Del Mar Union School District News: April 2010

Friday, April 30, 2010

The spiking of McClain's pension - in their own words

DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
NOTICE OF SPECIAL BOARD MEETING
BY THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES

February 24, 2010
3:00 pm

Del Mar Hills Academy
14085 Mango Drive
Del Mar, CA 92014

Excerpted from the agenda:

February 24, 2010

To:	Board Members
From:	Comischell Rodriguez, President, Board of Trustees
Through:	Dr. Sharon McClain, Superintendent
Subject:	Agenda Item 10: Board Discussion/Approval, Contract between Sharon L. McClain, Ed.D and the DMUSD Board of Trustees

It has come to the Board's attention that district staff have been unable to implement a provision in Superintendent McClain's contract reported revised on June 17, 2009. The Board firmly believes that all District employees should receive prompt payment of all benefits.

To determine what the issues are, and what Board action may be necessary, the Board has placed a discussion of Superintendent McClain's current contract on the agenda. By law, any discussion about the contract must occur in open session. Through this discussion the Board hopes to clear up any issues related to implementing all provisions of the contract.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Cost - Dena Whittington will be available to calculate the fiscal impact based on revisions to the original contract.
Program or Department - Unrestricted General Fund
Is this a Restricted Program? No
Was this expenditure anticipated in the adopted budget? Yes, budget for superintendent's total compensation based on original contract.
Will this Program or Department be over budget after this expenditure? No, if changes are within total compensation oforiginal contract.

RECOMMENDED:

The Superintendent recommends the Board discuss and take any necessary action.

Below is audio from the February 24 public meeting. This is the full unedited audio from the DMUSD website in its entirety, the player resides on this site but the audio is being streamed from DMUSD's site. Alternately you can download the audio from the DMUSD site and listen to it in the player of your choice.

(3:32:42) Full unedited board meeting audio from dmusd.org

This is the exact wording of the contract amendment requested by Sharon McClain, as read by Katherine White at the Board meeting.

(01:21) Contract amendment read by Katherine White

This is Katherine White reading the letter Sharon McClain wrote to request the contract amendment.

(00:56) Request language

These are Dena Whittington's comments from the meeting where she discusses sending the amendment to CalSTRS and CalSTRS' response.

(01:34) Dena Whittington's comments

This is a compilation of Sharon McClain's comments during the discussion of her contract amendment.

(05:16)Sharon McClain's comments

This is a compilation of Board member comments regarding the reasons that they hadn't yet implemented the changes to Sharon McClain's contract.

(05:13) Board members explaining the delay in implementing the contract amendment

This is the public comment portion of the contract discussion segment.

(01:47) Public comment

This is an edited clip of the entire portion of the meeting where McClain's contract was discussed, edited only to remove long pauses, any other deletions, if any, are unintentional.

(31:42) Board meeting contract amendment discussion

More information:

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Attorney fires back over McClain case

Source: Del Mar Times
By Marsha Sutton

A letter from Dale Gronemeier, attorney for former Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Sharon McClain, to DMUSD Board of Trustees attorney Daniel Shinoff offered responses to a number of Shinoff's comments made in an interview published on DelMarTimes.net.

The letter, dated April 26, was "a demand on behalf of Dr. Sharon McClain" that Shinoff retract four "false and defamatory statements" made in that interview.

The first issue concerns the $16,000 payment the district was to make to California's State Teachers' Retirement System on behalf of McClain, and the ensuing dispute over a change in the language of this section of her contract.

Gronemeier objected to Shinoff's statement in the interview that "there is no paperwork to support a change in her contract."

"As you well know because [you] have received the document on multiple occasions, the Board of Education agreed on June 17, 2009 to the change proposed by Dr. McClain - but then after it hired you, the board's majority and you refused to acknowledge the board's action," Gronemeier wrote.

Gronemeier attached to his letter a copy of the minutes of the DMUSD's June 17, 2009, special board meeting that included item #5 which read: "Motion to approve revisions to contract between the Board of Trustees of the Del Mar Union School District and Sharon McClain, Ed.D." The motion was made by Katherine White, seconded by Comischell Rodriguez and passed unanimously. The contents and exact wording of the revision were not revealed in the minutes.

Related to the STRS issue, Gronemeier said Shinoff, by innuendo, blamed McClain "for the breakdown in settlement negotiations."

"As you well know," Gronemeier wrote, "settlement negotiations were sabotaged by the board majority because Dr. McClain made a settlement proposal and proposed a mediator to try to get the matter settled, but the board declined to even respond or further negotiate in response to her last settlement offer."

Gronemeier said these statements "have a defamatory sting because they attribute to Dr. McClain the conduct of demanding that the board do something it had not agreed to do."

Holding an open meeting

Gronemeier's second concern was Shinoff's statement that McClain "chose not to have those [charges against her] heard in open session despite the fact that she asked for an open session." This referred to the school board meeting on March 31 when she was fired.

But Gronemeier said McClain did ask for an open session in order to hear the charges against her. "The interactions which you attempt to mischaracterize as Dr. McClain choosing not to have the cause(s) heard in public arose from sneaky conduct on your part to which Dr. McClain objected," he wrote.

Gronemeier said Shinoff told McClain just before the meeting began that each party should be allowed to speak for 20 minutes. "A fair-minded person would have communicated this expectation in advance rather than trying to disadvantage his adversary by communicated [sic] it at the 11th hour," Gronemeier wrote.

Gronemeier said McClain had expected to speak for five minutes, a time limit to which Shinoff agreed just before the meeting began, at McClain's urging. But McClain's attorney said McClain still expected the charges to be delivered against her, in those five minutes, and was prepared "to respond to whatever you or the board majority had dreamed up. But Dr. McClain is not long-winded, and she knows that there is no valid cause to terminate her contract. So she would have had a short message if you had articulated the purported cause(s)."

He said this "has a defamatory sting" because it suggests "that Dr. McClain has something to hide and did not want the purported cause(s) part of the public record." It also relieves "the board majority and you of the responsibility of articulating them."

Cause for termination

Thirdly, Gronemeier said Shinoff implied that McClain "is lying about knowing the cause(s) for termination of her contract." McClain has responded "to every potential 'cause' to terminate her contract that you have drafted for the board majority ... by rebutting what was false in such documents and by remediating where there was even arguably anything to remediate," he wrote.

Gronemeier said she "was and is mystified as to what purported cause(s)" exist for terminating her. He said this "has a defamatory sting because it asserts that Dr. McClain is lying to the community" as to what her knowledge of the cause(s) may be.

Releasing invoices

Gronemeier's fourth point challenges Shinoff's statement that McClain's action to release Shinoff's invoices last December was a violation of the law.

In the April 15 interview, Shinoff said, "How could she who had retained a lawyer go through attorney-client communications and decide what she was going to release? She couldn't do that. She's not a lawyer."

Gronemeier said this comment was objectionable because McClain did not release the invoices on her own but had an attorney redact the invoice descriptions.

