Community Voice & Updates

Understanding The School District Financial Benefits Overpayment Issue

You may have heard about the recent issue with the Laguna Beach Unified School District (LBUSD) regarding multiple overpayments of health insurance benefits over multiple years to employees of the district. This information was made public by the Superintendent at the July 25, 2025 board meeting.

Since then, additional information has been provided by outside experts hired by LBUSD and by LBUSD itself. It is now clear that over the past 4 years these overpayments grew exponentially, reaching nearly $1.8 million in total.

Some have described the situation as complex and suggest that this complexity led to so many overpayments. Experts disagree however, pointing out the math is quite simple here.

Keep in mind large and small districts, as well as public and private companies by the thousands across the country do something very similar with their employee benefits every year too – nearly all with zero issues.

Since this health benefits overpayment issue is significant and impacts staff, taxpayers and the kids, we take a moment to help everyone connected to LBUSD better understand why this matters. Let’s start by simplifying things and looking at the basics.

WHO IS INVOLVED

Apart from certain administrative and leadership roles, employees of LBUSD are members of one of two unions – Laguna Beach Unified Faculty Association (LaBUFA) and California School Employees Association (CSEA).

Salaries and benefits, along with annual adjustments, are included in the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). The CBA is a contract between LBUSD and union members, and it is managed by LBUSD Administration.

WHAT IS THE BENEFIT

Each year all employees eligible for health care benefits are presented with “open enrollment” where they select plan coverage for the coming period from a variety of provided alternatives.

Each coverage option is presented with an associated employee cost, but before that happens a lot of prior work has occurred behind the scenes.

This process is very common in public and private entities.

HOW IT WORKS (The Simple Version)

Each coverage year the insurance providers submit a TOTAL cost of the various health insurance programs available to employees.

LBUSD administration aligns these rates to the maximum amount LBUSD will contribute (CAP) covered in the CBA and approved by the School Board.

A rate sheet is included in the Employee Benefits Guide that employees use to select a coverage program that best meets their own cost/benefit profile.

Simply put, it’s a math exercise to determine the employee contribution amount(s) based on what has been selected vs. the CAP (since the LBUSD contribution portion is set as a maximum amount in the CBA).

WHY NOW

Earlier this year calculated rates were presented to the Human Resources department for inclusion in the Employee Benefits Guide in preparation for the open enrollment period.

The rates represented a significant increase sufficient for the issue to be raised to the LBUSD Superintendent, who then brought it before the School Board promising a full investigation. It seemed that this was not the first year this issue happened so it was the right thing for the Superintendent to do and to ensure transparency.

No information has yet been shared on “how” or “why” required approvals in prior years did not occur.

$1,770,000 OVERPAYMENTS

An outside forensic accounting firm was hired and performed a limited scope audit. It determined that “for the four years 2022-23 through 2025-26…the district did not comply with the CBA.”

The CBA states that any amount over the agreed maximum LBUSD CAP per employee will be paid by the employee. The benefit booklet reflected very low premiums, significantly less than what the CBA required them to pay.

The forensic accounting firm stated that LBUSD did not set employee contributions according to the language contained in the CBA, and consequently the district covered more of the total annual cost than it should have. They went on to say that whether this lack of compliance is evidence of a material breach or impropriety requires a legal review and conclusion (outside the scope of what they were asked to do).

Further investigation by the recently hired Assistant Superintendent Chief Business Officer (CBO) confirmed that finding and quantified the total of the overpayment years at $1,770,000 with the current year contributing $840,000 of that amount.

Neither public report included specific details on “why” the contract terms were not followed.

NOW WHAT

The CBO has already defined enhanced procedures where both Human Resources and Business Services independently calculate benefit rates and jointly reconcile those rates in accordance with the CBA before the Employee Benefits Guide is produced.

Additionally, the School Board will need to decide if any further research is appropriate to determine the “why” this happened now that the “what” has been established.

Further, the School Board will need to decide if any action is to be taken to recover the overpayments or cover the excess with current operating funds.

CONSIDERATIONS

• It’s essentially certain that rank and file employees didn’t know the rates they were presented were incorrect.

• LBUSD has identified possible sources of funds to cover the current year shortfall (which ultimately means some programs may not receive the funds they need).

• The district represents a $1.04 million “net effect of excess spending.” While we understand the desire to try and minimize the headline number, the reality is that the current and last three years overpaid benefits equal $1.77 million for full transparency. For clarity, the $1.04 million is after funds possibly available to the district from various programs, etc. are applied against the total exposure.

• Not correctly administering the CBA/contract is a violation of bylaws and has potential consequences.

• Publicly disclosing what happened needs to consider current and prior employee rights and terms of employment agreements.

• The School Board will need to decide what other experts should be engaged, given a further review of how this occurred may be required to get to the “why”.

• Nonunion staff, senior leadership, and board members have been and are eligible to participate in health benefits.

• LBUSD is locally funded with $0.255 of each property tax dollar delivering the majority of revenues.

OPINION

We endorse further outside and transparent investigation to determine “why” this occurred and who knew what, when.

This will help ensure that no other similar contract violations have occurred or that need approval process revision.

It will also ensure LBUSD has done everything possible to protect itself from possible litigation.

We respect that the investigation and respective results may have limitations on what can be brought forth publicly.

We also fully support the School Board making every effort to minimize impact on rank-and-file staff.

The School Board has a fiduciary duty to the taxpayers (as do all of LBUSD Administration), so it is paramount that this issue be fully vetted and resolved.

Podium Comments to LBUSD Board at 11/13 meeting

By Gary Kasik

Thank you all for your service to the community, our children and my grandchildren who I hope will all benefit from your efforts.

Thank you Assistant Superintendent for the presentation. Honestly, I was hoping to see more “why” and “how” but I can draw conclusions from the go forward recommendation. I appreciate your limitations on what can be publicly disclosed with respect to employee rights and adherence to restrictions in severance agreements issued by prior boards. A couple points to highlight…

The CBA (a contract) “cap” is regularly referred to in agreements and financial documents to be a “hard cap”, “a fixed amount”, and “Costs that are over the district’s contribution including those associated with renewal increases for health coverage each year, are assumed to be covered the employee”. A cap isn’t an estimate or allocation; it’s a ceiling, a limit, something not to be exceeded. You should ALWAYS be under a cap. The contract was administered properly (with an appropriate modification) in 20-21 and 21-22. It wasn’t in the four subsequent periods by increasing amounts totaling just short of $1.8M…that’s the amount resulting from not properly administering the contract.

Your graphics on page 6 and 9 generically demonstrate the issue being lack of communication, maybe oversight or a check and balance, between one department and another. Again, I respect the need for confidentiality, but if this lack of communication or oversight wasn’t in place could other contracts have been affected? Audits don’t catch this. It would seem many compensation or service related transactions would involve the same flow.

It’s been stated on the dias that board bylaws are the equivalent of rule of law to the district. Given residents have expressed concern over this misappropriation of taxpayer funds, is the district exposed to any possible litigation and how might that be mitigated?

I appreciate the analysis and encourage a confidential report to the board that may address what would be inappropriate or expose the district if presented publicly. If more work needs to done please do it.

$1.8M is a lot of money, period. We’re a well funded district but don’t simply say we have the funds to cover it so everything is OK. How many teachers or aides would it cover? How many programs?

While the rank and file hard working teachers benefitted it was not because of their actions. They were simply presented with a rate sheet and made their selection. It would be nearly impossible for any one of them to calculate the correct rates, nor should they be expected to do so. The board will need to decide what action is to be taken but I hope the board considers minimizing any impact to the staff.

High School Pool Update from 11/13/2025 School Board Meeting

From comments by Assistant Superintendent Manoj Roychowdhury

• Pool project is going as scheduled.

• Had a couple of job walks (construction site visit by a potential bidding firm to gather information before bidding) done (last one was today on November 13).

• Bid opening is on December 11 at 2pm in the district boardroom (550 Blumont Street).

• Those who have not seen a public bid for a large construction public bid opening, you are invited to attend.

• We will be able to tally up the individual packages.

• We have 20 packages in the project bid.

• We will be able to tally up and quickly announce who is the low bid.

• That does not necessarily mean that this is the lowest response.

• We will take our time to evaluate and go through the metrics.

• The bid may be low, but it also has to be responsive and address all the needs on the requirements that were specified.

