Government Solomon Sentencing

Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 91 Filed: 03/01/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1546
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 CONSOLIDATED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM
Dated: March 1, 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
I am sorry that you are feeling like we did something wrong with the AG
[Inspector General for the Chicago Board of Education] stuff
I too have thought of this, and outside of a couple little tiny things, we did not
do anything different than any other vendor under the sun. Looking back,
perhaps we should not have pushed a three year deal, but other than that, I have
few regrets of [sic] concerns over the way we dealt with everything.
You did an amazing job nurturing the perfect storm and have a great sense of
right and wrong.so I do not want you to feel to [sic] badly, or guilty about
anything. If there is anything I can do, please let me know.
September 4, 2013 Email from Gary Solomon to Tom Vranas, GV Exhibits at 122.
In September of 2013, Gary Solomon knew that he was under investigation by the Inspector
General of the Chicago Board of Education. Solomon, along with Thomas Vranas, The SUPES
Academy, LLC, and Synesi Associates, LLC, had offered bribes and kickbacks to Barbara Byrd-
Bennett, the CEO of the Chicago Public Schools, in exchange for steering lucrative CPS contracts
their way. Once the Inspector General made his investigation known to Solomon, Vranas, and
the SUPES Entities, Solomon and Vranas actively obstructed the investigation by deleting
incriminating emails and providing false and misleading information. Solomon had few regrets
about all they had done, however. He chose to play dirty, and he justified it in his own mind that
it was the way business was done.
Solomon was not operating in simply any business environment: he was a vendor to public
school systems. He and the SUPES Entities claimed that they helped struggling school districts,
school districts that needed leadership and professional development training for their
administration and teachers. Instead, he helped bring a corrupt leader into the Chicago Public
Schools to serve his own interests, not the interests of the students, not the interests of the teachers,
1
not the interests of the City that relies on its school system to prepare the next generation of
citizens. He brought corruption into the classroom of the Chicago Public Schools in order to line
his own pockets. He must be held fully accountable.
To account for Solomons corruption and his lack of true remorse; to send a message to
individuals and companies doing business with the Chicago Public Schools, the City of Chicago,
and every other unit of state and local government; to send a message to public officials who work
for the residents and taxpayers in Chicago and throughout Illinois; to avoid unwarranted sentencing
disparities, and to fully give effect to the purposes of sentencing, the government respectfully
requests that the Court sentence Solomon to 108 months imprisonment, which is the low-end of
the advisory Guidelines range. The government further requests that the Court impose sentences
of two years probation for The SUPES Academy, LLC and Synesi Associates, LLC.
I. Solomons Corrupt Scheme
As set forth in the Presentence Investigation Report, the Governments Version of the
Offense, and the exhibits attached to the Governments Version, following a career in education
and public school administration, Barbara Byrd-Bennett was a paid consultant for The SUPES
Academy, Synesi Associates, and by relation and by contract, PROACT Search, beginning in
2011. Gary Solomon and Thomas Vranas owned and operated the three SUPES Entities. When
Byrd-Bennett became a consultant for the Chicago Public Schools in May of 2012, however, she
failed to leave behind her work and compensation arrangements with Solomon, Vranas, and the
SUPES Entities. Byrd-Bennett instead used her positions at CPS to steer CPS contracts to
Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities in exchange for bribes and kickbacks to be paid
2
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.
Solomon was the mastermind of the corrupt arrangement: he offered to pay Byrd-Bennett
for contracts that she helped obtain as a CPS consultant for the SUPES Entities; he negotiated the
compensation arrangement with Byrd-Bennett; he directed Byrd-Bennett to push for contracts and
funding for the SUPES Entities; he managed the relationship of the SUPES Entities with Byrd-
Bennett; he helped to conceal the relationship from CPS by creating a letter that falsely purported