"Your invoices are a public record; the public is entitled to know the fees that are being paid to you," he wrote. "The invoices have no legend indicating that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege (nor are they nor would that insulate them from public disclosure)."

He said the invoices were available to Dr. McClain "in the ordinary course of her duties" and that "it is simply untrue that Dr. McClain violated any law by disclosing those invoices."

This too "has a defamatory sting because it asserts that Dr. McClain is breaking the law," Gronemeier wrote.

Damages

In conclusion, Gronemeier demanded retractions of Shinoff's statements. "They create liability for slander and conspiracy to libel for your client, for you and for your law firm," he wrote, adding that a retraction would not necessarily eliminate legal harm to McClain but that McClain "would prefer to avoid litigating these issues and would forego suing for the defamations if they are appropriately retracted."

The letter was sent to Shinoff, with copies to the five DMUSD board members, McClain and Marsha Sutton, who conducted the April 15 interview.

The complete letter, all eight pages, was posted on Facebook and a Del Mar blogspot site on April 27. McClain acknowledged she released the letter to a parent in the district.

Shinoff response

In response to Gronemeier's letter, Shinoff replied within one hour with the following terse message:

I have reviewed your letter of April 26, 2010, demanding that I retract statements that I made to the reporter for the Del Mar Times. The reporter correctly reported what I said and I am confident that I can prove the truth of every statement that I made to her.

I do not believe that you can show falsity in any statement, even by innuendo or implication. Further, I believe that a court would determine that Dr. McClain is a public figure and the discussion is of interest to the public, so you would have a very difficult time with a defamation action, even if there had been a factual misstatement. Finally, you would be subject to dismissal under the anti-SLAPP (strategic lawsuit against public participation) statute if you did proceed with litigation over the alleged defamation.

I will not agree to retract anything that I said to the press. I stand by both the words I said, and the gist of the words."

Gronemeier-Shinoff Demand Letter

Wednesday, April 28, 2010

More legal wrangling: Gronemeier-Shinoff Retraction Demand

The letter below has been passed around to various groups of DMUSD parents on Facebook and through e-mail.

It was written by Sharon McClain's attorney, Dale L Gronemeier, to DMUSD private counsel Dan Shinoff and Education columnist Marsha Sutton in response to Sutton's interview with Dan Shinoff published April 15 in the Carmel Valley News.

Source: Gronemeier-Shinoff Retraction Demand

April 26, 2010
Via e-mail and registered mail

Daniel R Shinoff, Esq.
Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz
2488 Historic Decatur Road, Suite 200
San Diego, California 92106-0113

Re: McClain re DelMar USD

Dear Mr. Shinoff:

This letter is a demand on behalf of Dr. Sharon McClain that you retract the following false and defamatory statement that you are recorded as making in your April 15, 2010, interview by Marsha Sutton that was published in the Del Mar Times on April 15, 2010:

False statements that the Board of Education did not agree to, and that there was no documentation to support. change §8-E of Dr. McClain's employment contract:

Ms. Sutton's transcript records you as saying for "the $16,000 issue" ¹ that "there is no paperwork to support a change in her contract," "there was nothing that indicated that there was action taken to increase her salary" and "that" ² wasn't what the board had in mind in any event. As you well know because have received the document on multiple occasions, the Board of Education agreed on June 17, 2009, to the change proposed by Dr. McClain - but then, after it hired you, the Board's majority, and you refused to acknowledge the Board's action. A copy of the minutes of that Board action is attached.

The foregoing false statements by you were made in a broader context of your falsely blaming Dr. McClain for the breakdown in settlement negotiations by your innuendo that she was, without justification, insisting that the Board implement the Board's June, 2007 [sic], action - most specifically reflected by your statements "...and she retained an attorney, and everything became predicated upon the board capitulating to this demand for a salary increase which had never been agreed to" and "there were all kinds of threats of litigation." As you well know, settlement negotiations were sabotaged by the Board majority because Dr. McClain made a settlement proposal and proposed a mediator to try to get the matter settled, but the Board declined to even respond or further negotiate in response to her last settlement offer.

These statements have a defamatory sting because they attribute to Dr. McClain the conduct of demanding that the Board do something it had not agreed to do in the broader context of your falsely asserting that Dr. McClain's insistence on doing so caused the breakdown of attempts to consensually resolve the issue.

False statements Ihat Dr. McClain refused to permit the expression by you and the Board of the asserted causes for her termination.

Ms. Sutton's transcript records you as saying [s]he chose not to have those heard in open session despite the fact that she asked for an open session - and "[s]he didn't want to have an open session to discuss the charges."³ Dr. McClain did not choose to prevent you from stating the grounds for termination, and she wanted an open session to discuss the charges. Dr. McClain formally communicated to the Board that she wanted the proceedings on March 31 in open session rather than closed session; she neither wrote anything rescinding that request nor orally stated that she wanted anything to occur in closed session. If you chose not to articulate the purported cause(s) for the Board majority's action, it was your unilateral choice to do so - presumably because you recognized the utter bankruptcy of the purported cause(s).

The interactions which you attempt to mischaracterize as Dr. McClain choosing not to have the cause(s) heard in public arose from sneaky conduct on your part to which Dr. McClain objected. Shortly before the proceedings began, you told her that you and she should speak for 20 minutes. A fair-minded person would have communicated this expectation in advance rather than trying to disadvantage his adversary by communicated it at the 11th hour. Dr. McClain took exception to your belated notification because she only expected to speak for around 5 minutes. She told you that she thought your belated notification of this expectation was wrong and that she only expected to speak for about 5 minutes. Having been challenged by her for you sharp practice, you responded by agreeing that you would only speak for 5 minutes. Dr. McClain said nothing indicating that you should not state the cause(s) by which the Board majority was purporting to terminate her contract. On the contrary, she expected you to state such cause(s) and to respond to whatever you or the Board majority had dreamed up. But Dr. McClain is not long-winded, and she knows that there is no valid cause to terminate her contract. So she would have had a short message if you had articulated the purported cause(s).

The foregoing false statement has a defamatory sting because it is made in the broader context of your interview responses suggesting that Dr. McClain has something to hide and did not want the purported cause(s) part of the public record. Your interview then makes conclusory assertions that Dr. McClain failed to comply with the law and failed to perform her job as Superintendent, implying there is substance to the cause(s) but relieving the Board majority and you of the responsibility of articulating them - all with the false innuendo Ihat Dr. McClain has something to hide.

False statement that Dr. McClain is lying about knowing the cause(s) for the termination of her contract.