• We anticipate bringing the awards for the 20 bids or less than that (back to the board) in the January board meeting.

High School Pool Update from 10/23/2025 School Board Meeting

From comments by Superintendent Jason Glass

• Pool replacement project has officially received approval from the Division of the State Architect.

• This is a major milestone.

• Allows the district to move confidently into the next phase of construction planning.

• Reflects months of design, review and collaboration.

• Marks a significant step in delivering a high-quality facility for our students and our community.

High School Pool Update from 9/25/2025 School Board Meeting

Taken from comments by superintendent Jason Glass

• Pool modernization project bid and award process is currently advancing as scheduled.

• Immediate focus is ensuring bidders complete the mandatory pre-qualification process by the October 15 deadline and securing final design approval.

• As of this meeting, 47 applications from interested bidders for pre-qualification approval have been received.

• Architect is working to resubmit construction plans to the Division of the State Architect (“DSA”) for back check next week.

• Final approval from DSA is anticipated mid-October.

• District staff are actively preparing the Request for Proposal (“RFP”) package for various consulting services.

• District expects to publish RFP by the end of next week (October 3).

• Proceeding right on schedule.

Link to View a Fly Through of the Laguna Beach High School Pool Modernization Project

By Ruhnau Clarke Architects

https://youtu.be/T0jw0wXrzW0

Making Mountains Out Of Mole Hills

You may wonder why a local activist group that is strongly opposed to the current school board majority published a call for supporters of the pool modernization project to attend the 9/11/2025 LBUSD Board meeting.

There was, in fact, an agenda item regarding the pool project - but it was strongly expected to be a rubber stamp at this juncture, and everyone knew that.

After all, the specific pool agenda item was simply there to get board approval to put the project out to bid.

Keep in mind that all the information provided so far has been based on estimates, so until actual bids come in and the rubber meets the road, it is impossible to know how much the project may truly cost.

This is a particularly important step when you consider studies like one by Johns Hopkins completed in 2020. It looked at randomly selected infrastructure projects nationwide and found that when it comes to such projects there is “…an 86% chance that actual costs will exceed estimated costs…”.

At slightly over $25 million, this is the single largest capital outlay the district has EVER MADE, so getting bids on more than 20 different aspects of the construction project is ABSOLUTELY REQUIRED for the board to be fiscally responsible.

School boards, as with all government entities, are fundamentally accountable to the taxpaying public that provides the money for them to operate. That means all elected officials must be transparent about where taxpayer dollars are spent – particularly on larger projects such as this one.

Now that detailed plans are complete and state building department approvals are expected shortly, getting bids is the logical and required next step – Duh!

Given efforts and spending to date it would have been highly unusual for the board to essentially stop the project at this point, rather than waiting for high confidence cost estimates.

Sensible Laguna supported this motion, as did the board with a 5-0 vote. All bid responses, with recommended providers, will be presented to the board in December or January for approval to proceed.

More soon on proposed funding and what it may mean to a possible bond already being proposed by an activist group…

Podium Comments to LBUSD Board at 9/11 meeting #1

By Steve McIntosh

So here we are on September 11th. A day that is a symbol and benchmark of when our country came together and united as one. A concept that we desperately need in this district these days.

It’s the start of a brand-new school year. Students and parents are excited and optimistic about what the year can bring. Teachers have worked tirelessly to get their plans in place, and the maintenance staff has facilities whipped into top notch shape, including the beautiful, state of the art turf on the Football field!

For months, we have urged the board minority to start working with the board majority and stop the obstructionist attitude and position. There have been recent instances when there was a glimmer of hope, as when Jim Kelly asked for an audit of the current over-payment of the Health Care benefits.

Contrary to bad rumors, this board is actually accomplishing great things!

• They have unanimously hired a fantastic, extremely experienced Superintendent that is committed to helping the board take our district to levels it’s never attained before.

• A budget has been passed.

• A fantastic pool will be built.

• A new Business Officer with extensive experience has been hired, who will play a huge part in bringing district operations out of the shadows and into more transparency.

Yes, plenty to be thankful and happy about.

Yet here we are once again….Being divided by a Political Action Committee, masquerading as a brand-new concerned education group. Exactly what the kids, parents, the community do not need….

The consistently fabricated issues, over-blown concerns and the constant chants about how this board is not putting kids first, are fake, have no merit and people are seeing through that narrative. In fact, these actions are doing more harm to kids. Teaching kids that it’s ok to attack people for no reason, fabricate issues and even smear a board member and others, with a horrible fake Instagram account and then pushing it by actively liking the posts. Exactly what we are all trying to stop kids from doing. Think about it. It’s Shameful.

There is not one board member here that is not for the kids. Ignore the special interest hype and listen to their words! Whether they are empowering student voices, listening to what students are saying they need, or listening to parents with real issues like Special Needs programs to curriculum. They are all about putting the kids first!

We would like to commend this board for holding the course and not letting the detractors with fake narratives stop you from doing what the community duly elected you to do.

Thank you all for your service and putting kids first.

Podium Comments to LBUSD Board at 9/11 meeting #2

By Gary Kasik

As always, thank you for your service and commitment to the district. I know that everyone who speaks here means to say that….they just forget.

At the prior board meeting (August 14) a founding member of a local activist organization read a statement that focused on their views of necessary objectives for LBUSD. The list of wide ranging conceptual areas of emphasis was preceded with the statement that the group ”stands for student success and board transparency”.

I’m not aware of ANY local organization that wants to see a decline in the performance given the importance of a top performing district to ALL residents.

The speaker went on to declare that “We DEMAND the board imagine and prepare for what comes next and, for now, since you are unwilling to do so, WE WILL.”

I would suggest that demands and threats to usurp a duly elected board is less effective than working within procedural guidelines with a cooperative posture. I would further propose that everyone’s desired objectives fall within a reasonably common range.

We all want the same thing. Perhaps priorities and the path to achieve those goals differ but that will always be the case and compromises inevitable.

LBUSD is, in fact, a top performing district, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t room for improvement. Improvement in reaching every student, every discipline, at every level, every day. I’ve listened to multiple years of the district’s self appraisal presentations and have yet to hear a single reference to a section for “areas for improvement”.

Transparency, something that seems to be a common goal, is easy when the lights are green but takes courage to openly call out where we need to do better and how we intend to do so. Rather than spending excessively on marketing spin of results that mask areas needing attention, let’s have the courage to call them out and work together to drive improvement , not simply make demands.

The first listening sessions are a refreshing approach toward real transparency. As was Dr Glass calling out a potential financial inconsistency early before he knew all the details and proposing steps, supported by the board, to assess the situation and report back.

You members of the board are all faced with multiple voices with diverse opinions. I appreciate your courage to hear them all and to perform the role you were elected or appointed to do.

LBUSD Listening Sessions Begin Soon

It would seem the newly elected Laguna Beach School Board (LBUSD) majority is finally starting to get some traction!

After hiring Dr. Jason Glass as Superintendent, the board majority are setting out to fulfill their campaign promises by delivering the much-needed transparency and community participation in the District. This is a welcome change, after boards in prior years ignored UP-FRONT community input and ALL parent involvement and input.

The implementation of wide-open communication to the District is being rolled out and is certainly welcomed by Sensible Laguna!

The District has scheduled a “Town Hall” meeting at each of the campuses to allow members of the community and parents to attend easily, and at convenient times.

See the info below and swing by to meet the new Superintendent, Dr. Jason Glass. After all, the district is supported by your property tax dollars. (In fact, the district is nearing the $ 100 Million dollar amount for their operating budget - 95% of which YOU as property owners, renters, etc., sponsor.)

Talk about Facility Master Plans, the pool, former lack of board transparency and communications, curriculum, transportation, sports, parking, etc.

Come and let your voice be heard because they are now finally listening!

Information from the District on this subject can be found here:

LBUSD will host a series of Listening Town Halls at each school site to provide families and community members an opportunity to share feedback directly with the superintendent. The conversations will focus on what the district should continue, what may need to change, and new opportunities to consider. All Town Halls are open to anyone, regardless of school affiliation. Families and community members are encouraged to attend the session most convenient for them.

The time for each session is 6:00 to 7:30pm and dates & locations are:

• September 8 - Laguna Beach High School

• September 10 - Top of the World Elementary

• September 16 - El Morro Elementary School

• September 30 - Thurston Middle School

We hope to see you there!

