Community Voice & Updates
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: 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.
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.