...A bouquet — the Clearing the Black Cloud award — to Sharon McClain, the fired superintendent of the Del Mar Union School District, for putting her purse where her mouth is and filing a claim against the board members and the attorney who she says done her wrong.
This first step toward a full-fledged lawsuit lays out McClain’s belief that three board members — Katherine White, Annette Easton and Doug Perkins — acted in concert with attorney Daniel Shinoff to terminate McClain for cause when, in her view, there was no reasonable cause.
Without prejudging the legal merits of McClain’s claim, this much can be said for certain: The public has not been informed specifically what awful thing(s) McClain was supposed to have done to merit summary firing right before the spring break.
To remove a permanent stain upon her reputation — and, it should be noted, recover the severance she was entitled to if she’d been fired without cause — McClain, 65, is trying to force the board to lay out the charges against her so she can rebut them. She wants her good name back.
To be sure, there’s a political aspect to McClain’s action.
In November, two of the three trustees named in the claim — White and Easton — will be up for re-election.
If the incumbents run, the election will be at least in part a referendum on McClain’s belief that she was fired by a micromanaging board majority that failed to respect the role of the superintendent as the district’s CEO.
With a fresh crop of trustees on the board, a quick settlement with McClain might be likely. If, however, the board majority survives the election, the prospects aren’t so good for McClain.
The last thing she wants is a drawn-out legal war of attrition that could, in the end, drain her purse.
In the end, McClain’s shot across the bow could be more about the ballot box than a jury box.
It's too bad that Marsha Sutton never objected to Dan Shinoff's refusal to produce important documents over the past many years, but I suppose her current complaint about his response to a public records request is better late than never.
Sutton was very much on Dan Shinoff's side no matter how badly he behaved--until the recent resignation of Del Mar Union School District trustee Comischell Rodriguez as board president. (She will remain on the board.) Is Marsha merely having a fit of pique? Or is Marsha going to start giving readers more information about one of San Diego's "most highly regarded" education attorneys?
My guess is that the board and its legal counsel did indeed try to keep Rodriguez out of meetings. There will likely be a lawsuit regarding the firing of superintendent Sharon McClain, and attorney Dan Shinoff and the rest of the board are aware that Rodriguez disagreed with their decision to fire McClain. I'm quite certain they didn't want a witness around who might testify accurately about unguarded statements they might make. Such a fear is rather silly, though, since Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz lawyers are very good at instructing witnesses not to answer questions.
A request to see emails from Del Mar Union School District board members regarding trustee Comischell Rodriguez's allegations in her letter of April 26, when she resigned as school board president, resulted in a folder containing 236 single-sided pages, only 16 pages of which marginally addressed the issue.
However, in the interest of full disclosure, some of the other items may be worth relating.
There were 34 pages of emails initiated by a letter from a DMUSD Sage Canyon teacher written to the full board on April 2. In her letter, the teacher complained about a statement written by the board to district staff after former superintendent Sharon McClain was released on March 31.
The teacher objected to the sentence in the statement that read: "We truly believe that threats of retribution and litigation do very little to unify our community." That sentence was "a slap in the face" to teachers who have made no such threats, she wrote.
Trustee Katherine White wrote to the teacher, saying she had not seen the board's statement, even though it was signed by the Board of Trustees. White then asked board president Rodriguez, who released the statement, for a copy.
This went back and forth for a bit, until Rodriguez said, "Yes." White asked again, two days later. Rodriguez replied, "I sent to Dan. Ask him," - "Dan" presumably meaning attorney Dan Shinoff.
White finally wrote to Peabody, asking him for a copy of the board's letter to staff. "We (the board) have received a complaint from a staff member regarding the letter," White wrote to Peabody. "I really don't want to ask the staff member to send me the letter (I think it looks bad), and I think it would be cheaper if one of your staff could just forward the letter to you and the board versus paying Dan [Shinoff] to do this."
White finally obtained a copy of the letter and was able to respond to the teacher's concerns. But why it took her so long to get it is a mystery...
As one can see, there is little here to do with the focus of the document request.
Aggravatingly, many of these pages contained multiple copies of the same emails, some sheets were included that had nothing on them except a page number, and all were printed single-sided. Also, nothing was redacted, so everything - as irrelevant as it all was - could have been transmitted electronically.
The Public Records Act and the Freedom of Information Act provide the public with powerful access to government information. Given cause to suspect questionable activity, everyone has the right to see what transpires in government and to monitor elected officials and public employees.
