California state senators recently advanced a bill that aims to discourage newly-elected school board majorities from terminating their head administrators—just months after two Southern California school boards opted to fire superintendents just weeks after they took office.
The state Senate’s Committee on Education voted 6–1 on April 19 to advance the bill to a third reading in the committee in the coming weeks.
The bill comes after two Southern California school boards made headlines for abruptly terminating their respective superintendents over their recent winter break.
On Dec. 21, the Capistrano Unified School Board voted 4–3 to terminate its longtime superintendent, while the Orange Unified School Board’s (OUSD) majority fired its head on Jan. 5.
Senate Education Chair Josh Newman (D-Fullerton), who introduced the bill in February, noted that Orange Unified’s vote took place just three weeks after the new majority was sworn in.
Meanwhile, Capistrano Unified’s special meeting was held only six days after its new members took office.
“It is fairly self-evident that newly elected school board members generally need some time to become fully conversant in the often-complex inner workings of school district governance as well as the various incidents and unique issues facing a particular district,” Newman said during the hearing. “It seems reasonable that school district governing boards should have a cooling off [or] a ramping up period before making decisions as profound as a change in district leadership.”
Orange Unified Trustee Kris Erickson, who voted against the superintendent’s firing, also spoke at the committee hearing, saying that the board’s decision has “destabilized” the district.
“It’s resulted in extreme distrust amongst the board members and extreme conflict within the community,” she said. “There are lawsuits ... and threats of lawsuits to be filed against our district. Meetings are long and toxic. A recall is on the horizon. We’re losing employees and quality administrators. A replacement superintendent search is on hold for a variety of reasons, all of which are related to the instability in the district.”
The bill wouldn’t be a “cure-all,” Erickson said, but it would be a “common sense policy bill that will ensure an opportunity for [a] more transparent and open process, and hopefully lessen the impact [of] a sudden one-sided, one-day decision.”
Capistrano Unified Trustee Gila Jones, who voted against firing its superintendent, told The Epoch Times that a longer delay than the bill is proposing is necessary.
An ‘Overreach’ From the State: Critics
However, Orange Unified Trustee Madison Miner, who voted to terminate in that district’s case, said at the heart of the issue is overreach from Sacramento.“It’s weird and unfortunate how the state is trying so hard to take control of local happenings,” she tole The Epoch Times. “It’s definitely, in my opinion, an overstep by the state to put such a restriction on us.”
Capistrano Unified Trustee Judy Bullockus also said she thought her district’s decision to release its superintendent would have remained the same after 30 days.
“[The decision] was decisive,” Bullockus told The Epoch Times, adding that she opposed any bill that would remove control from locally elected officials.
“Local officials know their community, with their hands on the pulse of its constituents to make the best decisions,” she said. “The state [bill] would be a cookie cutter approach and in California, our communities greatly differ one from another.”
Likewise, Capistrano Trustee Michael Parham—who also voted to let go of that district’s superintendent—told The Epoch Times he thought the fact that the author of the bill hoped it would give the board time to work out any differences with the superintendent “further demonstrates that folks in Sacramento want to control what happens at the local level.”
“State representatives ought to stay in their lane and stop trying to over-govern. The state cannot even manage its own issues, let alone those at the school district level,” he said.