Ms. Sutton's transcript records you as saying, with respect to the "charges," ⁴ "... I heard she said. 'I have no idea what they're talking about.' Well, that's just not true." But it is true. What Dr. McClain knows is that she has followed the contractual process of responding to every potential "cause" to terminate her contract that you have drafted for the Board majority by responding as required by the contract - i.e., by rebutting what was false in such documents and by remediating where there was even arguably anything to remediate. Dr. McClain is quite aware that you have been, since you were hired last summer, trying to create a paper-trail to justify the termination of her contract, but she is also quite aware that she has always appropriately responded pursuant to the provisions of the contract to each such attempt and that, after she has done so, the Board majority has not reasserted any such potential causes. So she was and is mystified as to what purported cause(s) the Board majority allegedly relies upon. Dr. McClain is therefore requesting that the Board majority communicate to her the purported cause(s) upon which it relies.

The foregoing false statemcnt has a defamatory sting becausc it asserts that Dr. McClain is lying to the community as to what her knowledge of the Board majority's purported cause(s).

The false assertion that Dr. McClain broke the-law by releasing your (redacted) invoices to the District.

Ms. Sutton's transcript records that she asked you "Was her releasing your invoices [last December] a violation of the law?" and that you responded "Yes." The invoice's descriptions were redacted - redacted by another attorney on behalf of the District and not by Dr. McClain. Redacting the invoices was not even necessary because the only information that would have been in them would be foundational information about the existence of a privileged communication, which is not privileged information. Your invoices are a public record; the public is entitled to know the fees that are being paid to you. The invoices have no legend indicating that they are protected by the attorney-client privilege (nor are they nor would that insulate them from public disclosure. The invoices were available to Dr. McClain in the ordinary course of her duties. Nothing was done by you or the Board majority to protect any arguable confidentiality until you were upset that the amount of your fees had been disclosed to the public. While I can understand that you are unhappy about the disclosure of how much your income has been fattened by this engagement to do the Board majority's dirty-work, it is simply untrue that Dr. McClain violated any law by disclosing those invoices.

The foregoing false statements were presumably made in the course of your representation of the Board of Education of the Del Mar Unified School District. They create liability for slander and conspiracy to libel for your client, for you, and for your law firm. Demand is made that you retract each and every one of them. While even a retraction would not necessarily eliminate the legal harm, Dr. McClain would prefer to avoid litigating these issues and would forego suing for the defamations if they are appropriately retracted. However, in the event they are not appropriately retracted, she reserves her legal remedies for defamation against your client, your firm, and you.

Sincerely yours,

GRONEMEIER & ASSOCIATES, P.C.

By Dale L. Gronemeier
Attorneys for Sharon McClain

cc: Board Members via e-mail
Marsha Sutton via e-mail
Client via e-mail

Enclosure

"The $16,000 issue" refers to paying the sum in §8-E, initially specified for a non-STRS retirement account designated by Dr. McClain, in salary instead, minus the District's STRS contribution so that the amended amount would be revenue neutral for the District.
"That" refers to the $16,000 issue.
There are other prefatory statements in response to the same question "[I]s there more to it than that issue" that mischaracterize the interactions between you and Dr. McClain at the March 31 Board meeting for the purpose of supporting this defamatory statement.
The "charges" refer to the Board majority's purported causes for terminating Dr. McClain's contract.

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

A Spike in DMUSD's Heart

The California State Teachers’ Retirement System (CalSTRS), the second-largest public pension fund in the nation, lost 25 percent of its value in 2009, and is carrying close to 50 billion dollars in unfunded liabilities.

CalSTRS members, which include both administrators and certificated district employees, receive pensions paid according to a “defined benefit”, which means that a member’s pension is determined according to their creditable salary and years of service and does not depend on the amount paid into the plan.

Typically, CalSTRS members contribute 8% of their salary to STRS, the district contributes 8.25%, and the state of CA kicks in another 2.1%. In this current time of financial crisis and rampant unemployment, one of California’s major issues is paying the pension obligations for teachers and other public employees who are no longer working. The defined benefit structure of CalSTRS makes it particularly susceptible to abuse by members who collect benefits far in excess of their contributions.

Enter Sharon McClain, former superintendent of the Del Mar Union School District. In addition to her salary, McClain’s employment contract with the DMUSD included annual benefits of: 6 weeks of vacation and 24 days sick leave, and a $4,800 automobile allowance. In addition there was $16,000 to be used “to offset her employee contribution to the State Teacher Retirement System or to fund a tax sheltered annuity, or some combination of thereof”.

However well-intentioned that $16,000 retirement benefit was, it has already cost the district far in excess of $16,000 in legal fees and it’s not over yet. Instead of using the $16,000 to offset her 8% contribution to STRS, Sharon McClain did the math and determined that if that money could somehow be classified as salary, it would raise the basis on which STRS calculates her retirement benefit and guarantee her higher retirement payments for the rest of her life.

To show the effect of such a reclassification of income, below is a very rough calculation of how creditable income for McClain might be calculated by STRS. The last two rows of the table show McClain’s income with and without the additional $16,000 added.

	2009-2010	2010-2011	2011-2012
Salary (184 days)	$178,000	$183,000	$188,000
Vacation (6 weeks)	$29.022	$29,837	$30,652
Sick leave (24 days)	$23,218	$23,870	$24,522
Auto allowance	$4,800	$4,800	$4,800
Creditable income^*	$182,400	$187,400	$238,370 (incl. vacation)
Creditable income + $16,000 retirement	$198,400	$203,400	$254,70

^*The creditable income was calculated with the following assumptions: Salary + auto allowance + 45 vacation days accrued and paid at end of contract, 30 vacation days from final year and 15 from previous year.

Using the creditable income figures above, a rough calculation of Sharon McClain’s possible retirement benefit was made using the benefits calculator on the STRS website.

	Current Contract	Amended Contract	Gain
Monthly Benefit^*	$12,719	$13,689	$970
Annual Benefit^*	$152,623	$164,268	$10,645

^* STRS benefits calculated using birthdate Feb 1945, retirement date Jul 2012, creditable service 30 years, unused sick leave 60 days, no service credit or incentive.

From the above figures, it is easy to understand what Sharon McClain’s motivations were for requesting this change, she stated at the February 24 board meeting that the change was worth $200,000 to her, a substantial financial incentive.

If the district were to redirect McClain’s retirement contribution to her salary, she would owe 8% of that amount to STRS, the DMUSD would be responsible for another 8.25%. If she were to be eligible for a performance bonus, her increased salary would increase the basis on which the bonus was calculated.

The exact changes requested by Sharon McClain to paragraph 8E of her contract were:

During the term of this contract or any renewal or extension thereof, the Board shall provide the Superintendent an annual fixed additional salary retirement contributions in the amount of Sixteen Thousand Dollars ($16,000) at no additional cost to the district. At her discretion, the Superintendent may elect to use the retirement contribution payment to offset her employee contribution to the State Teacher Retirement System or to fund a tax sheltered annuity, or some combination of thereof.

In a letter to the board, she gives the following reasons for the change:

I’m asking permission to change this section for three reasons:

First, I believe the board’s intention was to meet my need to boost my retirement income which is based on the highest year’s salary.

Secondly, Ricardo Soto, Annette and I agreed that the contribution was to be given annually, and was not specified in the contract.