But those agencies we seek to monitor have an obligation to respond to such requests prudently, efficiently and responsibly. A PRA is not an open invitation for hired firms to rack up scads of hours and pilfer the public's pocketbook perusing documents not even remotely related to the topic requested.
Wasting taxpayer dollars and resources is as serious an offense as hiding government documents from those who seek to review material that might reveal whether elected officials have violated an ethical or legal code of conduct.
I suppose it's worse to be denied access to public documents than to be inundated with hundreds of pages of irrelevant material. But must this be the choice? [Maura Larkins comment: Don't act so surprised, Marsha. You're no dummy. You've long known that Dan Shinoff protects school districts from legal liability by failing to produce public documents and documents in court cases.]
Rodriguez leaves role, citing marginalization by fellow trustees
Comischell Rodriguez has stepped down from her post as president of the Del Mar Union School District Board of Trustees, citing her fellow board members' lack of support, violations of protocol and "petty power struggles."
"I'm basically board president in title only because the other board members do the job as they see fit," Rodriguez said. "I needed to step aside and let someone else be president. ... I just think it's probably better to let another board member take it from here."
Rodriguez made the announcement via e-mail sent Monday morning to interim Superintendent James Peabody and the media - she said she did it that way to avoid being disruptive at the April 28 board meeting.
"I just wanted (the meeting) to be as smooth as possible," Rodriguez said.
At Wednesday's meeting, held after press time, board clerk Steven McDowell was expected to run the meeting, per board protocol. The board must elect the new board president at a later meeting when the item has been put on the agenda and the public is properly notified.
Although no longer president, Rodriguez will continue to serve on the board.
"I am still going to be there with the same amount of energy and enthusiasm for the district as before," Rodriguez said.
Trustee Katherine White was caught off-guard Monday morning about Rodriguez's decision and had not seen the e-mail Rodriguez had sent when contacted by this newspaper.
"She is surely entitled to her own opinion. I have a lot of respect for someone who understands when to say 'no,' " White said. "I respect it if Comischell feels (serving as board president) is not the right thing to do. I don't see anything the board did (wrong), but that doesn't mean she doesn't feel that way."
In her letter, Rodriguez said that when she was nominated for the presidency in December 2009, she "politely rejected" the post, asking to gain another year in experience - she had been elected to a two-year term in late 2008. But the majority of board members promised their support, so she accepted the position.
Rodriguez said things had been going well up until the point of her "no" vote in the recent dismissal of Superintendent Sharon McClain. She said the board previously had been able to work together even though it didn't always agree, but she said she feels her vote in the McClain decision was the trigger for a change in the way the board dealt with her.
In her letter, Rodriguez wrote that she felt isolated and that board members have attempted to exclude her from closed session conversations and have signed official documents without authorization. She said board members meet with legal counsel without authorization and communicate with the "whole board at will," violating protocol.
"It appears that there is no way to agree to disagree, and that because of a difference of opinion, I have been marginalized," Rodriguez wrote in her e-mail. "Ensuring that the children of our district continue to receive the finest education possible is my number one priority. I believe 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 e-mail conversations and demands from my colleagues."
White said she could relate to Rodriguez's feelings of being isolated due to the Brown Act, which limits board discussion and business to meetings where items have been placed on the agenda.
"There are periods you really sort of feel in the dark," White said, citing specifically Monday morning when the media heard before she did about Rodriguez stepping down.
Trustee Annette Easton, too, had not been aware of the change until contacted by the media. Trustee Doug Perkins did not respond to calls for comment, and Trustee Steven McDowell was not contacted.
"I was perplexed and disappointed to learn from a member of the press about Comischell's resignation," Easton wrote in an e-mail when asked to respond to Rodriguez's resignation. "From my perspective, while not always agreeing on decisions, the entire board was working well together. The allegations that she makes in her press release are without substance and do nothing to ensure that the focus of our district is to provide an excellent education to our students.
"Ultimately, I am deeply disappointed that her resignation only serves to further polarize and politicize a community in need of reconciliation," Easton wrote. "I remain committed to working with the entire board, and district staff, to carry out the mission of the DMUSD."
White also disagreed with Rodriguez's claim that the board members tried to exclude her, saying that was not the case. She said there have been meetings where Rodriguez was not available, due to spring break vacation and a personal matter. She said meetings had been held with legal counsel to work on Peabody's contract.
While White said she didn't know the reasons why Rodriguez felt isolated, she thought maybe it was hard for Rodriguez to be the sole dissenting vote in firing McClain...