The Sensible Laguna Team

This Just In…

It looks like the Board is expected to meet with the auditor/evaluator on the health care matter in closed session at tomorrow's meeting, as this topic relates to negotiations and bargaining. District contract negotiators are also expected to participate.

We understand the evaluator is currently reviewing the issue outlined below.

It looks like they are targeting completion of the final report by the September 11 Board meeting and it will not be available for the August 14 meeting. Securing a qualified and available evaluator reportedly took longer than hoped, but that individual is now engaged and actively working.

We hope to hear a brief update to the Board from Superintendent Glass at the August 14 meeting summarizing these facts.

July 24, 2025 LBUSD Board Meeting Update - Potential Significant Financial Issue Reported

By The Team at Sensible Laguna

At the July 24, 2025 LBUSD Board meeting, newly installed superintendent Dr Jason Glass, noted a potential significant financial issue related to the amount of employee health benefits the district has paid, over and above contracted amounts and will pay for the upcoming school year.

We fully endorse the decision to bring the item forward given the possible minimum of a $1.4 million scope of financial impact and, further, that the board was approving a contract THAT EVENING that included provisions for benefits payments. It was appropriate and imperative that Dr Glass raise a potential issue to the board even though, as he emphasized, there was more research to be done and many questions he could not answer at that time.

We were disappointed that one board member voiced opposition to having the item on the agenda as well as a forensic look into the situation, even though the superintendent was clear that a contract breach had been identified and needed further research and investigation. This level of transparency from district leadership is a welcome relief to prior years of closely held information.

The portion of employee health benefits paid by the district is negotiated and captured in the union agreements with the district. (1) The agreements for the 2025-26 school year were on the agenda for approval on that evening’s agenda.

The payments over what was negotiated in the union contracts were stated to be $550,000 for 2024-2025 and $850,000 for the upcoming school year, so it’s clearly an issue that needed to be raised to the board while concurrently launching further investigation.

Dr Glass noted that there were and are monies available to cover the overpayment from the General Fund if needed. He also stated that legal counsel has indicated this a breach of the union contracts. He further stated that no student programs were impacted by diverting dollars from the General Fund, as excess operating funds at the end of each year were allocated to reserves.

Dr Glass committed to an independent investigation and report to the board and public at the next board meeting on August 14.

We look forward to that update and assume it will cover questions we’re getting from residents around Laguna Beach regarding specifics on:

• Total amount of overpayments covered by the General Fund?

• Which school years were impacted, if any, beyond already noted?

• Where did the approval process breakdown?

• How did the breakdown allow the contract breach, what was missed and could other contracts have similar issues?

• What, if any, plans are being considered to recover the overpayments and what are the district’s legal rights versus “other options”?

• Did the overpayment result in a budget/actual variance and where was that reported, or was the overpayment budgeted?

• What new controls are being implemented and will other contracts be audited for appropriate payments and possible areas to improve controls?

• Who was responsible for the decision to cover the additional expenses?

• Who knew about it and who benefited, including administrators?

• Did Union Representatives that campaigned for former Board Members during the election, have aggressively attacked the new board majority, and lobbied for the former Administration personnel to become Superintendent, realize hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional premiums were being covered by the District and not passed on to employees as stated in the contracts?

We feel it’s important to note that benefits payments to district staff who are not members of either of the two unions generally receive benefit coverage, along with pay increases, equivalent to what is negotiated in the union contracts. This group includes most of administration leadership including those who actually negotiate the union contracts, recommend approval of same to the board and execute the transactions. To be clear, the board approves the final contracts. In this case, we have not yet been able to see that the over-payment of employee health benefit premiums were reported, shown, or otherwise explained to board members or the public so our analysis is ongoing.

Public information at this time is limited to what was presented at the July board meeting and can be viewed online. We would encourage anyone to listen and forward any questions or comments to the board. We’ll plan to post an update.

Here are a few more points to know about:

(1). From the 2023-24 Budget “Book” regarding employee benefits:

In addition to these statutorily required benefits, the District contributes a fixed amount for health and welfare benefits for its employees. These benefits include medical, dental, vision, and life insurance. As part of the tentative agreements with both unions, any increase in health and welfare costs will be passed onto employees. The committee had agreed to have the increases applied directly to the specific plan versus spreading the increase equally for all insured.

2) The board’s approval of the contracts included the following added motion from President Dee Perry (time stamp of 2:37:27 to 2:38:48) and was accepted with a unanimous board vote:

I move that the board of education approve the 2025 2026 collective bargaining agreements as presented and further direct the superintendent and staff to:

Number one engage with employee union leadership to address the district's current overspending on health care contributions for the 2025-26 school year including discussion of a potential agreement to amend the exist existing contracts to reflect a mutually acceptable resolution.

Number two, to collaborate with union leadership to develop a long-term sustainable strategy for managing employee health care benefits within the parameters of future collective bargaining agreements and the district's financial obligations.

And number three, it is further moved that the superintendent is authorized to retain qualified independent auditors to implement specialized supplemental for forensic financial audits determined after notice and consultation with the board president to be necessary and prudent in order to prevent and resolve fiscal, budget, and financial control deficiencies and to ensure district compliance with applicable contracts, obligations, and laws.

Welcome to Laguna Beach Dr Glass!

By The Team at Sensible Laguna

At the May 22 LBUSD board meeting, President Dee Perry announced the selection of Dr Jason Glass to fill the open position of Superintendent. Dr Glass has a diverse background in education including leadership roles at the state level as well as superintendent of larger districts outside of California.

We welcome Dr Glass and trust all final details to his onboarding will progress smoothly.

Filling this role with the most qualified individual has been the top priority of the current board since the prior board approved the abrupt midterm requested end of year 2024 termination of the prior Superintendent.

Dr Glass joins the district at an ideal time to assist the board in the execution of key priorities that will continue to drive incremental improvement in an already top performing district.

At the same meeting that began with the good news of Dr Glass, district staff presented the Local Control and Accountability Plan (LCAP). The LCAP is a three-year plan required of all California school districts. They also presented a preliminary budget for 2025-26.

Both reports were extremely positive, showing progress against established goals and a budget that would be the envy of most districts.

LBUSD has one of the highest spending levels per student in the state, low debt, strong annual excess revenues and very deep reserves.

The great news is that the superintendent and the school board now appear to be well positioned to advance the district as a leader in California and beyond.

Editorial: Overreacting, Misrepresentation and Intentional Disruption (May 23, 2025)

By The Team at Sensible Laguna

Our readers will be interested to know the May 22 school board meeting was very positive, productive and without controversy.

Well, at least it was going that way until there was an issue near the end that highlights one of our repeated criticisms of representatives of community groups creating division, misinformation, and confusion where none actually exist.

There was an agenda item proposing to include the policy (9150) regarding student board members at a future governance meeting. There was no supporting information on the agenda document but the presentation can be summarized as:

1. Define proper communication channels

2. Role of student representatives in soliciting specific information

3. Defined role as intermediaries

4. Recognizing independence of student representatives board reports

There were four speaker cards from the public (counting one from the dias). Sensible Laguna comments were: good input from the student representative, it’s important, SUPPORT for the proposal, caution to avoid unintended consequences, and a suggestion to broaden input. Changes in governing policy should not be taken without careful consideration.

After comments a member of the public demanded to be heard outside of defined public comment guidelines. She was quite upset and challenged the sequence of speakers making an incorrect assertion from previous agenda items. She was also incorrect that the item under consideration was in regard to board member Hills who was not mentioned in the agenda item nor any comment as yet in the presentation. She went on to chastise the prior speakers for not defending the safety and protection of a student, when no mention of safety or security had been referenced. Further she said we should be ashamed for not supporting a policy change to protect students. Again, we SUPPORTED the proposal. Ultimately the board voted 5-0 in support of the proposal.

This is another example of “creating chaos where none exists”. All speakers supported the proposal to consider the policy in an upcoming meeting. All were respectful of the board representative and the importance of the proposal. Two speakers while supporting the proposal as put forth, simply cautioned that added input be obtained and care be given to avoid unintended consequences that could impact the intent of the program. This was met with a verbal assault that they should be ashamed and introduced a series of comments unrelated to what had been put forth.