to terminate Byrd-Bennetts employment with the SUPES Entities; he intentionally led Byrd-
Bennett to believe that the SUPES Entities would pay her hundreds of thousands of dollars as a
signing bonus upon her return to the SUPES Entities in exchange for her assistance in obtaining
contracts with CPS; he gave Byrd-Bennett tickets, meals, and other private benefits; and he
suggested to Byrd-Bennett and Vranas that they delete emails once the CPS-OIG began its
investigation of this corrupt arrangement.
A. The Consulting Agreement
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.1
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
1
Contrary to Solomons assertions in his version, see PSR at 10, the government does not dispute that Solomon,
Vranas, and Byrd-Bennett were in the process of negotiating the Consulting Agreement prior to Byrd-Bennett
becoming a consultant for CPS in May 2012. To convince Byrd-Bennett to take the job with CPS, however, Solomon
told Byrd-Bennett that the Consulting Agreement applied to a contract with CPS for an expansion of the Chicago
Executive Leadership Academy (CELA).
3
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.
Vranas signed the Consulting Agreement on behalf of himself, Solomon, and the SUPES
Entities on May 29, 2012, nearly a month after Byrd-Bennetts 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.
The Consulting Agreement was only part of the stream of benefits that Solomon, Vranas,
and the SUPES Entities provided to Byrd-Bennet in exchange for her actions in her official CPS
capacity to steer contracts to the SUPES Entities. The honest services fraud scheme encompassed
numerous contracts, including those that were not ultimately awarded to the SUPES Entities, and
a variety of personal financial benefits that Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities gave and
promised to give to Byrd-Bennett. Solomons admission of only a portion of the honest services
fraud scheme and his unsubstantiated denials of the remainder of scheme further demonstrate that
he has not fully accepted responsibility for his conduct.
B. Solomon and his Co-Schemers Purposely Concealed from CPS the Future
Benefits, Including Employment, Promised to Byrd-Bennett.
In his version of the offense, which is repeated in the PSR, Solomon claims that he and
Byrd-Bennett were transparent about their prior and current working relationship and their clear
4
intent to have Bennett return in the future to SUPESs employ after her leave from SUPES.
Def. V. at 9-10. That is simply not true. There is no dispute that Byrd-Bennett was already well
known within CPS as a result of her work with SUPES and the Chicago Executive Leadership
Academy (CELA), and accordingly, that working relationship was a known commodity. The
future relationship, however, was purposely concealed from CPS.
Attached at GV Exhibits 38-41 are a series of emails between Solomon and Byrd-Bennett
in which Byrd-Bennett complained to Solomon that other companies for which she consulted were
terminating her consulting agreements due to the conflict of interest posed by her taking a position
with CPS when those entities did work with CPS. There was no such email between Byrd-
Bennett and Solomon. Instead, and attached at GV Exhibits 42, is a letter from Solomon to Byrd-
Bennett, dated April 30, 2012, that purported to terminate the consulting agreement. That letter
was false. Not only was the Consulting Agreement executed after the date of that letter; Solomon
explicitly told Byrd-Bennett that the Consulting Agreement was in effect for the expansion of
CELA.
Solomon understood that having Byrd-Bennett within the leadership of CPS would benefit
his bottom line. She was the main attraction of the SUPES Academys CELA, which
Organization A originally sponsored. Byrd-Bennett was his star, and he knew how to use her to
his advantage. He also knew that she was reluctant to even consider taking a job with CPS when
she was already enjoying the easier, highly lucrative lifestyle of an independent consultant. To
convince her to take the job with CPS, Solomon promised Byrd-Bennett that she would be
compensated in the form of 10% of the value of CELA expansion contract, and he repeated those
promises after Byrd-Bennett helped to secure the $2.09 million contract in October of 2012 and
5
the $450,000 settlement and contract extension. Solomon also told Byrd-Bennett that once she
was done with CPS, she would return to the SUPES Entities, go home to Ohio, and essentially get
paid significantly more money by the SUPES Entities for doing a lot less work. None of this was
disclosed to CPS.
C. The Honest Services Fraud Scheme Encompassed Numerous Contracts and