Third, having the option to add this amount to my compensation during my first year of employment will make a difference in my STRS calculation for retirement.

Most importantly, it would help me avoid the problem of STRS personnel determining that my salary was spiked.

I will pay the 8% cost of STRS, $1,200 each year so there will be no cost to the district.

This request will not affect my total compensation, there is no additional cost to the district, nor will it affect the annual salary or any increases made to it through the step system in the future. Any increases given will not be calculated on a larger base. The salary schedule outlined in the contract will remain the same unless negotiated differently.

McClain asked that the increase count as salary, but with differences. This salary would require her to pay the district’s portion of STRS, and this salary would not be a basis for any percentage salary increases. She did not address whether or not unused sick and vacation days would be paid at the higher rate.

So, was Sharon McClain trying to spike her pension? Pension spiking is defined as the intentional inflation of final compensation with the primary purpose of increasing the retirement benefit. McClain’s request seems to fit this definition to a T.

CalSTRS specifically prohibits pension spiking. The problem with such practices is that since salary spikes take place shortly before retirement, the inflated benefit that spiking produces is unfunded, which has an adverse impact on both the funding and credibility of public retirement systems.

By Sharon McClain’s own account, for the cost of an additional $1,200 per year ($3,600 total), she gains an additional $200,000 in retirement benefits, a very respectable and unrealistic rate of return on her investment.

Fortunately, this sort of salary manipulation is available only to an elite few members of CalSTRS, district administration. Classroom teachers are subject to collective bargaining agreements and do not have the power to manipulate their employment contracts individually.

Concerned over such abuses, CalSTRS regulations now specifically disallow:

Compensation paid for the principal purpose of enhancing a member’s retirement benefit, as determined by CalSTRS
Compensation paid for a limited period of time
Compensation for service in excess of 1.000 years of service in a school year
Compensation with restrictions on how the employee spends the compensation, or where they are required to document how it was spent

CalSTRS controls the practice of pension spiking by auditing school districts, combined with the provision of law that permits the Board to determine whether particular compensation is being paid for the principal purpose of enhancing the pension benefits. A presumption by CalSTRS that spiking has occurred can only be reversed upon receipt of sufficient evidence to the contrary. By auditing school districts, CalSTRS is able to identify circumstances in which the employer reported compensation that appears to CalSTRS to be spiking.

Last June 17, at a special closed meeting, the Board of Trustees unanimously voted to approve Sharon McClain’s request to modify her contract, a decision that is almost impossible to comprehend given that her request sounds like a textbook definition of pension spiking. Had the board just denied her request back in June, we could have nipped this particular piece of drama in the bud and saved the district tens of thousands of dollars.

Upon receipt of McClain’s proposed amendment, Dena Whittington, assistant superintendent of Business Services, sent it to her STRS contact at SDCOE, who in turn passed it on to STRS in Sacramento. Unsurprisingly, STRS responded that any increases in Ms. McClain’s salary resulting from the transfer of funds as written in the contract amendment could not be used for purposes of calculating her retirement income.

Although the Board of Trustees had voted to approve the contract change, they hadn’t signed the amendment and were unsure of how to proceed after the STRS determination. And then the legal wrangling began.

Sharon McClain’s attorney Mr. Gronemeier wrote nine letters to the board on November 19, December 11, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, and February 3, in an attempt to force them to honor the contract amendment they’d agreed to in June. The board retained their own attorney Mr. Shinoff, and asked McClain for an amendment with different wording that would satisfy STRS. In the February 24 meeting, McClain asserted over and over that she’d “given [the board] the remedy”, but from their discussion it does not appear that “the remedy” included an actual written amendment that could be sent back to STRS for approval.

McClain maintained over and over in the February 24 meeting that this amendment would cost the district nothing, but her proposal as written, even if approved by STRS, would at minimum have cost the district additional pay for sick and vacation days.

But those costs pale in comparison to the legal fees, not to mention the time that both she and the Board of Trustees have expended on this matter, reading and responding to letters in an endlessly circular argument that could only have been resolved by submitting a new amendment to STRS.

If McClain and the Board had managed to come up with an amendment that would be acceptable to STRS, where do any of them think that $200,000 comes from? It is exactly such abuses that have led to the current financial state of CalSTRS. Are we taxpayers and unemployed parents and teachers who share the CalSTRS pension pool so insignificant that our contributions to McClain’s pension don’t count? Why didn’t the board take a stand for their constituents back in June?

It’s inexplicable, and in the long run, it's us, the parents, the constituents, the taxpayers who are left holding the bag for the ongoing posturing and grandstanding by both Sharon McClain and our elected Board of Trustees, who should have just said no.

…All in all, it’s just one more brick in the wall…

- A DMUSD parent (Torrey Hills)

More information:

Monday, April 26, 2010

Interview with former Del Mar school district superintendent Sharon McClain

Del Mar school board president steps down

Source: Union Tribune

DEL MAR — School board President Comischell Rodriguez announced Monday that she is resigning her post, saying in a written statement that trustees who backed the recent ouster of the superintendent have essentially marginalized her on the board.

Rodriguez voted against firing Superintendent Sharon McClain on March 31. Rodriguez accused one or more colleagues — she didn’t specify any trustees by name — of signing official board documents without authorization, of trying to exclude her from closed-session discussions, and of meeting with the district’s legal counsel without authorization.

Trustee Katherine White, who along with trustees Annette Easton and Doug Perkins voted to fire McClain, said Monday that no improprieties by any trustees have occurred. White acknowledged signing on April 7 a letter of intent to hire interim Superintendent James Peabody, but she said she had authorization to do so as a member of a board subcommittee, and Rodriguez was out of town at the time.

“I don’t see any action ... that has marginalized her,” White said.

White has said previously that the board had various complaints about McClain’s performance, among them that she didn’t communicate sufficiently with trustees. Board critics have argued that the board majority micromanages district affairs and made it impossible for administrators to do their jobs

More information:

Comischell Rodriguez Resignation Statement

Rodriguez resigns as president of Del Mar school board

Source: Del Mar Times

Comischell Rodriguez announced today in a press release that she has resigned from the role of president of the Board of Trustees for the Del Mar Union School District.

"In December, I politely rejected the Presidency, asking for another year to gain experience. But, with the majority of the Board's insistence and promise of support, I accepted the office," Rodriguez wrote in the release. "Although initial support was promised and received, it has abruptly come to an end."

She wrote that the decision came after careful consideration and was the result of being isolated by the majority of the board "to the extent that certain members have taken it upon themselves to sign official documents without authorization, in effect, assuming the board presidency in all but name."

Rodriguez also wrote that attempts were made to exclude her from closed session conversations. "These same board member(s) meet with legal counsel without authorization and continue to communicate with the whole board at will, in violation of proper and established protocol," she wrote. "It appears that there is no way to agree to disagree, and that because of a difference of opinion, I have been marginalized."