Take a look for yourself as we’ll be accused of misrepresenting, but even when in agreement, this type of outburst is being used to cast a shadow over an effectively operating district board.

Key approximate time stamps.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_IVhwM6sIyw&list=PL9tRsLvmWMuWV-mzx0S4bpozQ_BV92N9V&index=15&pp=iAQB

• 2:20 Introduction of the agenda item

• 2:21 Proposal framework

• 2:25 Board President support for proposal

• 2:25 Public comment (mine 2:32)

• 2:35 Board discussion

• 2:43 Unanimously approved

As Danish theologian, philosopher, poet, social critic and religious author widely considered to be the first existentialist philosopher Søren Kierkegaard famously said way back in the 1800s — "There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true".

Enjoy the playback…

Editorial: A Common Practice (May 18, 2025)

By Gary Kasik, Sensible Laguna

I recently wrote a Letter to the Editor that stated “the sky wasn’t falling” at Laguna Beach Unified School District. There is even more good news from the school district board meeting on May 8 where all orders of business were properly dispatched.

I was, however, quite taken aback by the lack of unanimous support for an item critical to district liability protection.

A brief background:

• Apparently, when the prior superintendent was terminated not all of his access rights and authorities were disabled.

• Per staff, he had active credentials, access to certain accounts, and email for several months.

• Most board members were concerned over possible exposure should the superintendent had taken any action that could bind the district. For instance, if a contract were signed or commitment made via his district email what would be the legal standing of that action?

Three board members wisely supported conducting a brief review to verify no exposure exists. This is especially important given the terms of the superintendent’s separation agreement that provide him considerable indemnity.

To be clear, no board members implied any financial malfeasance and nor do I; there are various controls to address that. Unfortunately when ANY employee’s privileges extend beyond termination of employment it’s critical to certify ALL actions taken; for the protection of the employee, staff, and the district.

The board took the right course but the adamant dissent by board member Malczewski was quite disappointing. Her primary rationale was that there was no evidence of “financial fraud” which fails to comprehend the issue of undefined exposure. She rather chose to attempt to spin the issue as “political” and fuel the perception of board divisiveness.

Hopefully, and fully expected, the results of the review will find no created exposure but there was no choice but to “trust and verify”.

Nice work by the board majority.

Research Note: It is common for companies and municipalities to have an annual financial audit (1x per year), while larger companies and municipalities will often do targeted audits to check on key areas or departments once per month (12x per year) to as often as once per week (52x per year).

School Board Unity Works Both Ways (May 9, 2025)

By Steve McIntosh, Sensible Laguna

In a recent letter to the editor (“LTE”), Ketta Brown made the statement that a quality Superintendent candidate will eschew any position without full unanimous support from the board. I can’t seem to find any proof or studies showing this data, even on the Leadership Associates website. Why is Mrs. Brown assuming there will be a “split vote” anyway? Does she know something we don’t? What if a candidate is a superstar, top school academic experienced, or a just perfect fit? Is the board minority set to automatically vote against a majority, no matter what? This Unity works both ways people.

A 5-0 vote is great, when it happens. Mrs. Brown and others chanting about demanding voting as one, promotes the “weak”, “rubber stamping” of past boards, of which she was part of. The reason there is an odd number of members on boards, is to break voting ties. That is how these entities were set up and what we call Democracy. In fact, electing the Pope only takes 2/3 of the votes!

Again, I can find no data to back up Brown’s statement that split board decisions on Superintendents directly affect the length of service or the passage of bonds. (This is where Brown Slides into a promotion of a massive School Bond).

The “Big Bond” Mrs. Brown is politicking for will be in $80 to $100 million range. It would saddle all our kids and grandkids with debt for years! Yes, facilities will always need work, however, the district facilities team puts several Million Dollars into maintenance yearly. Thanks to their dedication, our school facilities are in great shape. That said, the majority of what is proposed for the massive bond, is to enlarge space for administration, with minimal direct impact for students. Don’t fall for the narrative a new PAC disguised as a parent group is claiming, that a “bond” will cost nothing. $100 million is hardly “nothing”!

This is a very important decision the board must make about hiring a Superintendent. Mrs. Brown is correct that it would not be fair to subject any new hire to the vagaries of “politics”. Hopefully she practices what she preaches and passes that around to all the politically motivated detractors, looking to disrupt the confidential process by showing up at the superintendent interview location.

Editorial: The Sky is Not Falling (May 6, 2025)

By Gary Kasik, Sensible Laguna

Let’s clear things up, the sky is not falling at LBUSD. Students are in school, events continue, sports teams are excelling, tests are taken, teachers are teaching, no jobs are being cut, classes are expanding, bills are getting paid, even the controversial pool project is on schedule. Contrary to what’s being said, the world didn’t stop turning and nobody fell off. The board is on target to fill the unexpected opening in the superintendent role. Borrowing for a $20M environmental spending project was paused to allow the new superintendent input…seems wise.

So, if everything is OK what’s all the “Chicken Little” noise about? What actual actions has this board taken that are so divisive? A small vocal group raises more concerns about what MIGHT happen with wild unfounded speculation and misinterpretation rather than specifics. Nobody on the board wants anything other than greatness for the district…why would they?

The material change is that there is far more engagement from the current board than when the prior board deferred basically all decisions to the superintendent. A superintendent who abandoned his post mid-term, taking a $400K unearned bonus, instead of supporting students through the end of the school year.

New board members are more engaged, ask more questions and involve more stakeholders. Rather than embrace that openness and inclusion, that behavior has earned them shouts of “stay in your lane,” “don’t overreach,” and all forms of disrespectful, disruptive behavior at board meetings and in public comments. It’s interesting that the people who cause the disruptions are the first to complain about “chaotic” meetings…a means to an end?

I can likely find fault with specific behaviors of every board member and others who populate the dais. I’m sure that decisions will be made that align with my views and many where I’m on the other side of the issue. That said, I don’t think it’s appropriate to chastise properly elected officials for simply engaging. I’m sure it’s concerning for some to lose the tight control they maintained over the last decade but there are respectable ways to voice opinions. Shouting insults from the floor, misrepresenting positions and far worse – social media libelous behaviors – are simply inappropriate.

It seems clear that a vocal minority are singularly focused on usurping the board’s authority. All because newly elected board members are more involved than some think they should be. I’m fine with an active, engaged team dedicated to continued district greatness.

Editorial: Why Details Still Matter (April 4, 2025)

By Steve McIntosh, Sensible Laguna

I have written many times that Details Matter. But as we have all seen, today’s way of operating is to ignore and omit facts, start false narratives, and promote conspiracy theories.

We at Sensible Laguna consider ALL the data available, the facts and employ common sense while looking at the big picture. You may not always like what we say, but it would be hard to find anything untrue in any of our communications, as we try very hard to be sure they are based on COMPLETE FACTS.

This does not appear to be the case with the newly formed advocacy group, FUEL as evidenced by a recent Laguna Beach Independent letter to the editor (“LTE”) by board member Newth Morris. Despite little or no previous attendance at School Board meetings, the group seems to claim to have it all figured out in 3 months. However, most of their claims and concerns are unsubstantiated, distort or omit key facts and details.

For instance, when responding to statements to a March 14th LTE by Kate McMahon & George Weiss, Mr. Morris ignores 98% of what is stated in their letter, yet leaves out important facts trying to address the other 2%.

The McMahon / Weiss letter addresses the decline of Laguna Beach High School in overall academic rankings for the entire US. In his LTE, Mr. Morris chooses to write about state rankings instead. He claims that the ranking criteria changed in 2019. True, but left out the key fact stated by US News themselves; “In the new rankings, ALL eligible schools are ranked, compared with just 30 percent of all high schools in the previous rankings”. That makes a big difference.

Forget about the rankings for now and look at the hard data. That is where you get the true story. What about math, reading and science scores plus college readiness?

Mr. Morris repeats the same tired mantra, echoing what the past district administration, former school board members and pundits have repeated for years; “The Laguna Beach School District is ranked #1 in Orange County!” We should be #1! We are a small, 4 school district compared to others at 20, 30, 40+ schools. We also now spend $34,914 per student per the California Department of Education, while the next highest ranked district in Orange County spends only $25,967!