Official Actions Undertaken by Byrd-Bennett in Her Official CPS Capacity.
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
and kickbacks. Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities did not need to promise a specific
percentage of a contracts value to Byrd-Bennett in order to deprive CPS of Byrd-Bennetts honest
services there was no need for an explicit quid pro quo as to a percentage of the contract, as
argued by Solomon. See, e.g., Ryan v. United States, 688 F.3d 845, 852 (7th Cir. 2012). Rather,
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-Bennetts efforts to secure business at CPS for Synesis school turn-around
program and her pushing of Vendor A to sponsor CELA were part of the scheme to defraud.
Solomons unsupported claim that the scheme only involved the $2.09 million contract is belied
by the evidence.
Byrd-Bennett and Vranas each confirmed that the honest services fraud scheme
encompassed Byrd-Bennetts efforts to secure the $2.09 million contract; the $450,000 settlement
6
and extension; and the $20.5 million three-year, sole source contract. Byrd-Bennett and Vranas
acknowledged that scheme also encompassed Byrd-Bennetts efforts to secure contracts for Synesi
with CPS, as well as pushing Vendor A to sponsor SUPES. In exchange for Byrd-Bennetts
efforts to steer contracts to the SUPES Entities, Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities
provided a steady flow of personal financial benefits to Byrd-Bennett, including meals, an airplane
ticket, and tickets to sporting events, and the agreement to provide Byrd-Bennett with lucrative
compensation as a consultant to the SUPES Entities upon the completion of her employment with
CPS. Byrd-Bennett and Vranas explicitly acknowledged this arrangement, as well as Solomons
direct involvement, in their interviews and plea agreements. Byrd-Bennets and Vranass
admissions are corroborated by email correspondence, some of which was included with the
Governments Version.
For example, on June 15, 2012, Byrd-Bennett sent an email to Solomon and copied Vranas,
and in reference to the CELA expansion, said, I will work hard to get us this and expanded
work[.] GV Exhibits at 58. On June 25, 2012, Solomon informed Byrd-Bennett that we won
PG County[,] and she responded, YEAH!!!! Get my grand kids account started (: I am so
pumped.We will get LAUSD[.] We will get DeKalb and we will get something in Orange
County and expansions in CPS[.] GV Exhibits at 61. On June 27, 2012, Solomon informed
Byrd-Bennett, I just got the call that we won St. Louis. GV Exhibits at 64. There was no
confusion that we, in reference to SUPES, included Byrd-Bennett.2
2
It is worth noting that each of these discussions included reference to contracts that were not won until after Byrd-
Bennett was already a consultant for CPS. Solomons claim that the corrupt arrangement to conceal past-due
compensation arose in order to avoid jeopardizing SUPES ongoing work with CPS (see PSR at 37) is belied by
these emails: the arrangement preexisted these contracts. While Byrd-Bennett had worked to secure these contracts
prior to joining CPS as a consultant, there was no money owed on these contracts prior to April 2012. Solomon
incentivized Byrd-Bennett to join CPS with the promise of paying her for contracts that she secured for the SUPES
7
In July of 2012, Solomon forwarded to Byrd-Bennett information regarding a request for
proposal issued by CPS for School Quality Standards and Review Services, see GV Exhibits 66-
68, Byrd-Bennett asked, Question? We are applying yes? Solomon responded, Yes. No
doubt. The babies need a college fund. Id. As with the $20.5 million contract, there was no
explicit agreement as to the percentage of the contract Byrd-Bennett would receive for helping to
secure this contract. Solomon understood and acknowledged, however, that Byrd-Bennetts
assistance required the same arrangement: compensation to Byrd-Bennett concealed in accounts
for the benefit of her relatives. He later reminded Byrd-Bennett to look at their RFP response for
the quality reviews, stating, That may have significant value. GV Exhibits at 74.
After the CBOE approved $2.09 million contract and $450,000 settlement, Byrd-Bennett
asked Solomon about the money owed to her for steering contracts to SUPES and directed
Solomon to deposit the money into accounts for her relatives. Again, Byrd-Bennetts email to
Solomon did not limit the scheme to the $2.09 million contract and $450,000 settlement and
expansion, she included her efforts on behalf of Synesi and asked whether the same terms applied:
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, right? GV Exhibits at 94.
Solomon expressed no confusion in response:
Like we have discussed, we have created accounts that, upon withdrawal, we