Dan Shinoff thinks he can make false accusations and get away with it, but that he can stop this blogger from telling the truth about him. With Superior Court judges like Judith Hayes, he might be right.
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."
Five will get you ten that Marsha Sutton was all worked up emotionally after talking to Dan Shinoff (or perhaps after talking to a DMUSD board member who had talked to Dan Shioff) when she wrote the article below. Did the whole MiraCosta College fiasco completely slip her mind when she wrote it? In the article Ms. Sutton wrote one of the most bizarre sentences I have ever read from a school journalist.
Marsha Sutton: "Can we use common sense and ask ourselves why the board would proceed with firing McClain if it were not evident – not unanimously evident – that there have been legal violations?"
Good heavens, Marsha. You know very well, and have failed to report, that other school administrators have committed legal violations and not been fired. And most firings are done for political reasons. So the answer is NO, Marsha. We can not assume that there have been legal violations.
Shame on you for publishing such a statement. Do you also assume, Marsha, that everyone charged with a crime has committed one? I have to wonder if you're taking your instructions, as seems to have happened in at the San Diego Union Tribune and North County Times as well as the Chula Vista Star-News (click on name of paper to see examples) from Del Mar USD attorney Dan Shinoff. A judge found that Shinoff himself had violated rules of professional conduct when representing MiraCosta College, but Shinoff wasn't fired. So why are you pretending that a school firing is necessarily due to legal violations as opposed to politics? And why are you pretending that illegal actions normally lead to firing?
When I read the paragraph above, I thought that the board had voted unanimously to fire Sharon McClain. I was shocked to read the following in the San Diego Union Tribune: "White and trustees Annette Easton and Doug Perkins voted to fire McClain. Trustee Steven McDowell, who has typically sided with his three colleagues on most board matters, abstained. Board President Comischell Rodriguez voted against the dismissal."
Later in the same article Marsha comes up with another doozy:
Marsha Sutton: "And why is one speaker’s offhand comment that this action could cost the district $500,000 repeated in the press as if it were an accepted fact? How often, if ever, was it pointed out that not a dime would be spent if McClain was released for cause? Five will get you ten that that $500,000 pulled-from-the-air figure will grow to $800,000 or even $1 million before the month is out."
Maybe, Marsha, the speaker knows that Shinoff advised MiraCosta College to give $1.6 million to Victoria Richart when she hadn't even filed a claim. And you know very well that releasing someone for cause often results in expensive lawsuits.
Finally you let us know that you are relying on the authority of a single man whom you cravenly admire. Why didn't you refer to actual cases in writing this article? Here are you own over-the-top words. Marsha Sutton: "Can we ask why one of the most highly regarded education attorneys in San Diego, Dan Shinoff, feels confident that McClain violated her contract, and perhaps the Brown Act and other breaches as well? Does it make sense that the board would, on a whim, do this without solid legal grounds?"
Most highly regarded? Perhaps you meant to say "most coddled and feared"? The least you should have done was to note that Mr. Shinoff is "controversial."
Marsha, school boards generally do what Dan Shinoff tells them to do. They rely on him. But neither the Superior Court nor the California Court of Appeal always backs up Shinoff's determinations. Schools who do what Shinoff tells them to do often end up much poorer. Did the whole MiraCosta fiasco completely slip your mind when you wrote this article? In that case, Shinoff and Victoria Richart seemed to be working together to advance the interests of both of them.
From what I have observed, Shinoff makes a nice living defending administrators who are accused of violating laws. This decision was political. The board could just as easily have asked Shinoff to defend the Superintendent. My guess is that the board wanted, for political reasons, to fire the Superintendent and then asked Shinoff to take it from there. There is one thing I feel confident about: McClain didn't do anything Shinoff hasn't defended many times. In fact, I doubt that she did anything that Shinoff himself hasn't done.
Marsha, I don't see how you can pretend to be an unbiased journalist regarding legal affairs in schools in San Diego after writing this article. You should stick to commentary from now on. And I am disappointed in SDNN now that I know what kind of an education editor it hired. It seems that Voice of San Diego is the only major publication in San Diego with any journalistic ethics.
HERE'S THE STORY BY MARSHA SUTTON ABOUT DAN SHINOFF AND DEL MAR UNION SCHOOL DISTRICT
It was during my just concluded 10-day vacation in Washington, D.C., visiting all the historic sites and the exquisite cherry blossom trees (by chance, we caught them blooming during the three days each year when their breathtaking floral beauty is at its peak), that the Del Mar Union School District exploded into the news. But unlike the blossoms, this explosion is hardly of the beauteous kind.