Mr. Morris says the dashboard showing state test results is misleading, but uses that same data to show that only 51% of students at Laguna Beach High School met or exceeded the state math standard. Based on his data, that means 49% did not! At the 51% level, this places Laguna Beach in the 90th percentile in California. Why? Because the average number of California State High School students meeting the standard, is a dismal 33%! The college readiness score for Laguna Beach High School students was 49 out of a possible 100. Does all this spell success to anyone?

Diverting once again in his letter, Mr. Morris says scores have been consistent since the tests were introduced. That is not factual. In my daughter’s 2019 class, 69.7% met the math standard. They were the last class to have had the opportunity to take Geometry in 8th grade, when the district fully implemented the Math Pathways curriculum.

Why compare Laguna Beach High School students to the lowest performers in the state? After all, US News ranks California 37th in pre-K through 12th grades in education, which is near the bottom nationwide. We can and should want to do better and we know parents ALL want that for their kids.

Winners compare themselves to those who excel and aspire to match or exceed them. There are plenty of high achieving schools to measure our schools against as we strive to be the very best. The fact is, there are 24 public “comprehensive” schools in the top 50 in California. Not all Charter schools like Morris’ LTE would lead you to believe. Many spend $15,000 less than Laguna Beach per student, and get math scores in the 80s and 90s, with college readiness scores to match! So, it can be done! Laguna Breach has resources, money, community support, facilities, great teachers and smaller class sizes. What’s missing? That would be leadership and more effective curriculum and instructional programs.

The fault lies squarely on the shoulders of the former overpaid Superintendent and his self-proclaimed “weak board.” This group ignored red flags, ignored parents and students, faked transparency, and justified mediocre performance — all the while claiming everything is great because we are “#1” in Orange County!

What type of “professional” superintendent would quit the district just before board election results are certified, because he doesn’t like the two new prospective board members? What kind of superintendent doesn’t show up at the first board transition meeting creating chaos? What type of superintendent abandons the kids, after getting a sweetheart exit deal with lots of cash, and benefits (including having the district pay for the legal defense of any possible wrongdoing while in office, FOREVER)?

This seems to be the same person that FUEL and all the worshipers are still in mourning over. Their approach of actively disrupting board meetings, recklessly accusing the board majority, inciting staff, and proclaiming they will take over the board majority in 2026 shows they are just out for revenge. Just how is creating chaos helping the kids?

Mr. Morris says join FUEL to defend the schools! From what? Not exactly sure what he is afraid of, but I can assure him, the real threat is gone. Why not just all work together for the kids? Then again, that just might be too sensible.

Steve McIntosh

Pool Project Update & Status (March 20, 2025)

At a Special Board meeting held 3/20/2025, the LBUSD School Board approved the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) filing of a Notice of Determination (“NOD”) following adoption of the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) with a vote of 5-0.

While that is a lot of jargon, suffice it to say this step was singularly focused on confirming the conceptual design meets the requirements set forth under CEQA and that any additional mitigations sought by the School Board were included in that filing.

Details of the presentation are available on the LBUSD website, and a recording of the meeting can be found here. As always, we’ll suggest viewing the full presentation, reading all (in this case nearly a thousand pages) related materials and forming your own opinions.

For those closely tracking the pool modernization project, please note that we support moving forward with the current plans for a 45-meter pool inclusive of the mitigations presented in the Updated Design Concept, added and accepted in the meeting.

For additional insight here, we added our support to the project mostly because changing course at this point, with the information we have available from the district and actions by the city, would result in long outages, overall increased costs, and a considerable project delay. We understand and respect the many diverse opinions on modernizing the high school pool. In short, we believe moving forward rapidly is necessary for the kids and community and that an extensive rework of the plan would likely do more harm than good.

CEQA is a complex process that reviews 21 topical areas from Aesthetics to Wildfires. The consultant hired by the district identified that 16 of the 21 areas had impacts “less than significant” and therefore did not, under CEQA regulations, require mitigation efforts.

Those included notable resident focused areas of Aesthetics, Noise, Transportation, and Lighting. We disagreed with some of the findings and submitted comments urging consideration of a finding all four (or at least noise and lighting) as “significant”.

In a spirit of cooperation with the district, we engaged in discussions around what actions would/could be taken had the impacts been considered significant under CEQA, rather than argue the materiality of logging them as “significant” with the consultant.

From a common sense viewpoint the project:

• Increases pool size by 80% (going from 25 to 45 meters)

• Boosts practice capacity allowing the capability for three concurrent water polo practices (versus one today)

• Allows for regional California Interscholastic Federation (“CIF”) events for both swimming and water polo teams

• Rebuilds and reorients over 7,000 sq ft of new building construction (including a new second story)

• Concentrates increased spectator capacity into a new orientation projecting noise directly eastward into the neighborhood (compared to multiple smaller foldable stands at various points placed around the deck area)

Obviously, there will be substantial “impacts” on the neighborhood and community, so we focused on mitigation measures.

Aesthetics – Everyone will have, and is entitled to, a point of view on design. We focused on view impact and articulation of some of the massive 30 foot tall solid block walls for this part.

• Detailed plans are being directed to drop the building height two feet and to consider more as possible without losing capacity. This will ensure as little negative additional impact on resident views occurs based on design.

• Articulation designed to create a more visually interesting and human-scaled experience is being added to the large wall projecting up from the parking lot.

Transportation – Parking and circulation, especially as related to construction impact on evacuation, is not covered under CEQA.

• However, these key issues will be addressed in detail with the city. The district specifically committed to publish those plans.

Lighting – Residents value their scenic views and want to be sure new projects do not create unwanted light or glare.

• The revised plans committed to lowered light pole height, shielding covers on all light sources (including clocks and scoreboards), and including automatic timer shut offs outside of normal hours of operation.

Noise – Perhaps the primary concern of neighbors and the community results from a material increase in capacity and reorienting the bleachers. This refocuses crowd noise at events eastward and drives loud sounds directly into the neighborhood.

• The plans under which the board approved the NOD included a variety of sound and other mitigations within the Updated Design Concept that was also adopted as part of the motion to file. This included adding a permanent solid plaster wall sound barrier on the east side of the pool with pilasters and recessed arches at the same height and design so as to match the adjacent architectural walls on the west side of the pool; adding solid metal shade structures to both the east and west side of the pool walls with photovoltaic panels; closing the open part of the back of the west side wall; mobile sound systems with mandated maximum volume during events and things like that.

Overall, it was encouraging to see more School Board members concerned with details and not inclined to “rubber stamp” the plans of such a significant project. This board realizes that this is one of the largest projects ever undertaken by the district and as such, it requires appropriate design and fiduciary review.

At this point design is moving along nicely and the coming months will tighten up the cost and fiduciary pieces beyond the estimates provided so far.

The bottom line is that we are cautiously optimistic that this new board and administration, with a more community and district balanced approach, can accomplish what the previous leadership did not.

It’s unfortunate that neighborhood impact was treated as an afterthought to the project, but the new team is doing what they can to catch up with reasonable modifications that should have been in the original design, so we remain optimistic.

The School Board action moves the project forward with the following next steps:

• Notice of Determination Filed (Mar 2025)

• Complete construction documents and submit to the Division of the State Architect for Plan Review (May 2025)

• Division of State Architect completes plan review (Jul 2025)

• Bid and award construction contracts (Sep 2025)

• Final School Board approval (Dec 2025)

• Start of construction (Mar 2026)

Pool Project Update & Status (March 7, 2025)

Based on some recent public comments we felt it appropriate to “level set” our opinions on the High School Pool Modernization project.

Some key points regarding our assessment:

* As we have stated from the beginning, a new, improved and enlarged pool is an appropriate project for our student athletes and the community who currently share the facility.

* Viable and potentially better options should have been considered in more detail when the project was first launched or before material expenditures.

* A single 45 meter pool will not meet all of the needs expressed by the aquatics community and the broader resident community of Laguna Beach.

* A 38 meter pool in the current location with a supporting building is a viable option, but that is also dependent on City and other club team usage and facility operating hours.

According to information provided by district administration project management, a significant amount of money spent so far on the 45 meter pool would be non-recoverable or reusable. Additionally, existing pool repair costs originally estimated at $500,000 are now estimated at $2.5 million and are time sensitive.

The city has essentially reversed their position to consider a community pool and has now directed staff to negotiate a shared use arrangement with “a 45 meter pool at the high school”.

Economic factors driven by local labor and supply chain demands from recent fires, as well as material costs, are also likely to worsen.