will pay down the taxes and distribute. You can distribute to the boys as you
deem appropriate. It is our assumption that the distribution will serve as a
signing bonus upon your return to SUPES/Synesi. If you only join for the day,
you will be the highest paid person on the planet for that day. Regardless, it
will be paid out on day one.
Entities.
8
GV Exhibits at 96.
On May 24, 2013, and in reference to the $20.5 million sole-source contract, Solomon
emailed Vranas, BBB just called to celebrate our sole sourcetaking it to the board in June. 3
year deal!!!!!!!!!! GV Exhibits at 105. On June 25, 2013, Solomon sent an email to Byrd-
Bennett regarding various individuals who could speak in favor of The SUPES Academy in order
to secure the CBOEs approval of the $20.5 million contract. Byrd-Bennett responded,
Thanks[.] I obviously have a very personal interest in our success. So much on so many levels
will be impacted now and in the future. GV Exhibits at 107.
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. There was no
confusion; there was no need for explicit discussions. As Byrd-Bennett and Vranas
acknowledged, Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities intended to compensate Byrd-Bennett
for her assistance in securing this contract. In August of 2012, Byrd-Bennett emailed Solomon,
Have my contract ready (: [.] GV Ex. at 111. Solomon responded, Ready and waiting.
Always on my desk.
D. Solomon and the SUPES Entities Were Enriched at the Expense of the Chicago
Public Schools.
Although Byrd-Bennett received personal financial benefits, including tickets and meals,
during the course of the scheme, she never received any payments or kickbacks from the contracts
that CPS awarded to the SUPES Entities. Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities, in contrast,
grew rich at the expense of the Chicago Public Schools. While maintaining homes in the suburbs
9
and in Michigan and saving for his own childrens college tuitions, see GV Exhibits at 62, Solomon
and his co-schemers defrauded CPS, its teachers, and its students.
In his version and repeated in his PSR, Solomon argues that Byrd-Bennett should be
described as engineering the scheme because she aggressively and repeatedly pursued Solomon
for a firm commitment to the bribe scheme. Def. V. at 19, PSR at 51. There is no doubt that
Byrd-Bennett sought assurances from Solomon that he was living up to his end of the bribe
scheme. She admitted as much. See Byrd-Bennett Grand Jury Testimony at GV Exhibits 144-
145. Byrd-Bennett expected to receive hundreds of thousands of dollars, and she acted
accordingly. And she will be held accountable by this Court for her involvement in this corrupt
scheme. While Byrd-Bennett was waiting for the payday that Solomon had promised, the SUPES
Entities amassed profits of more than $10 million from CPS. See GV Exhibits at 270. Solomon
and Vranas personally received and converted to their own use millions of dollars in profits as a
result of this corrupt scheme. Their actions directly and immediately benefitted themselves and
the SUPES Entities, which they controlled.
As reflected in the PSR, Solomons income grew exponentially during the course of this
scheme until he was indicted in 2015: his IRS Forms 1040 Schedule E showed self-employment
earnings in connection with The SUPES Academy for the years 2011 through 2015 of $221,038,
$631,541, $1,913,710, $2,722,706, and $195,454. PSR at 27. These earnings are consistent
with the approximately $16.2 million in invoices from The SUPES Academy to CPS between July
30, 2012 and May 1, 2015. See Chicago Public Schools Total Revenue per Profitability
Summary, Job Profitability Summary, attached as GV Exhibits 269, 270, respectively. No other
entity came close to the value of the contracts between CPS and the SUPES Entities. The next
10
closest school district (Rochester City School District) had contracts generating approximately
$1.9 million. See GV Exhibits 270. In total, Solomon and Vranas personally received payments
of more than $2.9 million in connection with the SUPES Entities contracts with CPS. See
SUPES Academy, LLC Job Actual Cost Detail, attached at GV Exhibit 245-268. According to
the IRS Schedules K-1 for The SUPES Academy, LLC, The SUPES Academy made partnership
capital account distributions in the amounts of approximately $1.2 million, $1.4 million, and
$886,966 to Solomon, and $604,716, $1.046 million, and $654,259 to Vranas during the years
2013 to 2015 respectively. See The SUPES Academy, LLC PSR at 77. Solomon and Vranas
are well able to afford the relatively minor restitution payment that was specifically calculated
based the agreed bribe payment of 10% of the $2.09 million contract and the related $450,000
settlement and extension. Byrd-Bennett received tickets and dinners and the promise of future
payments. She is joint and severally liable for the total amount of restitution, as well, but she did
not grow rich from this scheme.
Solomon has already paid one third of the amount of the $254,000 in restitution for which
each of the defendants, including the SUPES Entities, are joint and severally liable. He, Vranas,
and the SUPES Entities received millions and millions of dollars by virtue of their crimes.
Solomon made more money than anyone else, yet he is trying to apportion blame and economic
responsibility equally to deflect attention from his dominating role in the scheme. He profited the
most from this corruption, and he should pay the most.
Moreover, Solomon and Vranas took for themselves and paid other individuals they
deemed more deserving than the Chicago Public Schools any remaining funds in the SUPES
Entities bank accounts, reducing the funds available for restitution payments or the payment of a
11
fine by the SUPES Entities. See PSRs for The SUPES Academy, LLC and Synesi Associates,
LLC at 78-81 and 79-82, respectively. The SUPES Entities are now defunct. Despite the fact
that the SUPES Entities are co-defendants and joint and severally liable for restitution, despite the