While Rodriguez wrote that she will stay on as a member of the board of trustees, she believes "the distractions of petty power struggles and nit-picking divert us from the real issues at hand of serving our students and families, listening to community input, and supporting our teachers, principals, and administrative staff. I do not wish the focus of my presidency to be consumed by behind-the-scenes email conversations and demands from my colleagues."

Rodriguez was elected to a two-year term on the board in late 2008 and has served as president since December of 2009. She was the sole trustee to vote against releasing former Superintendent Sharon McClain on March 31. Interim Superintendent James Peabody was appointed by the board on April 1.

Friday, April 23, 2010

An appeal to Sharon McClain: Do not let emotion hijack reason

Source: Carmel Valley News, Letters to the Editor

The controversial decision by the Del Mar Union School District board’s recent release of Sharon McClain as superintendent will likely spur challengers to file with the Registrar of Voters to run for school board in the November election.

The school board’s legal counsel advised them to remain quiet about the details of Dr. McClain’s termination due to employer-employee confidentiality and her threat of litigation. Unfortunately, the public has insufficient information to determine whether the school board or Dr. McClain, or possibly a combination of both were negligent in their respective roles. Based upon her age, highest pay level, and years of experience in public education, Dr. McClain will receive an annual pension of $131,720 per year starting immediately. If we deduct her pension from the salary she would have received over the next two years, her gross loss would be $107,560. Since her husband is also a retired school superintendent who is also receiving a substantial state pension, their family income puts them in the highest tax bracket. Consequently, her net loss would only be around $70,000.

Of course, Dr. McClain could take other kinds of work, which would reduce this figure. For example, she stated when she was hired that she loves teaching in teacher/administrator preparation programs at the university level, and with her experience I am certain she could acquire one of those positions.

Logically, the risk outweighs the reward for Dr. McClain to sue the Del Mar School District. Attorney fees will likely eat away any gains she would receive from a lawsuit. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that she would prevail. Moreover, she would be putting herself through a lot of unnecessary stress. Finally, she would be hurting the children of the Del Mar Union School District by averting [sic] money and time towards a legal battle.

I appeal to Dr. McClain not to allow emotion to hijack reason. Instead of focusing on the offense of the three people who fired you, put your focus on the many people who gave you a standing ovation. You had a long and successful career, savor your accomplishments, rather than focus on how some people may perceive your performance due to the school board’s decision to release you.

As the parent of a child who will be attending the Del Mar Union School District in several years, I would like to know the rationale for releasing two superintendents during the past two years who previously had successful track records. An interesting school board race that would reveal answers to the community’s unanswered questions would be if Sharon McClain, Tom Bishop and Linda Crawford ran as a slate and went head-to-head against Annette Eason, Steven McDowell, and Katherine White in the November school board election.

Stephen Cochrane
Carmel Valley

Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Del Mar Times: April 19 update

The Del Mar Times published an update to Friday's Education Matters column.

This last statement was obtained last week off the Del Mar California Teachers' Association Web site. Without adequate identification of authorship, it was assumed to be written by the DMCTA. However, David Skinner, DMCTA president, informed me this week that the message was not written by the DMCTA. He said the message was written by the school board to district staff, although that was not clearly indicated on the DMCTA site last week. The DMCTA Web site and the message have since been changed and attribution properly given.

More information:

Del Mar Teachers' Association website

Sunday, April 18, 2010

Response to interview with Dan Shinoff

In the most recent "Education Matters" column where district attorney Dan Shinoff is interviewed, Marsha Sutton writes:

The message on the Web site of the Del Mar California Teachers' Association echoes Rodriguez's comments.

"Each member of this board takes his or her responsibility very seriously," the DMCTA message reads. "It is our desire that we ensure a smooth transition for a new superintendent. We truly believe that threats of retribution and litigation do very little to unify our community. The board has had to make a very difficult decision. Each board member agonized over making the decision, but it has been made, and now we are moving forward as a united board that is committed to providing a rigorous, inspiring and nurturing educational program for all our students."

According to a teacher at Ashley Falls, the Del Mar California Teachers' Association never made the above statement. From her e-mail:

Please know that the last part of the article/ interview with the attorney referring to a statement from the Del Mar Teachers Association (DMCTA) is wrong.

Those sentences are taken from a letter sent from the school board to all district staff after Sharon was fired. The teachers are very uncomfortable with recent school board decisions and are aghast that another superintendent has been released.

Fortunately, we are able to continue doing what this district has entrusted us to do, and that is to teach the children.

We attempted to locate the message Ms. Sutton references on the website and were unable to do so.

More information:

Thursday, April 15, 2010

EDUCATION MATTERS: An interview with the attorney

Source: Del Mar Times

By Marsha Sutton

A brief interview this week with the attorney for the Del Mar Union School District's Board of Education offered up tiny nuggets of information about what led up to the March 31 firing of former DMUSD Superintendent Sharon McClain. Provided here is the transcript from that conversation, edited for greater brevity.

Board members who voted her out would, we can assume, like nothing more than to share every detail of their reasoning but are restrained, according to their lawyer, by the law which prohibits them from disclosing any personnel matter. McClain has them at a disadvantage, as she can speak as she likes, knowing there can be no response from the other side.

In the conversation related here, an interesting point is that the board's attorney, Dan Shinoff of the law firm Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, said all personnel information would be revealed if McClain chooses to file suit. So either all the sordid details eventually get disclosed through costly court proceedings, or McClain refrains from suing and the district saves money but the community remains in the dark.

One issue that clearly troubled the lawyer is that McClain had asked for an open session on March 31, which is her right, and he came prepared to present the board's case. But then she changed her mind before the start of the meeting, perhaps not realizing that an open session meant a public airing of the charges against her, not just the vote.

In a follow-up e-mail on this issue, Shinoff wrote, "She chose not to address the charges in open session. ... Sharon wanted the public comment, not a defense of the charges. Completely contrary to her request."

Another point: One clear-thinker posted in a blog that the anger against the firing of McClain may have to do more with displeasure with the school board than any love for the former superintendent. It's important to separate the two.

Many observers, myself included, have expressed profound disappointment over the way this board has functioned since 2006. Yet the possibility exists that McClain did indeed breach her contract and there may have been legitimate grounds for releasing her, even if some of us have been dissatisfied with the board's long-term performance.

Just because people may believe school board members have not served the district well does not necessarily mean they made a mistake in this instance. Anger against the board over past performance should be separated from an action that might actually be in the best interests of the district. To acknowledge that trustees may have acted appropriately in this case does not mean we accept that they walk on water. If doesn't even mean we have to like them.

Finally, energy spent demanding the resignations of board members in the spring of an election year, when a new group of three will surely be elected come November, seems pointless. Yes, stay vigilant, but would it not be better to focus on who will replace them rather than continuing to vocalize displeasure?I think we can safely assume that this message of dissatisfaction has already come through loud and clear.

Q: What led up to the firing?

