YOU ARE HERE: LAT HomeCollections

County Inquiry Asked in School District Feud Over Superintendent

March 17, 1985|PAUL FELDMAN | Times Staff Writer

REDONDO BEACH — Officials of the South Bay Union High School District, who had publicly predicted a new era of tranquility after concluding the controversial $14.5-million sale of their Aviation High School campus recently, are instead immersed in concurrent investigations of Supt. Hugh Cameron and school board member Armando Acosta.

At a heated, standing-room-only session Wednesday, the board requested that the county counsel's office study Cameron's role in the sale of Aviation and whether Acosta attempted to influence the district's hiring of a bank to invest the lucrative Aviation proceeds.

The actions came on the heels of an unsuccessful attempt by Acosta at a March 6 meeting to force Cameron's resignation. First-term trustee Acosta, labeling Cameron "an expert wheeler-dealer" with deficiencies as an educational leader, complained at that meeting of the board's failure to implement a procedure to evaluate Cameron's job performance.

Raging Controversy

Acosta's criticisms--which included Cameron's personnel and salary-setting recommendations and a proposal to sell the east end of the Redondo Union High School campus--have resulted in a firestorm of controversy.

The board on Wednesday directed Cameron to drop his study of the possible Redondo Union land sale. Board members--who had voted 3 to 2 to retain Cameron on March 6--also agreed to choose a method next month for evaluating Cameron's job performance before deciding on his annual raise.

A majority of board members have reacted to Acosta's charges by voicing solid support for the five-year superintendent and criticizing Acosta. Member Noel Palm issued his own five-page response to the four-page statement of concerns that Acosta presented March 6, and Cameron issued a detailed rebuttal to Acosta's 12-point memo.

"The method (Acosta) used to communicate his concerns to the public without speaking to his fellow board members and without talking to the superintendent about his concerns will divide this community as no other single event in the past has," Cameron wrote.

Hope for Peace

That contrasts with Cameron's brighter prediction earlier this month in a message to district parents. It read: "The 'war' is over (at Aviation). . . . We now can once again be a truly cooperative district."

After a brief executive (closed) session Wednesday, Palm and fellow board member William Beverly said they were particularly concerned about Acosta's questions about the sale of Aviation.

Last summer, Jim Miller, president of Alpha Omega Development--whose bid was rejected in favor of Overton, Moore & Associates--had complained bitterly about the selection process, called the board's unanimous decision, "a stinking back-room deal."

At the time, Palm termed said Miller was "way out of line" and brushed aside the developer's request that an independent committee of prominent citizens study the role played by the district's broker, the Goodglick Co.

Acosta, in his memo, says that since that time, "several (other) developers who telephoned me stressed that they didn't wish to go public and cause headlines, but that they were concerned their positions were not being fairly represented by our broker (the Goodglick Co.), but particularly (by) our superintendent."

Evidence Asked

Palm and Beverly retorted Wednesday that Acosta's statement raised the specter of misconduct and that any evidence he has should be shared with the rest of the board.

Acosta, answering the queries of fellow board members, said, "I don't think (broker) Bill Goodglick or Hugh (Cameron) did anything illegal." He later added, "You don't know who to believe."

Cameron said that he never spoke to Miller or other developers about their bids, instead referring them to broker William Goodglick's firm. "I have been scrupulously honest," Cameron said in his memo.

The board, at the behest of Palm and Beverly, directed attorney Audrey Oliver of the county counsel's office to look into Acosta's contentions.

Beverly then asked for a similar investigation of Acosta. He said he had received information from an undisclosed source that Acosta--who works as an executive in the personal banking division of the Crocker National Bank--may have been in line for compensation from Crocker if it had been awarded the contract to serve as the district's investment counselor for the Aviation sales proceeds. Earlier this month, the board awarded the contract to Union Bank. Acosta took no part in the deliberations or voting.

Possible Misunderstanding

"I have a good source," said Beverly, acknowledging moments later that his information could turn out to be "a misunderstanding (or) a quote out of context."

Beverly also said that Acosta may have sought to lobby a district employee about the contract.

Acosta retorted: "I stayed away from (the contract negotiations) with a 10-foot pole." He added that the personal banking division for which he works is separate from the investment division that sought the contract.

Los Angeles Times Articles