fact that they had the ability to pay a fine and that The SUPES Academy had more than $1.6
million in one of its bank accounts as of the end of 2014, they have no funds. Again, Solomon
made a business decision for his companies to take that money for its officers Solomon and
Vranas and its contractual employees. Id. The PSRs contains no detail regarding to which of
the SUPES Entities contractual employees it paid or the amounts of payments, but the Court
should consider these business decisions that Solomon and Vranas made while this case was
pending in fashioning an appropriate sentence.
II. Applicable Guidelines Range
The government agrees with the U.S. Probation Officers calculation of the advisory
Guidelines range for Solomon and the SUPES Entities.
A. Solomon
Based on a total offense level of 31 and a criminal history category of I, the advisory range
is 108 months to 135 months of imprisonment. The government requests that the Court impose
a sentence of 108 months imprisonment, a sentence that is sufficient but not greater than necessary
to accomplish the purposes of sentencing.
B. The SUPES Academy and Synesi Associates
The government agrees with the Probation Officers calculation that the advisory Guideline
Fine Range is $4,640,000 to $9,280,000. The government requests that the Court impose a term
of two-years probation for each of the now defunct entities.
12
III. For Solomon, a Sentence of 108 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
For several years, Solomon and his co-schemers, including the SUPES Entities, schemed
to defraud and to obtain money and property from the Chicago Public Schools. As set forth above
and in the other sentencing materials, Solomon was at the helm of the corrupt agreement: he came
up with the idea of paying Byrd-Bennett for steering CPS contracts to the SUPES Entities; he
convinced her to take a job with CPS; he managed the relationship with Byrd-Bennett, stroking
her ego and offering constant support and direction; he initially failed to disclose the corrupt
agreement to Vranas, his partner, but later included him in the corrupt agreement in order to
accomplish its objectives of receiving contracts with CPS; and he enriched himself at the expense
of the Chicago Public Schools. He knew that what he was doing was wrong at the time, but he
chose to perpetrate this fraud scheme out of greed. He justified his corruption as doing business
as usual. And then when he was caught, when the Inspector General for the Chicago Board of
Education launched its investigation, Solomon, along with Byrd-Bennett and Vranas, chose to
obstruct the investigation by deleting emails and misrepresenting information to the IG. His
sentence must account for this.
B. History and Characteristics of the Defendant
Solomon has no criminal history or history of addiction. He is well educated. For years
he has maintained steady, lucrative employment. He had a normal upbringing and is close to his
family. He has numerous letters of support from friends and colleagues. These are all traits
common among defendants in public corruption cases. Solomon would not have been in the
13
position to commit this massive fraud scheme without these positive attributes. And these
positive attributes are not what bring Solomon before the Court for sentencing. Instead, he chose
to swindle CPS with its CEO. He chose to offer money and other personal financial benefits to
Byrd-Bennet to get contracts and to get rich. His numerous acts of corruption, deceit, and
obstruction were not the result of a momentary lapse in judgment. They were not isolated acts
constituting aberrant behavior. Instead, they were part of a pattern of corruption that he engaged
in over an extended period of time.
Moreover, the letters of support submitted by Solomon to the Court show that Solomon
may again have opportunities within businesses where he might be in the position to commit
further crimes such as the one for which he was convicted. While he may claim that he has
learned his lesson now, his history and characteristics are such that he should never have become
a criminal defendant in the first instance. His sentence must account for this.
C. Additional ' 3553(a) Factors
The government recognizes that a sentence of 108 months imprisonment is a significant
sentence, particularly for a defendant with no prior criminal history. It is a sentence that is
sufficient but not greater than necessary to account for all of the goals of sentencing, however.
Such a sentence reflects the seriousness of the offense, promotes respect for the law, and provides
just punishment. It provides specific and general deterrence, and it avoids unwarranted
sentencing disparities.
1. Seriousness of the Offense, Respect for the Law, Just Punishment, and
Deterrence
The Court is aware of the sad history of corruption in this city and in this state. That
history includes significant sentences for individuals who, like Solomon, engaged in bribery and
14
honest services fraud. None of those sentences was sufficient to deter Solomon from committing
his crimes. Like so many other defendants, he simply thought that he would not get caught.
Unique to Solomon, however, were his position and foresight to help install the high-level public
official, beholden to him, at the very entity with which he was doing business and hoping to expand
his business. He was not simply passing an envelope of cash to get what he wanted from the
public official. His corruption was sophisticated, it was at the core of his business plan and
agreements, and it was nearly undetectable: the cash would only change hands after Byrd-Bennett
left CPS.
It is notable that Solomon has many letters of support from individuals who speak in
glowing terms of Solomon as a co-worker, a friend, and leader within the education industry.
Many of the writers describe Solomons crimes as misdeeds, a lapse in judgment, mistakes,
or an error in judgment. These euphemisms minimize the seriousness of Solomons corruption