Shinoff: They did an evaluation with their concerns and she did a response and they weren't happy with the response. Then she retained an attorney, and then the big issue as you know from open session became, at least for her, the $16,000 issue, which there is no paperwork to support a change in her contract.

Q: You are talking about the STRS [California's State Teachers' Retirement System] contribution?

Yes, the STRS contribution. But she didn't want that as STRS contribution. She wanted that as salary. But there was nothing that indicated that there was action taken to increase her salary. In fact quite to the contrary, the action appeared to support some sort of contribution to a 403(b) or a 457 retirement plan. So that became a huge stumbling block.

Q: Didn't the board initially agreed to it?

The board did agree to a contribution to her retirement plan, but apparently that's not what she wanted. She wanted an increase in salary. So she went in September ... to see if she could do that, and STRS said no. But that wasn't what the board had in mind in any event. So that became a big problem, and she retained an attorney, and everything became predicated upon the board capitulating to this demand for a salary increase which had never been agreed to. And it further exacerbated a difficult relationship.

Q: Is there more to it than that issue?

It isn't all of it. The problem is it's all in her personnel file which is private.

The thing that really is bothersome to me is she demanded a public hearing so that the charges could be heard against her. So I show up there [at the March 31 meeting when she was released] and I told her that what we had in mind was 20 minutes for me and 20 minutes for her to present her view of the charges. And then she acted as though she was completely caught by surprise. But she's the one that asked for open session.

What the Brown Act says is that if there are complaints or charges to be heard against an individual, they can be heard in closed session or in open session at the option of the employee. She chose not to have those heard in open session despite the fact that she asked for an open session.

I think quite frankly the community was misled by her because she wanted to have an open session, but she didn't want to have an open session to discuss the charges. In fact, I heard she said, "I have no idea what they're talking about." Well, that's just not true.

Q: The board has been meeting in closed session for about six months over this, yes?

Well, yeah. There were evaluations, there were opportunities for her to respond. Then she had a lawyer, and there were all kinds of threats made regarding litigation. But for her to tell the community that she didn't have a clue what the charges were, well if that's the case, why did she ask for an open session?It's really disingenuous as far as I'm concerned.

Q: Which item or items in her contract did she breach?

The material breaches of her contract include not complying with the law or with not doing your job in a manner that's consistent with your obligations as superintendent. It's like any other employer-employee relationship. She's the CEO and the board of directors has the right to hold that person accountable.

Q: Do you expect her to file suit?

Everybody else says she will. I'm not so sure that she will. [People] talk about how she'll recover attorneys' fees. Well, there's no attorneys' fees provision in it. So she needs to make this big financial investment, that's number one. Number two, she'll go into the retirement system, and that is going to be an offset against any damages that she can claim because you can't get a double recovery.

Q: Was her releasing your invoices [last December] a violation of the law?

Yes. How could she who had retained a lawyer go through attorney-client communications and decide what she was going to release?She couldn't do that. She's not a lawyer. Do I think she had a different agenda?Yeah, I do.

Q: Is there a laundry list of issues, not just one or two?

Oh yes.

Q: Was the board within its rights?

Absolutely. It's interesting that all of these people know about her performance. They know nothing about her performance, one way or another. They elect these people to hold people accountable - teachers and staff and principals and superintendents. But apparently they believe they have better information.

Q: Did the board act recklessly?

Not at all. I think the board did their job.

Q: Can you be more specific on the ways she may have violated her contract?

No, I can't. If she chooses to go public with her lawsuit, then it's all on the table.

Q: If she decides to sue?

Then everything is wide open.

Q: When were you hired?

In the summer, in July.

Q: Were you hired with the directive to fire her?

No, I was never given a directive to fire her. They were frustrated in terms of superintendent-board relations, they were concerned about how things were going, and they wanted to get legal counsel on it.

Q: You would have advised them if they didn't have grounds to fire her?

Absolutely.

Q: Did all five board members appear to understand that she violated her contract?Were they all behind this?

That's getting into how they think and how they deliberate and what they said in closed session, and I really can't say that.

Q: Were you surprised that one person abstained and one person voted against?

I'm never surprised when it comes to voting because I think that it's really easy to take a position that you feel comfortable with at one time and then facing an angry crowd is a difficult thing to do. So whether you vote in favor or against, it's a very, very difficult thing to do. And quite frankly, I think it scares away good people from getting involved in public service. That crowd was very angry. It's always easier to do things without an angry crowd, that's for sure. I think that everybody did their level best.

Q: Does a 3-1-1 vote strengthen McClain's case in a way a 5-0 would not have?[via e-mail]

Not at all. The number is irrelevant in a court of law. Although that is different than the court of public opinion.

After speaking with the attorney, I requested the exact wording of the motion to fire McClain, took another look at her contract and called board president Comischell Rodriguez for further explanation on the STRS issue.

The March 31 motion specifically reads as follows: "To terminate the Superintendent pursuant to section 11C for material breach of her contract. By so moving, payment of Dr. McClain's salary and benefits will cease immediately." Trustees Annette Easton, Doug Perkins and Katherine White voted in favor, Comischell Rodriguez opposed and Steven McDowell abstained. There was no roll-call vote.

Section 11 of McClain's contract, titled "Termination," provides for three ways the contract can cease: 11-A is by the superintendent's choice, 11-B is without cause, and 11-C is with cause.

Section 11-C reads in part as follows: "With Cause. The board may elect to terminate the superintendent's employment upon thirty (30) days written notice to the superintendent, except as specifically provided herein, for cause defined as serious misconduct ..."

The contract specifies seven definitions of "serious misconduct," including conviction of a crime, acts of moral turpitude, willful malfeasance or gross negligence, fraud or embezzlement or theft, failure or refusal to perform her duties or obligations, refusal to obey governmental laws and regulations, and unsatisfactory performance after being given a reasonable time to rectify deficiencies.

McClain's salary for 2008-2009 was $168,000, and for 2009-2010 was $178,000. This does not include benefits: 30 paid vacation days annually, health and insurance benefits, 24 days annually of sick leave, an auto allowance of $400 monthly, the $16,000 STRS retirement fund contribution, and a housing allowance of $1,500 per month for the first six months of the agreement for relocation to San Diego County. These benefits are standard for many school district superintendents.

The contract took effect Sept. 17, 2008, and was to run through June 30, 2012.

The STRS clause, item 8-E in the contract, reads in part as follows: "... the board shall provide the superintendent retirement contributions in the amount of sixteen thousand dollars ($16,000). At her discretion, the superintendent may elect to use the retirement contribution payment to offset her employee contribution to the State Teacher Retirement System or to fund a tax-sheltered annuity, or some combination thereof. ..."

The STRS issue, which was eventually discussed in open session at a recent board meeting, was a bone of contention between McClain and the board since last summer.

"I know that she had requested that her STRS contribution be changed at no cost to the district," Rodriguez said.

McClain had asked the district to pay the $16,000 directly to her and she would then contribute to STRS. This would not cost the district any more money but would allow her to receive a higher pension.

