BY DAVE PRICE
Daily Post Editor
The Palo Alto school board’s decision to pay $3.25 million to a teacher wrongfully accused of rape seems to me to have been the final straw for Superintendent Don Austin.
Six days after the settlement was revealed publicly, the board announced Austin would be leaving the district.
A statement from the school board emphasized that it wasn’t a firing, but a “mutual decision.”
But in a “mutual decision,” if the employer thinks the employee should go, and the employee wants to stay, which side wins? I don’t think the employee can veto the employer’s wishes in a mutual decision. To me, “mutual decision” is a B.S. term to paper over something more harsh.
Frequent controversies
Austin’s eight-year tenure was marked by one controversy after another. His top-down leadership style was a bad fit for a community that felt it should have more input into school district decisions. In the past year, parents had circulated two petitions calling for his termination.
Austin told the Post on Friday that there was no single event that led to his departure. “It’s just one day you wake up and think, ‘Maybe I’ve gone as far as I’m going to go here,'” he said.
Well, at least he could read the room.
Shocking settlement
Still, the $3.25 million settlement came as a shock. It was the largest legal payout in the history of the district, which has seen its share of lawsuits.
Many in the community had come to believe teacher Pete Colombo raped an 11-year-old Jordan Middle School student in 2001.
Never mind that the DA dropped charges against him after the police department’s case fell apart. When he got his job back, parents picketed outside his school, saying they didn’t want him around their kids.
Colombo sued, saying the district botched the investigation into the allegations, deprived him of due process and retaliated against him. He said the district smeared his reputation.
The board approved the settlement Feb. 14 during the closed portion of the school board meeting. When the open part of the meeting resumed, board President Shounak Dharap said the board had voted 5-0 to settle a case that he only identified by case number.
He never said the word “Colombo” out loud. Unless you memorize case numbers, you wouldn’t have known that they were settling the Colombo lawsuit. And Dharap never mentioned that the settlement cost $3.25 million.
The next day, lawyers on both sides submitted a document to court saying the board had ratified the settlement agreement and it has been signed by both sides. They said the case should be dismissed by April 10.
Settlement shouldn’t be secret
Under the Brown Act, the state law that regulates government meetings, the board is supposed to immediately release copies of all agreements approved in closed session.
When the Post found out about the settlement on Friday, Feb. 13, nobody at 25 Churchill would release the agreement. Remember, at this point, the public didn’t know the amount was for $3.25 million.
Then, on Saturday, Feb. 14, Colombo’s attorney, Evan C. Nelson of Walnut Creek, put the $3.25 million settlement on his webpage, where he lists cases he won.
The school district still won’t release the settlement agreement. Dharap said last week that the agreement “has not been fully executed at this time and the case is technically still pending.”
Yet the district told federal Chief Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins, who is handling the case, they had all the necessary signatures to finalize the agreement.
The agreement can’t be final and pending at the same time.
Let’s talk about it
Instead of playing hide the ball, the board should have had a public discussion about the Colombo case. Topics up for discussion: How do we prevent this from happening again? What can the board do differently to prevent employees from being wrongfully accused.
Hiding behind technicalities doesn’t inspire trust in the board.
One more thing. According to Dharap, the board agreed on Friday to part ways with Austin, and they approved a separation agreement in another closed-door session.
Under the Brown Act, that agreement should have been released immediately after the meeting. The district didn’t turn it over on Friday. We’ll see if they release it today.
In November, two of the five board seats will be undefended by incumbents.
Dharap and Shana Segal won’t be running again. If you think you can do a better job, you should run.
Dave Price’s column appears on Mondays.