This leads to the unfortunate conclusion that “restarting” the project at this point would disadvantage our student athletes and community pool users and will not deliver a material (or any) financial savings.

The prior district board “approved” three pre-construction contracts when the total cost for the facility was estimated at $15.0 million. The board was later updated that estimated costs had increased to $19.0 million and recently a $25.5 million cost was mentioned based on the latest architectural and other proposed changes. It is unclear how much has been spent to date, but based on prior contact approvals, we roughly estimate over $3.0 million.

District administration has indicated that if the current plans were canceled and the project “restarted” completion dates would be delayed by two years or more due to required approval windows.

Compounding things, district administration has further indicated the existing pool will eventually (soon) need to be closed due to health concerns identified by the health department that are still outstanding. This relates to necessary repairs that could lead to several months of pool closure and require an estimated $2.5 million in expenditure to fix.

So, given the current project status and additional factors, we believe the best-case path is to proceed with the current plan and for the district to include obvious needed mitigations to address noise, lighting/aesthetics and emergency escape routes to name some of the biggest ones.

It’s unfortunate residents find ourselves in this situation, but we simply can’t turn back the clock. Changing the course at this point will result in increased costs, considerable time delays, and extended periods without any pool for residents and students.

We hope to continue to work with district administration to proactively minimize the environmental and other major impacts on the neighborhood and the overall community as this project moves along.

Sensible Laguna Team

Important CEQA deadlines (February 7, 2025)

Residents living close to the high school pool recently received an official postcard notification in their mailboxes from Laguna Beach Unified School District (“LBUSD”) about the high school pool construction project.

The postcard had a publication date of January 17. This date is important because it started a clock with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) that sets a deadline for resident comments, questions, and concerns by February 17, 2025.

The notification announced LBUSD’s intent to adopt a “mitigated negative declaration” in the context of CEQA. This basically means that while the high school pool construction project initially showed the potential for significant environmental impacts, the mitigation measures stated in the documents, when implemented, would address those issues and allow the project to proceed.

We are alerting you because this is your opportunity to send comments to the applicant (LBUSD), so they can address issues or concerns you may have and other mitigations you are seeking. Responding should help the school district and board get this right so things can keep moving along.

The CEQA filing information can be found here: https://www.lbusd.org/departments/facilities/bids-and-public-notices

While it’s a lengthy document, don’t be deterred from a review, as you may or may not find all sections of equal interest. The document states that the project will have “no impact or less than significant impact” on:

• Noise

• Lighting

• Traffic and Parking

• Construction

• ….and several others

In each section it discusses plans to mitigate environmental impact under CEQA. In several sections the information provided represents there is no material change from the current facility, as the new one is a replacement of existing use.

The building is being demolished and nearly doubles in size, as it encroaches into the parking lot; the pool size increases 80% from 25 meters to 45 meters; and total spectator and participant capacity appears to nearly triple for example.

It’s important that if you have concerns about the project and its impact, you need to voice those concerns NOW, else the proposed mitigation will likely be deemed sufficient.

We suspect many are confused regarding the status of the overall project given the public input and new board member concerns. Please note that the school board will not have taken any action regarding the pool modernization project prior to this deadline, so it’s critical you respond “as if” the current stated plans move forward.

We’re including the postcard notification in the Visuals section of our website and any resident with concerns regarding the high school pool project is entitled to provide input.

There is also a public hearing scheduled for March 13, 2025 at 6:00pm at Thurston Middle School before the city planning commission.

District Pool Position Clarity (February 6, 2025)

People on multiple social media platforms seem to feel the need to “explain” the Sensible Laguna position on the high school/community pool.

We’ve always tried to be transparent and understand that not all residents will agree, but there’s no reason to misrepresent us.

For those interested we’ll try to summarize:

We’re not trying to “stop” the pool project and never have. As per the district, it’s ahead of schedule and we haven’t slowed it.

We have always supported an upgraded, larger pool in the current location - always have, still do. The current proposal represents improved views and an 11 month build. So enough with the name calling please.

We have an opinion that a solution for residents and students, based on their “asks”, requires two pools. The prior school board leadership and most people in the aquatics community have voiced the same opinion. We’ve yet to see a specific proposed schedule of use for a 45 meter pool other than ending practices at 8:00pm to get kids home earlier.

Two pools would be expensive to taxpayers regardless of funding by the city or district. Toward that end we were working to keep down costs of either/both projects by working to optimize both. A two pool solution could have eliminated the one year downtime for kids and lap swimming residents and retained the wading pool for our youngest children.

We worked with residents and the city to secure a 5-0 vote from the city council to pursue a dedicated community pool. The current council has modified that direction, as is their right to do, and directed the city manager to work to secure a near term “rental” based agreement with the district. While we may disagree with that decision as it minimizes the impact of losing the wading pool, we respect and understand it, and offer assistance to help in any way.

For months we have been saying the current 45 meter pool proposal MAY be the best alternative. However, the analysis of a 38 meter pool in the existing footprint is incomplete and we contend the school board should have that option accurately scoped so they can make a fully informed decision. After all, data presented to date around that option is inconsistent and doesn’t match presentation material, assumptions differ or are not disclosed between the options, and district administration has not provided details on how costs were determined. Seeking maximum transparency as we have all along, we have been asking for this since the evaluation started and do not believe it will take long and could avoid project delays.

For those tracking timelines and trying to figure out where things stand, we note that the prior board “approved” (voted) to proceed with a 50 meter pool at an estimated cost of $15.5 million over the option of a 40 meter pool estimated at $14.5 million at that time (making a 45 meter option an interpolated $15.0 million based on that data). The board then approved contracts for design and development of detailed plans - not the entire project.

At a subsequent school district administration update (not board vote) the pool design was modified to a 45 meter pool and the adjusted estimated cost jumped to $19.0 million - a 27% increase in cost over the original estimate for a pool that size.

Now, at the most recent update the acting superintendent said the cost is estimated to be closer to $25.5 million for a 45 meter pool - a 70% increase over the original estimate or 34% higher than the previous one.

Our opinion is that these increases have risen rapidly so they are concerning. As such, maximum transparency of how they were arrived at in detail is needed to ensure ongoing taxpayer support. For those who might say other options may have been equally impacted we of course acknowledge that. We are simply pointing out costs have risen sharply, so data transparency in decks provided to the public should be detailed, complete and easy to follow.

As we have pointed out from the very beginning of this project, the cost of the pool itself is far less than the cost of any buildings. That means the cost difference between a 38 meter pool to a 45 meter pool just isn’t the major driver of project costs. To save potential money and still get as much usable water as possible requires full and complete exploration of the option of retaining the existing building with whatever significant modifications might be required (and releasing this detail to the public).

We also do not dispute the fact that the school district “has the money to pay for the pool”. We do think $25+ million (and growing?) is a lot of taxpayer supplied money though and, regardless of the source of these funds, spending this amount on a pool means the district is not spending that money on something else that could also benefit students. Spending decisions of course rest with the school board and they are constantly evaluated so we expect they are doing that now too.

To clarify again, we fully agree the current pool is in need of significant maintenance and that now is the time to upgrade rather than “patch”. That said, we respect the opinion of many residents that the current pool is adequate, has served the community well, and can continue to do so. In fact, we would argue no one more than us has had so many discussions with this group of residents to explain why we support an upgrade (and expansion).

We can all agree that a high quality education district is a benefit to every resident. We also believe school board members work very hard and have the best interests of our students at heart. There will be differences of opinion and priorities as to how to execute on the goals of greatness. We believe every taxpayer should take an interest and have an equal voice.

We are not expecting that everyone agrees but ask that we not be misrepresented.

For those with questions, or who want to confirm what they are being told, we’re not hard to reach.

Letter: Christmas Comes Early To The School District! (December 20, 2024)

By Steve McIntosh, Sensible Laguna

Change is never easy, but last Monday evening, there was a change for the better. At the LBUSD board meeting, newly elected Board Members, Sheri Morgan & Howard Hills were sworn in by new Mayor, Alex Rounaghi. A standing room only crowd witnessed the historic event as the former LBUSD student ushered in a much needed, fresh look for the Board. Soon afterwards, the Mayor’s former teacher Dee Perry, was elected President, after being bypassed for the position by past board majorities for years. The many years practice of a rotation of board members to President, was broken by one of these groups, to keep Perry from the position, then changed Bylaws afterwards to end that rotation.