This, McClain claimed months ago, was agreed to by the board last summer, although there appears to be nothing official in writing.

"It was a year ago when the board agreed in open session, unanimously agreed, to allow her to modify the way her retirement was paid at no cost to the district," Rodriguez said.

The board, however, stipulated that STRS would have to agree to the arrangement first.

Rodriguez said McClain was given direction "to check it out with STRS and with the lawyer and provide a way to make it happen."

When I asked Rodriguez if STRS rejected the plan, she said, "I believe so, yes."

But Rodriguez said the contract was written before she was elected to the board and that she was "uncomfortable discussing what was promised to her and what was not promised."

She said the issue "has become part of any kind of potential litigation we would have with her." So even though it was discussed in open session, she was reluctant to comment further.

When asked why she voted against releasing McClain, even though it appeared outwardly until the March 31 meeting that all five trustees were aligned on this issue, Rodriguez would not comment.

"I've been advised not to make comment on that question by our attorney," she said. "I stand behind my vote, but I'm not going to comment on it."

Neither would she comment on whether she believed McClain had breached her contract.

She asked the community to support the interim superintendent, Jim Peabody, during this time of transition and said everyone is supporting him as he takes the helm.

"It really is my sincere hope that we can move forward as a district," Rodriguez said. "I think that we will be in good hands with Jim in this interim period. That's the message I would like to send."

The message on the Web site of the Del Mar California Teachers' Association echoes Rodriguez's comments.

"Each member of this board takes his or her responsibility very seriously," the DMCTA message reads. "It is our desire that we ensure a smooth transition for a new superintendent. We truly believe that threats of retribution and litigation do very little to unify our community. The board has had to make a very difficult decision. Each board member agonized over making the decision, but it has been made, and now we are moving forward as a united board that is committed to providing a rigorous, inspiring and nurturing educational program for all our students."

More information:

A conversation with DMUSD trustee McDowell

Source: Del Mar Times

By Marsha Sutton

An interview on April 12 with Del Mar Union School District trustee Steven McDowell, who abstained on the motion to fire former DMUSD superintendent Sharon McClain at the March 31 school board meeting, yielded the following conversation, edited for brevity.

Q: Why did you abstain?

McDowell: I haven't articulated yet an answer to that. I don't have a good answer for that yet.

Q: Did you not think she violated her contract?

Based upon what we received from legal, I guess there was grounds that she violated her contract. But it was a two-part motion - whether or not that was in place and whether or not it was in the best interest of the community and the board to terminate her.

Q: Did the motion ask for two votes?

It was just one vote.

Q: What was your thinking?

I was not prepared for the principals standing up and applauding Sharon. That just took me back. There was a part of the relationship that I personally had not looked into enough.

We said that we would support Comischell [Rodriguez] as the president of the board. And I've always tried to support the president of the board. In terms of the relationship to the superintendent, the person I look to is the current president because they're the ones that have to have the most dialogue, the most relationship with the superintendent. And to the extent that's not working or is working, that is a factor in votes like that to me.

So Comischell's vote had a factor, because we weighed the votes of the other board members. But it wasn't enough for me to say I'm also going to do that. That put me kind of in a stalemate.

And you know everyone puts us as a group of three. And ... I have different views on this stuff [than fellow trustees Annette Easton and Katherine White]. So part of it was trying to set me off from them. So that was a little bit of it, even though it probably shouldn't be.

It was mostly I was trying to take into consideration the perspective of the board president, trying to take into what I felt was more of a community and administrative staff reaction which I wasn't prepared for, and also trying to balance whether or not it really was in the best interest of the community do it right at that point in time.

Q: Did the meeting change your mind? You just told me that you agree with the attorney that she may have breached her contract. But then the fact that Comischell may have changed her mind and the fact that you had all these people at the meeting influenced you then?

Yes.

Q: Does a 3-1-1 vote put the district in greater jeopardy?

I don't think it will because our understanding is ... that it was contractual. ... It should not be an emotional issue. It will be a much more clear-cut case in terms of whether or not she violated the contract. ... They shouldn't necessarily be weighing the vote.

If I had to get up in court, I would say probably the same thing which is there were two different things - whether or not she violated the contract ... and whether or not we should let her go.

Q: You mean whether it was right to fire her at this time?

That one I wasn't as sure about.

Who as board people are we looking out for? You look out for your community, you look out for your administrative staff.

Q: Would the vote have turned out differently if it had been taken in closed session?

Possibly.

Q: Would you have changed your vote?

More likely I might have changed my vote if I was asked [to be] the first one to vote and not the last one.

Q: The first one ... meaning?

To cast a vote. Then, as I said, I took in the factor of what the president's vote was because they have the closest relationship with the superintendent.

Q: Were you surprised to learn that Comischell Rodriguez voted against firing her?

I was surprised [because the item] was agendized. You don't put things on the agenda unless you're ready to vote on it. [I assumed] she was ready to vote on it and she wanted to bring it forward.

Small group of parents stage protest at board meeting

Del Mar Union School District trustees Doug Perkins and Steven McDowell pass by protesters before going to the school board meeting.

A group of Del Mar Union District parents held a rally April 14 at Del Mar Hills Academy - a few minutes before the Del Mar school board's meeting.

Source: Del Mar Times

Thursday, April 15, 2010
By Karen Billing

A small crowd of protesters gathered in front of Del Mar Hills Academy before the first Del Mar Union School District board meeting since Superintendent Sharon McClain was released. About as many parents sat inside the multi-use room waiting for the April 14 meeting to begin, not participating in the protest.

Protesters carried signs criticizing trustees Annette Easton, Doug Perkins, Steven McDowell and Katherine White. As the trustees walked into the MUR from their closed session meeting, parents shouted "Resign! Resign!"

Board president Comischell Rodriguez, who voted against firing McClain, was not mentioned on any of the posters.

"I think she's [Comischell] at least trying to listen to the parents and trying to get the board to listen to the parents as well," said Ashley Falls parent Heidi Niehart. " I think she's doing a good job given the circumstances."

Wednesday night's meeting was the first for Interim Superintendent James Peabody, a superintendent from Julian Union High School District who has more than 40 years of experience in education.

"Welcome to DMUSD," Del Mar Hills parent Liz Shopes said to him during public comment. "Or maybe I should say, welcome to the jungle."

Peabody said he was delighted to be at the district and to help the school district and board through this transitional phase.

"I have taken the job because I love being involved in the process of education," Peabody said. "I'd like to have more to say but I've only been on the job for three days."

In his three days, Peabody said he has visited four school sites. He said he was impressed with the creativity of the programs and the "magic" that takes place between the students and their teachers.

Peabody has also met with PTA presidents at a district-wide PTA meeting.

"It is truly amazing to see the parent and community support for the district and schools," Peabody said.