and demonstrate the need for a significant sentence to deter others from engaging in such
corruption. Many of these writers work within the public education industry. Even the attorney
who represented the SUPES Entities in connection with the Inspector Generals investigation,
when Solomon, Vranas, and the SUPES Entities actively obstructed justice by deleting emails and
providing false information to the Inspector General, claims that he has accepted responsibility
and asks for leniency. There are claims that it was the media attention that destroyed Solomons
businesses and ruined his finances. Solomons sentence must leave no doubt that it was Solomon,
his co-schemers, their choices, and their crimes that caused these effects.
There are also requests for leniency, requests that Solomons sentence focus more on
community service and helping youths than imprisonment. The Court should reject these request
15
for leniency. It is particularly offensive that Solomon and his co-schemers committed their
crimes within the public education industry. The financial struggles the Chicago Public Schools
are a near-constant headline in Chicagos newspapers, and students within CPS often encounter
numerous hurdles in their pursuit of an education. Solomon and his co-schemers brought this
corruption into their classrooms, diverting funds available for other school and student needs into
their pockets by virtue of their corrupt scheme.
Finally, 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. That so many high-level public
officials received significant sentences before and during Solomons crimes further demonstrates
that this Court must reaffirm in its sentencing of Solomon that corruption will not be tolerated and
will be severely punished.
2. Avoiding Unwarranted Sentence Disparities
Section 3553(a)(6) notes that in fashioning a sentence, the court shall consider Athe need to
avoid unwarranted sentence disparities among defendants with similar records who have been
found guilty of similar conduct.@ Although Solomon and his co-defendants are equally culpable
in terms of their overall conduct and involvement in this scheme, differences in their sentences are
warranted.
As set forth in its plea agreements with Byrd-Bennett and Vranas, the government
anticipates making 5K1.1 motions for downward departures from the applicable advisory
Guidelines range due to their substantial assistance. If the Court grants the governments
16
motions, the government will request that the Court impose a sentence of 89 months imprisonment
for Byrd-Bennett. Byrd-Bennetts advisory Guidelines range is two levels higher than
Solomons, pursuant to Guidelines 2C1.1(a)(1), because she was a public official. The
government anticipates requesting a sentence of approximately 39 months imprisonment for
Vranas.
Unlike Solomon, Byrd-Bennett and Vranas cooperated with the government, truthfully
providing information regarding their own criminal conduct and the criminal conduct of their co-
schemers. The government acknowledges that Byrd-Bennett lied to FBI agents when they first
approached her in April of 2015, when agents were executing search warrants in various locations,
including Byrd-Bennetts residence in Ohio, as well as the SUPES Entities offices. She also lied
and minimized her conduct in her initial proffer with the government. She then acknowledged
those lies, admitted her criminal conduct, participated in numerous proffers with the government,
and testified before the grand jury in an unprotected statement in June of 2015, prior to Solomons
or Vranass first proffers. She cooperated first, and she cooperated fully.
Solomon and Vranas were made aware of the governments investigation on the same day
as Byrd-Bennett. The government informed their counsel that each had an opportunity to
cooperate. They waited for months, until alerted to an impending indictment, before attempting
proffers with the government. Vranas chose to be truthful in his proffers; Solomon chose
otherwise.
In his proffers, Vranas readily acknowledged his criminal conduct and truthfully related
information regarding Solomon and Byrd-Bennett, including by confirming that he deleted
inculpatory emails as a result of the IGs investigation, and that he did so in consultation with
17
Solomon. Moreover, and consistent with the governments evidence, Vranas was not involved
in the honest services fraud scheme from its initiation. Instead, Solomon and Byrd-Bennett kept
their corrupt agreement to themselves. Once Vranas recognized the corrupt agreement, however,
he joined in the agreement and worked to further its objectives of obtaining contracts at CPS
through Byrd-Bennetts use and abuse of her official position in exchange for future employment
and a signing bonus.
Solomon proffered with the government on approximately four occasions. He provided
some information that was credible and supported by evidence. He was also untruthful in certain
respects, particularly regarding his own conduct. The government investigated certain
allegations made by Solomon, which delayed indictment and ultimately were unsupported by
credible evidence. While there is no doubt that Solomon was under significant stress due to his
fathers serious health condition, he chose to misrepresent and minimize his own conduct during
his proffers; and he misled the government regarding criminal activity purportedly committed by
others. Even now, Solomon disputes the scope of the scheme and the significance of his role.
He is not entitled to any further reduction to the advisory guidelines range for acceptance of
responsibility; he is entitled to no reduction for proffering with the government.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the government respectfully requests that the Court impose
a sentence of 108 months imprisonment as to Solomon. The government further requests that the
Court impose a sentence of two years probation as to The SUPES Academy, LLC and Synesi
Associates, LLC.
18

