BY BRADEN CARTWRIGHT
Daily Post Staff
Two parents are suing the Palo Alto Unified School District over its handling of two former superintendents who were paid nearly $1 million to resign.
Parents Jane Hayes Aishin and Edith Cohen said the school board should’ve approved the separation agreements publicly in a regular meeting, not behind closed doors, because they included large payments of taxpayer money and non-disparagement clauses.
“The district is wasting both money and a chance to learn,” their lawsuit said. “Had there been an open session as required by (the Brown Act), there would have been an opportunity to comment and voice concerns and objections before the separation agreements were approved.”
The Brown Act is a state law that requires government meetings to be held in public, except on certain issues such as employee discipline, lawsuits and labor negotiations.
Aishin and Cohen said the separation agreements were about superintendent salaries, which is a topic for open session.
Aishin said she has one child in the district, and Cohen has four former students. Cohen sued the district in July 2021 for allegedly holding students back in freshman math.
Judge Carrie Zepeda ordered the district to update its math placement policies and pay $38,311 in attorney fees in September 2024.
Cohen “has an interest in maintaining a financially responsible, well-run, and effective district,” she said in her latest lawsuit, filed by attorney Jonathan Weissglass on April 21 in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
The school district doesn’t comment on pending lawsuits, district spokeswoman Lynette White said in an email.
The board agreed to pay Superintendent Don Austin $596,802 on Feb. 20. The payment was approved at a special meeting at 8:30 a.m., not a regular Tuesday evening meeting.
A board isn’t allowed to call a special meeting on the pay of an executive, according to the Brown Act.
In exchange for the payment, Austin agreed not to talk negatively about the school district nor file any lawsuits about his time there.
The board appointed Deputy Superintendent Trent Bahadursingh to fill in. He worked with Austin at his previous district in Southern California and is one of three employees at Austin’s leadership coaching business, called SimpleWins.
After Bahadursingh was appointed, the Post reported on a lawsuit alleging that he bullied former assistant Victoria Maya.
After 22 days, Bahadursingh resigned. The board voted 3-2 to pay him $346,673 on March 17. Like Austin, he agreed not to disparage or sue the district.
Parent Pearl Chow delivered a petition with 262 signatures to the board on March 20 demanding the board fix alleged “unlawful actions” related to the separation agreements, which totaled $943,475 plus benefits.
Chow’s petition said the district violated a state law that limits payouts to one year’s salary.
To get around the cap, the board continued Austin’s salary as “superintendent emeritus” through the end of the school year, in addition to the one-year payment.
The agreements were problematic because they released Austin and Bahadursingh from liability as the district faces about a dozen lawsuits related to their tenure, Chow’s petition said.
“This creates a massive liability shield for Austin, as the district remains on the hook for any future litigation arising from his tenure without the ability to hold him accountable for his specific role in those events,” the petition said.
Austin led the district for eight years, the longest in that position since 1975. Allegations under his leadership include unchecked bullying, racist attacks, injured students, inadequate special education and retaliation by administrators.
Two of the cases are wrapping up. The district on April 15 agreed to fulfill a California Public Records Act request from two parents and pay $29,459 in attorney fees within 30 days, court records show.
Parents William Nee and Wei-Wei Lin requested hundreds of documents meant to show the district is failing to support disabled students, but the request hasn’t been fulfilled since Nov. 30, 2022, their lawsuit said.
Former Palo Alto High School robotics coach Kathy Krier went to trial against the district from April 8 to 17. She said students and parents bullied her and undermined her attempts to improve safety and diversity on the team in fall 2018. The district said any complaints were investigated, and Krier didn’t have to quit.
Closing arguments are scheduled for May 8, and then a jury will decide whether the district should pay Krier for her tumultuous nine-week tenure.
The school board voted on Feb. 10 to pay former PE teacher Peter Colombo $3.25 million to drop his case accusing the district of mishandling an unsubstantiated rape allegation against him from 2002. Colombo said Austin withheld documents showing that he worked at a different school at the time of the accusation.
PAUSD SEPARATION PAYMENTS
March 17 — $9,656 to Bahadursingh
April 30 — $252,763 to Bahadursingh and $35,106 to Austin
May 30 — $35,106 to Austin
June 30 — $35,106 to Austin
Aug. 1 — $331,272 to Austin
Sept. 30 — Bahadursingh’s health benefits expire
Jan. 15 — $90,000 to Austin
Jan. 31 — $84,254 to Bahadursingh
June 30, 2027 — Austin’s health benefits expire
Kudos to Palo Alto parents Jane and Edith! Hold the BOE accountable and make them act in accordance with the law before handing out tax payer money like candy. There has to be a very good reason why they paid Don and Trent though, imagine if they could speak freely – how much more institutional damage they could do to PAUSD? Problem now is, PAUSD is still full of their minions, playing it cool and acting like business as usual. How many other parents or employees have been discriminated against, retaliated against, and/or bullied for simply disagreeing or speaking up their disturbing behavior patterns? For example, the lowest hanging fruit on the tree of rot is still Mark Herrera in Maintenance. He has a lawsuit hanging over his head for allegedly bullying and taking bribes. Who the hell in PAUSD management even accepted his application from San Mateo Foster City School District when 8 employees spoke out against him at a board meeting on 2-24-24 for creating a toxic work environment – several months before PAUSD even hired him! Who vetted these employees? Also, allegedly there are a few supervisors and managers hired for positions they had ZERO experience and limited qualifications for. How many have these individuals have had formal complaints filed against them? Tax payers, you should pull a thread and find out, its called Freedom of Information Act. A lot of people will be very disappointed when you see the hiring pattern that got us to this point is a buddy hiring system from hell. Birds of a feather flock together.
Kudos for what?? All we ever do in Palo Alto is complain when we don’t get our way.
The board is the biggest problem. Rather than doing their job, they get swayed by the wannabe political tastemakers.
“The agreements were problematic because they released Austin and Bahadursingh from liability as the district faces about a dozen lawsuits related to their tenure, Chow’s petition said.”
Glad about the lawsuits. Hope there’s a clawback provision.
Not sure why PAUSD decided to release them from liability for their actions and stuck as with the tab and/or why members of PA’s Finance Committee are so eager toi sweep their conduct under the rug and instead focusing on Churchill.
Also not clear why PA cares if they disparage Palo Alto.
You literally think you are an expert and clearly have missed the mark on how these things work. We have to take accountability for the fact that we have a history of creating chaos that impacts our students.
Neither one of these former “leaders” deserve a dime. If anything, they should be fined for the damage they have caused PAUSD during their tenures. Yes, I know that will never happen, but it is still fitting.
What kind of dirt could either one of them have on the district? Is this hush money to protect a former board president and his outspoken law professor wife? I suppose they could name the 25 Churchill associates who knowingly went along with their corrupt leadership, but when folks have inflated salaries and cushy jobs on the line, they tend to play the game.
The rot metastasized under Austin and Bahadursingh, yet they are the ones laughing to the bank. I sure hope folks seeking “leadership guidance” don’t consider this swindle a “simple win”. The current board and what is left of the 25 Churchill “Team” are well advised to learn from this sorry chapter. I wish the plaintiffs success in this endeavor.
A ton. Ask Shana and Rowena.
The”new board” should set up a site to investigate the atrocities of past board members. I’m sure plenty of past and current community members and employees would have stories to share.
Isn’t it ridiculous that PAUD has to pay so much money that could be used to educate students to get rid of pencil pushers that the board hired who were already paid a lot of money and failed.