add

that in my assessment the Chiefs (current) also require much more work. Id. at 58.

After further email exchanges, in which Gering identified another CPS employee to work

with Solomon and SUPES to prepare the plan for the upcoming year, Byrd-Bennett forwarded the

entire email chain to Solomon and Vranas, stating, I will work hard to get us this and expanded

work[.] [W]e will also need Tom [Vranas] at the meeting so he can work with [the other CPS

employee] more directly, yes? Id. Vranas responded that it might help to have him

drive/push/drag this work out. See June 15, 2012 Email, attached hereto as Exhibit K.

During the summer and early fall of 2012, even during the CPS teachers strike, Byrd-

Bennett worked to solicit funds for an expansion of CELA from the Fund. See, e.g., Exhibit C

at 3-14. In July of 2012, Byrd-Bennett forwarded to Solomon an email between Byrd-Bennett,

Gering, and individuals who worked with the Fund in which Byrd-Bennett acknowledged that the

Fund had stated that it did not intend to assist with funding CELA for the chiefs or principals and

asked for a dollar commitment from the Fund. GV Exhibits at 77. Byrd-Bennett stated, It

seems we will definitely need to secure additional funding while we are simultaneously in a budget

reduction mode. Id. Byrd-Bennett intended to get that money for CELA from other CPS

programs, which were in budget reduction mode. And that is what she directed her staff,

including Gering, to do.

To the extent that a second year of CELA was contemplated by anyone other than the co-

schemers prior to Byrd-Bennett joining CPS, it was for the continued training of chiefs and deputy

chiefs, at a cost similar to that of the first year of CELA. See Interview of Steve Gering at 3-4.

The first discussion of including principals within CELA occurred while Byrd-Bennett was already

5
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 7 of 14 PageID #:1577

at CPS and while she was working hard to get Solomon, Vranas, and SUPES the expanded work

she promised. See id. The expansion also significantly increased the costs of CELA. See

SUPES Proposed Costs, attached hereto as Exhibit D. The proposed costs for a second year of

CELA for chiefs and deputy chiefs was approximately $704,000. Id. Training for principals

added more than $1.8 million to the cost of CELA. Id.

Gering recalled that in approximately 2012, Byrd-Bennett put on the table an expansion

of CELA beyond what was previously contemplated. See Interview of Steve Gering at 4. She

proposed expanding the training to include principals and rising principals. Id. CPS principals

were already receiving training and coaching, including from non-profit organizations. Id. See

also Anichini Interview at 3.

On July 19, 2012, Gering sent an email reminding Byrd-Bennett and others involved in

CELA, including Solomon and Vranas, that they needed to stay focused on chiefs and deputy chief

roles and supporting their development, rather than on the role SUPES might play in supporting

principals. Within a few minutes, Solomon sent Byrd-Bennett an email, stating, Hee hee. He

does not get it, does he? See July 19, 2012 email re: CELA Meeting Notes, attached hereto as

Exhibit E. Byrd-Bennett then sent the entire group an email dismissing Gerings comments,

stating, Wow!!!!!! I seen [sic] all of this as interrelated and struggle with the notion of

separation. I thought Steve and I were on the same page. Let me circle back to determine how

I advise, respond to the issue I have been asked to explore for principal development. Perhaps

I will have a recommendation at the time we meet. See July 20, 2012 email re: CELA Meeting

Notes, attached hereto as Exhibit F. Byrd-Bennett then sent an email response to Solomon,

stating, See my response. See Exhibit E. Solomon laughed at the ignorance of Byrd-

6
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 8 of 14 PageID #:1578

Bennetts subordinates at CPS who were attempting to do their jobs ignorant of the reality that he

had Byrd-Bennett in his pocket. He was confident that he would get his way: a continuation of

CELA, an increased scope of services, and more money in his pocket.

Without Byrd-Bennett working so hard to get Solomon, Vranas, and SUPES a contract for

the second year of CELA and the funding for that contract, CELA would likely have ended. Beth

Swanson (Public Official A) understood from the Funds executive director that Byrd-Bennett had

not satisfied the Funds concerns about the true benefits of CELA to CPSs teachers and students.

See Interview of Beth Swanson, attached to Governments Version as Official A Interview, at 3.

Moreover, Swanson knew that if the Fund declined to fund CELA, it would serve as a signal to

other philanthropies, and it would be difficult for CELA to receive funding anywhere. Id. As

Swanson heard through teachers and principals, as well as other information, CELA was

mediocre at best. Id. at 4. Byrd-Bennett had been its shining star. Id. CELAs

attendees in the first CELA really liked Byrd-Bennett, not CELA. Id.

Other reviews of the first year of CELA were more positive and found that attendees were

happy and engaged, and the CELA speakers were strong. See Anichini Interview at 3. It did

not change the fact that SUPES and CPS had not made any attempts to collect baseline data or

other data after the first year. Neither SUPES nor CPS demonstrated that there was any effect

from the training. While Solomon was and continues to be dismissive of benchmarks or metrics

for determining whether the training improved the performance of CPS personnel, it mattered for

CPS, an organization that does not have limitless sources of revenue for feel good efforts with no

results, and it mattered for the Fund, which was looking to help improve the performance and

leadership skills of CPSs leaders.