Government Solomon Sentencing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Government Solomon Sentencing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case: 1:15-cr-00620 Document #: 91 Filed: 03/01/17 Page 1 of 19 PageID #:1546

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

GOVERNMENT=S CONSOLIDATED SENTENCING MEMORANDUM

Dated: March 1, 2017 Respectfully submitted,

s/ Megan Cunniff Church

it was the way business was done.

his own pockets. He must be held fully accountable.

I. Solomons Corrupt Scheme

investigation of this corrupt arrangement.

A. The Consulting Agreement

he has not fully accepted responsibility for his conduct.

future relationship, however, was purposely concealed from CPS.

C. The Honest Services Fraud Scheme Encompassed Numerous Contracts and

percentage of a contracts value to Byrd-Bennett in order to deprive CPS of Byrd-Bennetts honest

confusion that we, in reference to SUPES, included Byrd-Bennett.2

In July of 2012, Solomon forwarded to Byrd-Bennett information regarding a request for

assistance required the same arrangement: compensation to Byrd-Bennett concealed in accounts

Solomon expressed no confusion in response:

Like we have discussed, we have created accounts that, upon withdrawal, we

will be impacted now and in the future. GV Exhibits at 107.

the SUPES Entities, which they controlled.

not grow rich from this scheme.

most from this corruption, and he should pay the most.

pending in fashioning an appropriate sentence.

II. Applicable Guidelines Range

Guidelines range for Solomon and the SUPES Entities.

to accomplish the purposes of sentencing.

B. The SUPES Academy and Synesi Associates

of two-years probation for each of the now defunct entities.

A. Nature and Circumstances of the Offenses

sentence must account for this.

B. History and Characteristics of the Defendant

in over an extended period of time.

C. Additional ' 3553(a) Factors

The government recognizes that a sentence of 108 months imprisonment is a significant

or an error in judgment. These euphemisms minimize the seriousness of Solomons corruption

their pockets by virtue of their corrupt scheme.

will be severely punished.

2. Avoiding Unwarranted Sentence Disparities

government anticipates requesting a sentence of approximately 39 months imprisonment for

information regarding Solomon and Byrd-Bennett, including by confirming that he deleted

and a signing bonus.

Solomon proffered with the government on approximately four occasions. He provided

responsibility; he is entitled to no reduction for proffering with the government.

You might also like