Summary of Special PARS Board Meeting

We know that many of you attended or watched the SHUSD's Special Board Meeting on Monday night. For those of you that were unable to attend or view the meeting, we thought that we would provide our perspective on what happened at that meeting.

To summarize, the PARS memo that was delivered to the Board on June 18th raised three major concerns about the PARS retirement plan that awarded approximately $327,000 in benefits to Allan Gordon and Jim Zoll:

1) The Board neither publicly disclosed nor properly authorized the inclusion of Gordon and Zoll into the PARS plan. The Board only discussed providing this plan to 6 teachers. This is a potential Brown Act violation in that the Board failed to notify the public that it would be addressing these issues, and therefore failed to give members of the community an opportunity to comment on them as well.

2) The Board failed to provide an accurate analysis of the cost of adding Gordon and Zoll to the plan. The inclusion of Gordon and Zoll actually decreased the total savings to the district by approximately $80,000.

3) Most importantly, Gordon was very much involved in the planning, negotiation, and execution of the PARS retirement plan that ultimately awarded him approximately $180,000. He should not have been involved in any way in the planning or signing of this agreement, since he would financially benefit from this plan. This conflict of interest is prohibited by California Government Code Section 1090, and any contract made in violation of such section is VOID.

On Monday night, the Board took the following actions related to the above points.

1) The Board corrected any prior missteps related to the Brown Act by listing all of the pertinent PARS plan documents on the agenda, allowing the public to comment, and officially approving the inclusion of Gordon and Zoll into the plan. The Board did this under the guise that they had only recently received some of these documents. The Board never admitted that they violated the Brown Act, despite the fact that they actually had many of these documents months ago.

2) The Board continued to argue that the PARS plan as a whole will provide a cost-savings to the district (this has never been in dispute) and that providing Gordon with the PARS plan was a reasonable way to compensate Gordon for the consulting services he will provide after retirement (the Board previously stated that such consulting services were to be provided to the district FOR FREE). The Board's attorney also made several inconsistent statements, such as that a cost savings is not necessary for the Board to implement the PARS plan.

3) Most disturbing was that THE BOARD MADE NO COMMENT WHATSOEVER REGARDING THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUE. The Board completely disregarded the grave concerns expressed by several community members during the meeting.

Although the actions taken by the Board were not surprising, they are nonetheless disappointing. While Cynthia Lane's comments during the meeting would have everyone think otherwise, the Board did have alternatives.

What is next for those of us who continue to be concerned about this issue and the Board's disregard for the public interest? We will continue to pursue the conflict of interest matter with the District Attorney, the Fair Political Practices Commission, the Grand Jury, and any other organization that may have jurisdiction. Although it is extremely difficult to entertain the idea of commencing litigation against the district, it is also very difficult to watch $350,000 walk out of our classrooms and land in the pockets of retired administrators.

To learn more about the PARS issue and the RECALL, please review the archives of our blog and as always, please feel free to email us at citizens4qualityed@gmail.com

YES ON RECALL