Prosecutors: Capistrano school board violated state law
The board broke open-meeting laws when it gave its superintendent a raise at a closed meeting, but it won't be subjected to litigation because the district is in financial turmoil.
The Capistrano Unified School District board violated state law by awarding a pay raise to its superintendent at a meeting closed to the public, the Orange County district attorney's office has concluded.
The vote earlier this year on the pay raise marked the latest in a series of alleged violations of California's open-meeting laws by the Capistrano school district board of trustees, according to the district attorney's report, which was made public Tuesday.
Prosecutors in the Sept. 2 report said they would not pursue sanctions against the beleaguered district because the board later rescinded the pay raise and because the district is having financial difficulties.
At its Feb. 25 meeting, trustees met in closed session and voted to award a $58,000 pay raise to Superintendent A. Woodrow Carter and then failed to disclose their decision in a public meeting, according to a letter to the district signed by William J. Feccia, a senior assistant district attorney.
In addition, Carter signed a contract that provided him with $400,000 in severance pay if the board fired him, even though the board did not discuss such a benefit, Feccia concluded. Rather, the severance clause "appeared" on the contract without the board's approval, Feccia said in the letter.
Capistrano schools trustees rescinded Carter's pay raise June 2 after a public outcry about the manner in which it was awarded.
In its investigation of the pay raise, prosecutors listened to a recording of the closed-door Feb. 25 meeting. The recordings revealed "a disturbing disdain, if not outright contempt, on the part of some members of the [board] for public opinion and their own constituents," Feccia wrote.
Two of the board members who voted to award the pay raise were recalled from office June 24 and replaced by trustees who pledged to follow open-meeting laws.
Before that recall, the district attorney's office had "seriously considered" initiating legal proceedings against the board, Feccia wrote. Prosecutors decided not to do that because the litigation would create a financial burden for the district at a time of financial turmoil and because a new majority on the board has promised to follow open-meeting laws.
stuart.pfeifer@latimes.com
