| Blogs |
| Home Why This Website SDCOE CVESD Castle Park Elem Law Enforcement CTA CVE Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz Silence is Golden Schools and Violence Office Admin Hearings Larkins OAH Hearing |
| Capistrano Unified School District |
| May 19, 2009 teachers union CUEA letter to board re hiring of Keenan and Associates as insurance carrier |
| The Capistrano Dispatch "The Capistrano Unified School District board of trustees approved the contract for Superintendent A. Woodrow Carter on June 2, but not before three trustees walked out in protest. "The contract passed 4-0 after trustees Ellen Addonizio, Larry Christensen and Anna Bryson left. "... the board voted to rescind the contract it had approved February 25, based on legal counsel from Mark Bresee of the Orange County Department of Education. "The rescinded contract had garnered controversy after claims that a “golden parachute” was later inserted without board approval, violating the Brown Act. [Maura Larkins' note: It looks like Mark Bresee is taking lessons from San Diego's Homero Suarez, who changed his own contract. The GCCCD board approved, and offered Suarez indemnification for any wrongdoing past or future.] "...Though Carter signed the contract, he is not accepting the full amount of $273,000 annually... he would be back-paid if and when he decides to accept the contracted amount..." [More about Capistrano School District] |
| CUSD Superintendent Accepts Pay By Lacey Nadeau San Clemente Times Jun 6, 2008 “What matters is what you do tonight to correct and address all of that,” Bresee told the board..." "...The approval of the new contract, which does not include the above phrase, passed June 2 with only four votes, as trustees Ellen Addonizio, Larry Christensen and Anna Bryson walked out of the meeting. Christensen excused himself after saying he wasn’t comfortable voting and feared the board was in violation of the Brown Act. Addonizio expressed frustration that the contract the trustees rescinded wasn’t the contract with the controversial phrase... |
| Prosecutors: Capistrano school board violated state law The board broke open-meeting laws when it gave its superintendent a raise at a closed meeting, but it won't be subjected to litigation because the district is in financial turmoil. Los Angeles Times By Stuart Pfeifer September 11, 2008 The Capistrano Unified School District board violated state law by awarding a pay raise to its superintendent at a meeting closed to the public, the Orange County district attorney's office has concluded. The vote earlier this year on the pay raise marked the latest in a series of alleged violations of California's open-meeting laws by the Capistrano school district board of trustees, according to the district attorney's report, which was made public Tuesday. Prosecutors in the Sept. 2 report said they would not pursue sanctions against the beleaguered district because the board later rescinded the pay raise and because the district is having financial difficulties. |
At its Feb. 25 meeting, trustees met in closed session and voted to award a
$58,000 pay raise to Superintendent A. Woodrow Carter and then failed to
disclose their decision in a public meeting, according to a letter to the district
signed by William J. Feccia, a senior assistant district attorney.
In addition, Carter signed a contract that provided him with $400,000 in
severance pay if the board fired him, even though the board did not discuss
such a benefit, Feccia concluded. Rather, the severance clause "appeared" on
the contract without the board's approval, Feccia said in the letter.
Capistrano schools trustees rescinded Carter's pay raise June 2 after a public
outcry about the manner in which it was awarded.
In its investigation of the pay raise, prosecutors listened to a recording of the
closed-door Feb. 25 meeting. The recordings revealed "a disturbing disdain, if
not outright contempt, on the part of some members of the [board] for public
opinion and their own constituents," Feccia wrote.
Two of the board members who voted to award the pay raise were recalled
from office June 24 and replaced by trustees who pledged to follow
open-meeting laws.
Before that recall, the district attorney's office had "seriously considered"
initiating legal proceedings against the board, Feccia wrote. Prosecutors
decided not to do that because the litigation would create a financial burden
for the district at a time of financial turmoil and because a new majority on the
board has promised to follow open-meeting laws.
stuart.pfeifer@latimes.com