7
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 9 of 14 PageID #:1579

II. With Byrd-Bennett safely at the helm of CPS, Solomon began preparing CELA for
2012-2013, even without a contract.

As of mid-July 2012, CPSs CEO Jean-Claude Brizard was floundering, and Solomon saw

an opportunity. Solomon knew that Brizard was looking to leave CPS and was a dead man

walking. See July 24, 2012 email chain, attached hereto as Exhibit G. Solomon reached out

to Swanson, informing her that he and a colleague had discussed safe landing options for Brizard

and his family. Id. At the same time, Solomon offered up Byrd-Bennett as being all in with

Swanson and that she was willing to do whatever was needed of her. Id. As Solomon

explained, Byrd-Bennett saw that the ship is sinking fast and she wants to help. Id. Solomon

said that Byrd-Bennett had brought up an increased role. Id. Less than ten days later, Solomon

sent Byrd-Bennett an email stating, Congrats Madam CEO!! Id.

As reflected above and contrary to his claims, Solomon recognized long before October

2012 (when Byrd-Bennett officially became CEO of CPS) that Byrd-Bennett was in a position to

take over CPS from Brizard. Without anyone else at CPS or in the City of Chicago knowing of

his agreement to pay Byrd-Bennett kickbacks from contracts awarded to SUPES by CPS, he helped

to lay the foundation for Byrd-Bennett to take over. At the same time that Byrd-Bennett was

working to obtain funding and approval for CELA and to expand the scope of CELA, Solomon

was working behind the scenes to help steer her into a more powerful position within CPS. It

was to his benefit and his bottom line that Byrd-Bennett seized the helm from Brizard, and he

worked to make it happen.

Solomon recognized how secure his future was with CPS and began work for the 2012-

2013 school year with no contract. See, e.g., Gering Interview at 6. Solomon made clear to

Gering that he would go above Gerings head to get what he wanted, and he told Gering that Byrd-

8
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 10 of 14 PageID #:1580

Bennett wanted the training to happen. Id. According to Solomon, SUPES incurred $450,000

in costs prior to the awarding of the $2.09 million contract. See Interview of Steve Gering at 6.

Gering understood that Byrd-Bennett thought that SUPES should get the full $2.55 million it

sought for the 2012-2013 contract. And SUPES ultimately received that amount: $2.09 million

for the October 2012 contract, and the additional $450,000 settlement and extension. As set forth

in the indictment, when Vranas informed Byrd-Bennett in a November 20, 2012 email that they

were short $450,000 in funding, Byrd-Bennett stated, I am on it.

III. Solomon and Byrd-Bennett corrupted the procurement process at CPS.

With full knowledge of the internal workings of CPS, Solomon was entirely confident that

SUPES would receive approval for the full scope of CELA proposed by Byrd-Bennett to the Fund

and within CPS. Solomon knew that Byrd-Bennett directed CPS personnel, including Gering, to

find funding for CELA and its expansion. Gering recalled cold calling people within CPS

looking for the funding. See Interview of Steve Gering at 4-5. Gering said that many of those

people were looking for funding for their own programs. Id.

During that time period, Byrd-Bennett gave clear directives to CPS personnel to usher the

SUPES contract through procurement. While CPS personnel were actively assembling an RFP

for the 2012-2013 contract, Byrd-Bennett interfered, pushing for a sole source contract. When

CPSs procurement department pushed back, see, e.g., September 12, 2012 email chain, attached

here to as Exhibit H, Byrd-Bennett pushed again. Solomon was well aware of the inner-workings

of CPS, as Byrd-Bennett forwarded her internal CPS emails with CPS personnel to Solomon. See

id. In an email dated September 13, 2012, with the subject of RFP vs. Sole Source, Byrd-

Bennett then stated,

9
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 11 of 14 PageID #:1581

Because I am unable to be on site to get this done [due to the Chicago Teachers
Union strike], the communication is really becoming distorted. I want to have
the RFP drafted in the event I can not go sole source. I do not want to delay
the process for kick off. I do not want to recalibrate the calendar. Given the
importance of this, Steve is it possible for you to go to procurement to discuss
sole source. I have talked with Tim and you simply must make the case. No
one there wants to take responsibility and now we are stuck. I am also speaking
with the Fund via written communication today as I receive the draft. With all
of the changes moving forward, this has become crucial our [sic]
leadersChiefs and principals. Have I provided enough clarity?

September 13, 2012 email, attached hereto as Exhibit I.

During this time period, the CPS procurement process could hardly be described as

independent or rigorous when Byrd-Bennett was strong-arming CPS personnel to make the case.