For months I’ve been asking and waiting and asking again, to see when and if the deed will get done, only to learn that the board took action and released former superintendent Sharon McClain while I was away.
I’ve covered the Del Mar Union School District closely for the past 15 years, and have witnessed the rise, and fall, of former superintendents Rob Harriman and Tom Bishop. Both men reigned supreme until they were both dismissed by their school boards under clouds of suspicion, the reasons for which were never formally revealed. And now we have the demise of a third.
The reports so far on this latest firing have offered readers an infuriatingly limited presentation of the problems confronting the DM district.
I would ask all those who are following this drawn-out saga to suspend judgment until all the facts, those facts that professional journalists should have reported but failed to extract, can be revealed.
Depressingly, the reports to date reflect a hell-bent, torches and pitchforks mission that does little to provide people with accuracy and balance. I plead for patience because everything I’ve read so far has served only to increase hysteria.
During these last few days of spring break, can we have patience? Can folks hold off on condemning this board until more facts have been exposed?
Can we use common sense and ask ourselves why the board would proceed with firing McClain if it were not evident – not unanimously evident – that there have been legal violations?
Can we ask ourselves why board president Comischell Rodriguez, after months of apparent agreement, would suddenly decide at the last board meeting to switch her position and vote against the board majority? Is this an act of integrity, to suddenly flip-flop and play to the political arena? Or was there some new evidence revealed that only she was privy to?
Can we ask why Steven McDowell inexplicably abstained? What’s up with that? Cowardly? Or something borne of conviction?
Do Rodriguez’s and McDowell’s actions now put the board at greater risk for litigation? A unanimous decision to vote her out is quite different than a 3-1-1 vote. By flopping and flipping and crumbling to please the crowd, without regard to the law, is McClain’s case strengthened?
Can we ask why one of the most highly regarded education attorneys in San Diego, Dan Shinoff, feels confident that McClain violated her contract, and perhaps the Brown Act and other breaches as well? Does it make sense that the board would, on a whim, do this without solid legal grounds?
And why is one speaker’s offhand comment that this action could cost the district $500,000 repeated in the press as if it were an accepted fact? How often, if ever, was it pointed out that not a dime would be spent if McClain was released for cause? Five will get you ten that that $500,000 pulled-from-the-air figure will grow to $800,000 or even $1 million before the month is out.
Questions to ponder.
Meanwhile, I’m going to reflect on the memory of that one last look at the carpet of cherry blossoms falling off the trees like so much drifting, snowy confetti – grateful for the few days of respite, ironically taken in our nation’s capital, from the political turmoil of a tiny school district three thousand miles away.
[Maura Larkins' comment: You didn't smoke some of those cherry blossoms, did you, Marsha?]
James D. Peabody was named the new interim superintendent of the Del Mar Union School District (DMUSD) on April 1, one day after former superintendent Sharon McClain was released with cause from her contract.
School board president Comischell Rodriguez said Peabody was selected out of four possible interim replacement candidates during the school board’s one-hour closed session meeting held at the district office.
Rodriguez said each member of the school board agonized over the decision to oust McClain and they are all hoping for a smooth transition as the district moves forward.
Peabody, whose first day on the job was April 2, comes to Del Mar with 40 years of experience in education. Semi-retired, he currently serves as the superintendent of the Julian Union High School District where he has been working part-time while preparing the Julian High School principal for the superintendent’s job. Peabody will split time between the Julian district and Del Mar, focusing more on DMUSD until the board finds a permanent superintendent.
DEL MAR, Calif. -- Parents urged the Del Mar Union School District board to not fire another superintendent, as they believe the school board's actions are only hurting students.
Many parents told 10News they're tired of the school board throwing away their money on superintendents they can't get along with, and they expressed their outrage with what they said is another $30,000 in lawyer fees spent to fire Dr. Sharon McClain.
During a Wednesday meeting, parents gave McClain a standing ovation and they gave the Del Mar Union School Board of Trustees an earful.
"You scheduled this meeting on a day and time with the expressed intent to avoid public input," said one parent.
Another parent said, "The parents of this community are in the dark about what cause you find to fire a popular superintendent; this is our money."
McClain was hired in 2008 after the previous superintendent was fired -- a firing that cost the school district some $300,000 to buy out his contract.
Many parents said the board's actions are hurting their children and that McClain has been doing a great job.