Before the night was over, the board announced the intent to hire Dr. JoAnn Culverhouse, pending contractual approval, as interim Superintendent! The much-loved Educator, is a fantastic choice that can bring stability, civility and a real connection to the community, and has consulted in the search industry and can help find a permanent, real Superintendent with a connection to the community.

Tackling an agenda developed by outgoing Board President Jan Vickers and Superintendent Viloria, the new board did their best to keep “their meeting” moving along. The new members asked for certain items to be on the Agenda. Not only were some not included, the closed session was moved from the front of the meeting, that is typical, to the end. Thus, not allowing the new board to possibly vote on Culverhouse and be able to announce to the attending public. Following rules of order, the new board was able to move it forward to do just that. This was just one of many of the behind-the-scenes actions that the previous regime had left for the incoming members.

It is tradition for outgoing board members to attend the organization meetings, to “pass the baton”. Board Clerk Osborne and President Vickers had proclaimed early on that they would not attend. Conveniently, Viloria “brokered” a Sweetheart deal, that his last day in the “office” was Dec 12, 4 days before the meeting. His deal keeps him employed until Dec 31. Even though you are paying him, Viloria also shamefully did not show for the meeting. With nobody leading, they tried to create chaos. So much for the peaceful transfer of power!

To the scared and leery, have some faith. There is much you don’t know but stay tuned! There are great days ahead for the education of our kids!

Have a safe Happy Holiday!

School Board Meeting: A Deeper Look (December 16, 2024)

The first meeting of the new LBUSD board would be hard pressed to be described as “smooth”, but it’s important to look deeper.

The residents of Laguna Beach voted for candidates who clearly campaigned on platforms of “change”. Incumbents and their supporters campaigned for “continuity”. While this admittedly is an over simplification it does highlight some things.

In short, the new board members (more aligned than not with board member Perry) are trying to honor campaign positions, as they support the kids and focus on doing a good job in their new positions. Incumbents are representing their opinions and resisting change, as they try to maintain the status quo. Our position is neither group should be blamed for a challenging FIRST meeting.

After all, leadership from the prior board did not welcome Hills and Morgan to the dais. Even worse, the previous President (Vickers), Clerk (Osborne), and active Superintendent (Viloria) DIDN’T EVEN ATTEND the first meeting to demonstrate to the kids how to properly transfer power under a democracy post-election.

The agenda was set by the prior President and Superintendent, but deviated from past agenda standards. All of this added materially to the rocky start. Addressing the obstacles set by the prior leadership had to be addressed first to properly constitute the board. This was sadly designed by prior leadership to be purposefully disruptive and didn’t need to happen of course, but now it’s done.

Joan Malczewski attempted to usurp leadership of the meeting from the outset. Howard Hills objected and tried to do same. Neither had the authority at that point to do so. Had the closed session happened first, AS IS THE NORM, they could have worked this out, come out of closed session, hear public comment, elect officers, and go on with the agenda. The unnecessary steps that happened instead were 100% due to lack of cooperation in transition from prior leadership.

The other impediment set by the prior board was the abrupt termination of the Superintendent effective 12/31/24 with highly favorable financial considerations and other terms. Why 12/31/24? If the prior board wanted to “protect” the school year why not 6/30/25? Why make the date AFTER the first board meeting and then allow the superintendent not to attend? How does any of that support a smooth transition in respect of the residents who voted and the students who depend on the board?

The result is that the new board has no choice but to address the key open position as an immediate priority.

Once past getting board leadership properly installed, the emotion was from public comment regarding the INFORMATION ITEM (no vote or action to be taken) regarding the modernization of the high school pool.

Board member Morgan asked this to be included on the agenda because, at the last meeting, WITHOUT AN AGENDA ITEM, Assistant Superintendent Dixon “presented” the same material in narrative only generating considerable questions from the community. Unfortunately for all, the presentation did not answer the questions, lacked any supporting detail, and Dixon’s voice over contradicted numbers in the deck.

Given a now updated $25.5 million price tag, it’s understandable there is considerable community opinion and discussion on this matter. The aquatics community, believing the pool project they support was being reconsidered, spoke passionately that the project needs to continue as approved by the prior board. The supporters turn out in force reminiscent of the equally passionate crowd earlier this year defending the desire of special needs students to remain in the district.

We will be critical of all board members for a moment, asking them to strive to do better in an environment where there will be differences of opinion. We have no doubt everyone on the dais and everyone who ran for a board seat, has only the best interest of the students and community at heart.

Dee Perry as President needs to run a tighter meeting - recognizing speakers, keeping discussions on point, and allowing respectful community input.

Howard Hills as Clerk needs to be crisp and to the point - citing policy and legislation when necessary and as a means to an end.

Joan Malczewski as a Board Member needs to respect the new board leadership - and continue to contribute in support or dissent of topics before the board as a peer to other board members.

Sheri Morgan as a Board Member needs to balance her attempts to give everyone what they want - the realities of making required concessions may not allow this.

James Kelly as a Board Member needs to continue to participate - be prepared, engage and contribute.

Finally, enough of these Brown Act claims covering elected officials and meetings. Morgan and Hills became elected officials at 5:45PM on 12/16/24, went into closed session, a report out was given, and they completed the meeting. Earlier this year, as we now know, the board went into closed session with a fully endorsable separation agreement for the Superintendent and GAVE NO REPORT OUT coming back to open session. The agreement continues to be available only under the Public Records Act.

School Board Meeting: Organizational Meeting Insights (December 16, 2024)

By Gary Kasik, Sensible Laguna

The first meeting of the new LBUSD Board may have appeared a bit “bumpy”. Here’s my best shot at a summary of, and my take, on the meeting.

*It’s important to note that the outgoing President (Vickers) and Clerk (Osborne) did not attend the meeting. Nor did the Superintendent (Viloria), who is acting Superintendent until 12/31/2024.

*The Superintendent and outgoing board president set the agenda for the meeting per policy. They accepted some, but not all, agenda requests from to be installed board members….but did not attend. There were some unusual modifications including moving closed session after open session.

*Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills were installed as new board trustees with Mayor Rounaghi doing the honors in a ceremonial session.

*When the board was seated for open session there was no President, no Clerk, and no Superintendent in attendance. All five board members were there in equal status.

*It’s not clear under what authority but board member Malczewski attempted to take a leadership role in the meeting. Members Hills, Morgan, and Perry voted to install Perry as “Chairman/Protem” (a title I can’t validate).

*The board then voted to modify the agenda moving closed session up, essentially prior to the open meeting,….typical of prior meetings.

*The board excused themselves to closed session for about 30 minutes and later included a “report out of closed session” that indicated the board would move forward with steps to establish a contract and board approval for Dr Joanne Culverhouse as interim Superintendent.

*Jim Kelly nominated Joan Malczewski for President but the motion didn’t pass.

*Howard Hills nominated Dee Perry for President and the motion passed 3-2.

*Howard Hills was elected Clerk also with a 3-2 vote.

*The meeting proceeded through the agenda with Perry and Hills as President and Clerk respectively.

*Board member Malczewski, and at times Board member Kelly, disagreed with actions proposed by Perry, Hills, and Morgan with votes taken on all action items.

*Sheri Morgan requested the approval of the minutes from the last meeting be tabled until the next meeting to allow clarification of an item from closed session.

*Board member Kelly, in response to multiple references during public comment, clarified that Superintendent Viloria was not “fired” but the prior board elected to buy him out of his contract as he perceived difficulty working with newly elected board members.

As always, don’t take my word for it. Go to the meetings, listen to the recordings, read the agendas, form your own conclusions.

My take -

Clearly this was an unusual meeting given the changes from the election and the action taken by the prior board to terminate the Superintendent (without cause) prior to the elected board being seated. So when the new board was seated there were no clear leadership assignments and an immediate pending absence of the top administrator.

No explanation was given for Superintendent Viloria not attending other than his “last day in the office” was 12/12(13); yet his contract is in place until 12/31/24.

This board is faced with the urgent and critical need to not only establish board roles but also to insure continuity of the Superintendent role on short notice. That took some work but they accomplished a great deal for having just been seated.

Personally, I’m encouraged with a bit of constructive discourse on topics critical to the community and students as (opinion) there was a bit too much “rubber stamping” of administration recommendations in the past with limited transparency.