Solomon was actively involved in the procurement process and in directing the work of CPS

personnel, including Gering. While Gering and others may have believed in good faith that

SUPES offered access to the Broad curriculum and there was a benefit to maintaining coherence

in the second year of training, see Gering Interview at 5, their efforts must also be viewed through

the lens of the pressure placed on them by their boss to get the job done. It was also done without

any knowledge of the benefits that Solomon had promised to Byrd-Bennett. And as discussed

above, while procurement removed a portion of the contract that it felt was suitable for an RFP,

reducing the proposed $2.55 million contract to $2.09 million, Solomon made sure to get the full

amount in the end.

IV. Solomons corruption did not end with the October 2012 contract.

Nothing changed in the corrupt bargain struck between Solomon and Byrd-Bennett in the

spring of 2012. Byrd-Bennett expected to be compensated for contracts awarded to SUPES at

CPS, including the $20.5 million contract, and Solomon expected to pay her that compensation

10
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 12 of 14 PageID #:1582

when she returned to SUPES. As set forth in the Governments Version and the Governments

Sentencing Memorandum, there was no limit to Solomons efforts to exploit Byrd-Bennetts

position within CPS to his financial benefit. The initial agreement evolved from a ten-percent

kick-back on contracts awarded to the SUPES Entities as CPS to bank accounts and a signing

bonus worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. There was no time limit, there was no dollar limit.

Solomon and Vranas acted accordingly.

The SUPES Academys development fund showed consistent deposits related to CPS

from November 2012 to February 2014. See SUPES General Ledger entries for future

developments, attached hereto as Exhibit J. As Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities

admitted in their plea agreements, they deposited payments received from CPS and other entities

into this account for use, in part, to pay Byrd-Bennett kickbacks when she returned to SUPES.

These entries show approximately $586,000 in entries that specifically referenced CPS.

Consistent with Vranass and Byrd-Bennetts pleas, these entries also show that the corrupt

agreement, the bribery and kickback scheme, encompassed the $20.5 million contract, as well as

any other contracts and business that Byrd-Bennett assisted Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES

Entities in obtaining at CPS.

V. Sentences in other corruption cases call for a sentence of 108 months imprisonment
for Solomon.

At the outset, the government recognizes that it is difficult to determine a courts reasoning

for imposing a particular sentence from a judgement and commitment order. Each defendant

presents a unique set of sentencing considerations, from their history and characteristics, conduct

in aggravation and mitigation, and circumstances of the offense of conviction for the court to

consider. Like so many public corruption defendants, Solomon has a family that has suffered as

11
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 13 of 14 PageID #:1583

a result of his conduct. Like so many public corruption defendants, Solomon has numerous letters

of support from individuals who speak favorably of Solomon as a person and the kindnesses he

has shown them. Like so many public corruption defendants, Solomon acted out of greed, not

out of necessity. He had the skills, opportunities, and connections to promote his business

honestly and ethically. He chose otherwise. While sentences in similar cases may inform and

guide the Courts decision in order to avoid unwarranted sentencing disparities, none of the cases

identified by Solomon call for a below-Guidelines sentence.

From a purely statistical perspective, the statistical analysis provided by Solomon

regarding sentences of non-public officials convicted of offenses in which 2C1.1 applied and

resulted in a total offense level of between 29 and 31 established that Solomon should receive a

Guidelines sentence. See Def. Exhibit 15 at 6. While the vast majority of cases involved below-

Guidelines sentences, the vast majority of those defendants received government-sponsored

below-range sentences. That is not the case here. Of the 49% of defendants who did not receive

government-sponsored below range sentences, the majority 28% received within range

sentences. Id.

Based on the information provided in the report (and assuming its accuracy), the analysis

was based on federal sentences imposed throughout the country. Chicago and its history of

corruption are unique, however. Well-publicized and recent cases of high-level corruption in

Chicago and the State of Illinois should have given Solomon pause. Instead, Solomon was simply

more clever than so many corrupt individuals who came before him. He waited to pay out on his

corrupt bargain. He enjoyed the fruits of his corruption while leaving no trail of cash in Byrd-

Bennetts hand or in her bank accounts to be discovered. Solomon may have comforted himself

12
 Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 96 Filed: 03/13/17 Page 14 of 14 PageID #:1584

with the thought that he was not a governor or alderman or public official, but he profited far more

handsomely than most convicted of public corruption offenses. He received millions of dollars

from this fraud while only having to promise to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars. In the end,

he never had to pay out that money.

Moreover, Solomons advisory Guidelines range could be significantly higher, as the Court

could consider the earnings of the SUPES Entities as part of its calculation of the offense level.

The Guidelines range is now calculated based only on the estimated funds received by Solomon

and Vranas as a result of their corruption. No further reduction is warranted.

The government agrees with Solomon that this is not a typical honest services bribery case.

It is significantly worse. It involved the highest-level public official at CPS. It involved

defrauding a victim that struggles to find and provide the financial resources to fully educate inner-

city students. It involved a corrupt process from beginning to end. A sentence of 108 months

imprisonment fully accounts for all factors in aggravation and mitigation of Solomons sentence.

It is a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary.

VI. Conclusion

For the reasons set forth above and in its prior submissions, the government respectfully

requests that the Court impose a sentence of 108 months imprisonment.

13