Parent Kate Takahashi said, "There's no substantial reason to fire Dr. McClain. It's a personality conflict. It's a personal vendetta against her and that's what I honestly believe."
"It's not fiscally responsible. It is an irresponsible act and they are not listening to us," said parent Lesley Ballard...
Del Mar trustees still won't comment on McClain's dismissal
After former Del Mar Union School District Superintendent Sharon McClain's ouster on March 31, many parents are left wondering if more specific reasons for her dismissal could be revealed. The short answer is "no."
"Unfortunately, the board cannot comment at this point because it is a personnel matter," said Jeanne Blumenfeld, attorney with Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, the firm that represents the district.
While the board can't talk, Blumenfeld said that McClain has a right to discuss employment matters. She said McClain's claims that she was not given prior notice regarding her dismissal were not true.
The board had notified McClain in September 2009 that she needed to make several improvements in her performance, the school district's attorney Dan Shinoff, also of Stutz Artiano Shinoff & Holtz, said at the March 31 meeting.
At the same meeting, board trustee Doug Perkins said the board had agonized over the decision to fire McClain for more than six months, but said he believed the decision was in the best interest of the district...
Sharon McClain is a normal superintendent. Appointing an administrator to investigate himself or herself appears to be a common practice, at least in districts getting legal advice from Daniel Shinoff.
A formal complaint has been filed against Del Mar Union School District superintendent Sharon McClain by the mother of a student in the district who was suspended in September by DMUSD principal Emily Disney. The mother challenged the suspension, claiming district staff failed to follow proper procedure and violated district policies.
The challenge proceeded to a full hearing before the DMUSD Board of Education in October, and the vote was unanimous to overturn the suspension, against the recommendations of both Disney and McClain.
Although the mother, whose name is protected to preserve the privacy of her child, expressed gratitude that the suspension was revoked, she is pursuing action against the superintendent for what she called McClain’s “huge disregard for my time, student and parental rights, and overall lack of ability to use sound judgment.”
The formal complaint was filed November 9 and was sent to DMUSD school board president Katherine White.
The parent related in her grievance some of the details that occurred after the suspension, which precipitated the formal complaint. Joyful Noise through Nov. 22--Lamb's Players Theatre
A public records request revealed an email sent on the day of the suspension to the mother by Disney, principal of Sycamore Ridge School, which stated, “As the parent of [student], you have the right to request a meeting with the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee. The meeting shall be held within three school days of the time such request is received by the superintendent or the superintendent’s designee.”
The parent said she requested a meeting with McClain to appeal the suspension, as Disney’s letter instructed, but phone calls were not returned.
On September 22, 11 days after the suspension, the parent received a message from Disney that the meeting was scheduled for that afternoon in one hour’s time.
Further, Disney said in her email, sent at 1:43 p.m., that McClain “wishes to remind you that she has appointed me as the administrative designee.”
“If you are Dr. McClain’s designee, this was never communicated to me,” the parent wrote back six minutes later. Nevertheless, she agreed to the 2:15 p.m. meeting with Disney, who refused to revoke the suspension.
“I do not feel a competent and reasonable person would appoint the designee to hear the suspension to the same person that suspended the student,” the parent wrote in her grievance, commenting that someone “not involved with the complaint should hear it.”
In an email to board members, the mother wrote, “When an issue arises that directly involves the principal and then [the superintendent] allow[s] the principal to be the designee of the superintendent to handle the matter, it is a complete failure of the system.”...
Attorney Lauri LaFoe, of Sansom Willis LaFoe in Oceanside, said the parent was never told she had to come alone.
But a public records request of communications among board members, the principal and the superintendent revealed that McClain sent an email to the mother two days before the hearing, scheduled for Oct. 14, in which she wrote, “I called [the parent] to let her know that she could not bring anyone to the meeting per the Ed. Code.”
The parent wrote back one hour later, saying, “Since I am not permitted to bring an attorney or physician or anyone else to the hearing, may I record the meeting?”
This request was denied by McClain, who wrote that recordings are not allowed in closed session meetings...
DaFoe said all action taken and items discussed in closed session must remain confidential, implying that the parent would be violating the law, even though she has not taken any oath of office, by revealing anything that took place in closed session.
But not all legal experts agree. “I don’t think it’s so clear,” education attorney Dan Shinoff said. “If a parent chose to have something in open session, I don’t know how you prevent them.”... [Note to Dan Shinoff: You could always use the tactic of calling the police and saying the parent was disturbing the meeting, right?]