Sorry for the long update but there was a lot…..and I’ve skipped a long emotional outpouring from the aquatics supporters concerned that plans for the new, now up to $25.5 million high school pool will be reconsidered.

School Board Election: Superintendent Termination Coverage - Special Note (December 6, 2024)

By Gary Kasik, Sensible Laguna

Some of you may note significant differences in the Letter to the Editor (LTE) that appeared in 11/6/2024 StuNews and the version posted here earlier. The letter was submitted Sunday and targeted for the Tuesday edition as a form of clarification/rebuttal to Jim Kelly’s letter of 11/29/2024. It was rejected by the editors citing their lack of details on the superintendent contract and termination agreement. Further saying that “commenting on “numbers” isn’t appropriate at this time” (they didn’t clarify what that meant). They added “please do not be putting words into Viloria’s mouth” when I quoted Jim Kelly saying the superintendent asked to be released. After a couple rewrites to “ask questions instead of being affirmative and accusatory” and their final editing where they removed factual timing statements; they agreed to publish.

To be clear, and I guess a bit defensive:

• The superintendent’s contract was obtained from the district.

• That contract speaks to “termination without cause”.

• The district press release stated he was “terminated without cause”.

• The superintendent’s (all district employees) salary is public information.

• Board member Kelly publicly stated the superintendent asked to be released.

• I quoted Kelly not Viloria.

• The termination agreement is not yet public so that’s a fair concern.

• I made a public records request (PRR) for the termination agreement on 11/23/2024, no response as of 12/5/2024 noon.

• The contract discussion in closed session and report out are supported by agendas and meeting recordings.

I stand by the original letter. I can slightly understand some of the editor’s objections due to an abundance of caution, but the deletion of factual statements is baffling. Not sure when this level of review and fact checking was applied to LTE’s and I hope it is applied consistently.

School Board Election: School Board Essentially Pays Superintendent “Parting Bonus” (December 4, 2024)

By: Gary Kasik, Laguna Beach Taxpayer

Call it what it is, a parting bonus.

I greatly appreciate school board member Kelly providing insight to what happened in closed session on November 21 regarding the decision to terminate the contract with the LBUSD Superintendent. It’s not clear why this action, taken in closed session, was not reported when the board returned to open session that night, but I welcome the transparency.

We now know the Superintendent requested to be released from his contract but the details of the termination agreement are yet to be made public. Given the termination language being used is “released without cause” that would trigger an existing contract clause resulting in a one time payment to the Superintendent estimated at over $350,000.

That’s a considerable sum to award someone for essentially resigning because they felt they couldn’t work with their new bosses.

It would seem the current board has overstepped by projecting what they anticipate will happen in the future and took action to financially enhance the current superintendent. We could debate the merits of whether a $350K bonus was earned but let’s call it what it is, a departing gift.

Any action to dismiss, retain, or otherwise adjust the superintendent role should rest with the board members responsible for his ongoing performance. While the newly elected board members did disagree with certain actions and policies of the current district leadership they always indicated a willingness to work with other board members and administration; anything to the contrary is speculation.

Quoting from J. Kelly’s letter to the editor regarding the board’s authority to dismiss a superintendent, “When such changes are approached in a negative or abrupt manner, they carry significant implications - not only disrupting the district’s stability but imposing substantial costs….” One might conclude that’s exactly what happened with the board’s “negative and abrupt” dismissal of the superintendent.

It’s clear the current board made another fiscally questionable decision, in this case to guarantee a large payout to the departing superintendent. Money that could have helped fund student needs.

To represent this action as J. Kelly states “prioritizing a stable, student-centered transition…to protect the district’s focus and future.” is disrespectful to the voters of Laguna Beach.

School Board Election: Sour Grapes Reactions (December 2, 2024)

By Gary Kasik, Sensible Laguna

It’s unfortunate that disinformation regarding the school board election continues to flow from organizations who disagree with the majority of voters in Laguna Beach.

Particularly disappointing is one of the loudest voices is a political party based group promoting their agenda for a school board that, by law, is to be non-partisan. It’s unexplainable that they found it necessary to attack a long time board member who has fought tirelessly for the students, all students, and was not even part of the election.

Once again the repeated drone of “grievances” ignores the actual foundation of the winning board candidates and paints any disagreement or suggestion of needed change as somehow disrespectful.

The common elements of their campaigns include improved community partnerships, more openness and transparency in governance, increased oversight of fiscal matters, and educational excellence for every student regardless of needs.

Yes, they felt a change in board members could result in a change for the better. But that’s not disrespectful, it’s simply an opinion, and one apparently shared by the majority of Laguna Beach voters.

Sensible Laguna endorsed those candidates based on their platforms, their capabilities and their dedication to students as a priority. We have supported a modernization of the high school pool since it was put forward publicly.

In addition we have worked tirelessly to include the city’s aquatic needs in a coordinated solution that respects the resident taxpayer. Our efforts were likely material in the city council’s unanimous decision to pursue a second pool for the community.

We opposed the district’s original $150M Facilities Master Plan that included massive administrative and district offices, relocation of tennis courts and multistory parking garages. We did so by providing multiple alternatives based on research and underlying data with suggested changes to redirect spending to areas that would more directly benefit all students.

I realize it’s disappointing when your candidate doesn’t prevail but is it really necessary to disrespect and bully those who serve and are duly elected by the residents? I think we can do better.

School Board Election: Superintendent Termination Coverage (December 1, 2024)

By Gary Kasik, Sensible Laguna

There is considerable “coverage” regarding the school board election and recent termination of the superintendent. Letters to the editor, press releases, guest opinions, editorials, and social media. I’ll do my best for a summary followed by opinions.

The election will certify 12/3 and the elected board members will not be installed until 12/16 but it’s reasonable to assume Sheri Morgan and Howard Hills will defeat incumbent Jan Vickers and first time candidate Lauren Boeck. To over simplify, Vickers and Boeck represented a continuation of current practices and results, with Morgan and Hills promoting changes they felt would improve performance. As of this writing Morgan and Hills represent 46.2% of the vote with Vickers and Boeck at 42.7%. It was a tight election with a 84% turnout.

On 11/21 the district met in closed session and approved the “termination without cause” of Superintendent Viloria’s contract. There was no report of any action in the open meeting.

On 11/22 the separation was announced in a press release emphasizing Viloria’s exemplary performance and explaining the action was taken “in the best interests of the district, given anticipated changes…”. The incoming board members, as the election was still underway, were not aware of the closed session decision.

While the separation agreement has yet to be made public, Board Member Kelly has provided information of the reasoning and background. He states that Viloria requested he be released from his contract because he believed the incoming majority was interested in terminating his employment. Morgan and Hills deny that assertion and have made statements of willingness to work with other board members and administration. They did disagree with certain past decisions and policies made under the current board and promoted the need for change.

The separation agreement has not yet been made public and no dollar amount of “severance” has been released.

The Superintendent’s current contract includes a clause that provides 12 months of salary if the board terminates his contract without cause. Depending on the definition of “salary” that amount is estimated at $400,000. Board Member Kelly tells us the agreement also includes, and he supports, an option to re-hire Viloria through the end of the school year.

My biased opinions:

• “Requesting to be released” from a contract is a resignation and didn’t require any action by the board.

• The board knew that Laguna Beach voters decided on new board leadership and still took action that should have been deferred.

• The separation agreement should have been made public as part of the press release to avoid a biased representation by the board who granted it. The superintendent contract is a public document so modifications should be as well.

• It’s unclear how the closed session action, delayed reporting of the action, and ongoing comments may be covered by the Brown Act.

• The Superintendent is highly compensated; by many metrics the highest in the state, due to the small size of the district.

• The new board should have been the ones to decide on this action. All comments from the board supporting the separation refer to what they anticipate would happen in the future. The “new” board should be responsible for the future.

• The board further defends the release as “creating space for the incoming board to select leadership…”. Again, this seems like current board making decisions for the incoming board who could have taken the exact same action should they felt it appropriate; and done so in a controlled time frame.

• The separation agreement (subject to release) was simply a bonus gifted to the Superintendent and, agree or disagree on deserved, should have been released as such. “We believe Superintendent Viloria did an exemplary job during his tenure and as such are accepting his resignation and providing him with 12 months salary in recognition of that performance.” That would have been transparency.