Peabody did hear that there is residual anger from some parents during public comment over the board's decision to fire the last superintendent. Niehart and Carmel Del Mar parent Jill Steiner asked for the board's resignations.

"Rescind your reckless decision to terminate McClain or resign immediately," Steiner said.

Parent Liz Shopes said the district needs someone who can bring peace to disharmony, open communication, honesty, rational discussions, respect and trust.

"I hope you are going to be our interim hero," Shopes said to Peabody. "We want to move forward in a cohesive and positive manner and make this once again the great district it can be."

Parents Outraged at School Chief's Firing

Source: NBC San Diego

The school board recently terminated Sharon McClain

By MICHELLE WAYLAND
Updated 9:15 AM PDT, Thu, Apr 15, 2010

Parents are asking for the Del Mar school board to resign after the district fired its second superintendent in two years.

“The board has abused its power,” mother Jill Steiner said. “This board has to go. We are here to ask for their resignations.”

The school board recently terminated Sharon McClain. Parents voiced their outrage at a rally before the school board meeting Wednesday evening.

“They are not listening to parents and constituents and they are wasting our children’s money,” Steiner said.

They claim McClain was fired for no reason and say it could cost the school district hundreds of thousands of dollars.

“We are not aware of any wrongdoing on Doctor McClain’s part. She’s been a very hardworking superintendent and a great leader who has steered us through difficult financial times,” Steiner said.

The board didn’t reveal the reason behind their decision Wednesday. Instead, they introduced interim superintendent Jim Peabody.

“We believe we will have good direction under Mr. Peabody. He has 40 years of experience to bring to our district. We are going to look forward for the sake of our children,” board member Comischell Rodriguez said.

The former superintendent of Julian Union High School District is in the spotlight after only being on the job since Monday.

“It caused me some pause, but am I frightened? No. These are people who care about their kids, who are expressing their opinion and that’s fine with me,” Peabody said. “I’m working as hard as I can to be of value to the district and to be of value to the parents and to the children of the Del Mar Union school district.”

Former superintendent Tom Bishop was ousted in 2008 after board members clashed with him over management issues.

“The board has abused its power terminating two superintendents within two years and it’s not the will of this community,” Steiner said. “We expect that it could be very costly to our district and these are funds that are designated for our children’s education. Not for firing superintendents.”

The board would not comment about whether it would consider rescinding the termination.

“I think the community has a right to say what is on their mind,” Rodriguez said.

McClain said she is happy parents in the district continue to support her and that voters can choose new school board trustees in this November's election.

Parents rally against Del Mar Union School District Board

Source: KFMB

SAN DIEGO, Calif (CBS8) - Del Mar Union School District board members got an earful from angry parents over the recent firing of the superintendent.

Parents took turns voicing their dissatisfaction Wednesday night over the recent release of former superintendent Sharon McClain.

They say the board acted against the wishes of the community and is abusing its power.

Jim Peabody is serving as the interim superintendent for the Del Mar Unified School District.

Parents plan to target trustees after superintendent’s ouster

By Bruce Lieberman
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Thursday, April 15, 2010 at 12:12 a.m.

DEL MAR — Two weeks after the Del Mar school board fired its superintendent, Sharon McClain, a group of parents told the trustees their days are numbered.

Compared with the outrage that preceded McClain’s ouster, Wednesday night’s protest at a board meeting seemed tame. Nevertheless, the dozen or so protesters said they are organizing to make sure the Del Mar Union School District board sees some big changes in the November elections.

On March 31, trustees Katherine White, Annette Easton and Doug Perkins voted to fire McClain at a specially scheduled board meeting held in the middle of a workday, when most parents and teachers were unable to attend.

Trustee President Comischell Rodriguez voted against firing McClain, and trustee Steven McDowell abstained. McDowell wouldn’t say why he declined to vote.

White, Easton and McDowell are up for re-election in November.

McClain has vowed to sue the school district, saying she was ousted for no reason. Because the trustees claimed that McClain had committed a “material breach” of her contract, they severed her contract and immediately ended salary payments and benefits.

Board members have refused to say anything about their decision, although for months McClain and the board had clashed over the superintendent’s management style.

Some trustees claimed that McClain did not keep them adequately informed on various school issues, a charge McClain strongly denied. Board critics have argued that trustees have tried to micromanage district affairs.

At last Thursday’s board meeting, a handful of speakers said the board had acted recklessly in firing McClain.

“You have taken an action fully knowing that you are burdening the district with an expensive lawsuit at a time when we are struggling with severe financial cutbacks,” parent Jill Steiner told the board Wednesday.

Parent Heidi Niehart said, “I would ask that four of you resign now, but if not, we will get rid of you in November.” She was referring to White, Easton, McDowell and Perkins. Perkins will not face re-election until 2012.

In February 2008, White, Easton and McDowell voted to oust Superintendent Tom Bishop after the three board members had clashed with him over management issues.

The trustees struck a deal with Bishop to make him leave, at a cost to the district of more than $300,000.

Six months later, the trustees announced their unanimous decision to hire McClain, then the superintendent of Hermosa Beach City School District.

James Peabody, who is serving part-time as superintendent at Julian Union High School District until a replacement can be found there, was appointed by the Del Mar board on April 1 to serve as interim superintendent. The school board is expected to vote on an employment contract with Peabody by the end of the month.

“I am more than delighted to be here, and to be of service to the community and the school board,” Peabody said in a statement last Thursday. “I am interested in helping to move the school district forward and aid (the school board) in selecting a new leader, when that point comes.”

Bruce Lieberman: (760) 476-8205; bruce.lieberman@uniontrib.com

Del Mar parents demand resignations

Source: Fox San Diego

By Erica Fox | FOX 5 San Diego Staff
8:44 AM PDT, April 15, 2010
DEL MAR, Calif.

DEL MAR, Calif. - About a dozen angry parents rallied Wednesday outside the Del Mar Union School Board meeting, calling for the immediate resignations of several board members.

At a time when schools are cutting back because of a funding crisis, some parents in Del Mar think their district is wasting money.They are mad that the board fired Superintendent Sharon McClain weeks ago, and are worried about the steep legal fees of dealing with the lawsuite McClain has threatened to file.

"We're very disappointed," said parent Heidi Niehart. "You elect these people because you hope they're going to be your voice, and they are not being the voice of the community."

The protesting parents said they want several board members to step down.

"They're already paying off the first superintendent that they fired a few years ago, so a couple hundred thousand here couple hundred thousand there -- my children have more kids in the classroom," said Niehart. They don't have art, they don't have music, technology, science or whatever they're going to have to cut."

Board President Comischell Rodriguez was asked how she felt about the protests and if the board would consider ~~resending~~ rescinding the decision to fire McClain.

"We're going to look forward, and for the sake the of children, we're going to make progress at Del Mar Union," Rodriguez said.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Parents speak out against firing of Del Mar schools chief

Source: San Diego Union Tribune

By Bruce Lieberman
UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER

Wednesday, April 14, 2010 at 10:02 p.m.