The Santa Clara County Board of Education has doubled down on its dismissal of Superintendent of Schools Mary Ann Dewan, voting to hire an interim superintendent and begin the search for a replacement.
The split vote Wednesday evening came hours after a Superior Court judge turned down a request from Dewan’s lawyers for a restraining order blocking further action by the board until after the court rules on her suit seeking a permanent injunction blocking her dismissal.
But that’s not the end of the legal battle between Dewan and the board.
“The court’s ruling does not end the lawsuit,” Steven Ellenberg, Dewan’s lawyer, said in an email to San Jose Inside today.
Judge Charles Adams rejected Dewan’s effort to block the board vote “without prejudice,” which means it does not prevent Dewan from pursuing her lawsuit seeking reinstatement to her $390,000-a-year position overseeing the county Office of Education from which she was dismissed Oct. 2. The court calender lists the lawsuit as an “active” case, with a March 2025 date for the next hearing.
Meanwhile, the county education office continues with a new leader.
Wednesday evening, the board voted 6-1 to appoint an Orange County educator, Charles Hinman, as the interim superintendent. Hinman is interim executive director of Oxford Preparatory Academy, a charter school in Mission Viejo. The board also selected a search firm to hire a new permanent superintendent.
Dewan’s restraining order request filed Monday had argued that the county Office of Education trustees did not have authority to dismiss its superintendent, or to place her on 30 days’ administrative leave, based on state law and the state constitution.
The board, Dewan’s attorneys had said in the court filing, “fundamentally misunderstands its limited jurisdiction. Instead, the board’s counsel made clear that the board views itself as the superintendent’s ‘boss’ by ‘directing’ her not to perform her duties.”
The judge disagreed, saying that while state law doesn’t explicitly give the board powers to fire a constitutional officer like Dewan, it also does not specifically bar a board from taking such action.
Approval of her request would have allowed Dewan to continue as superintendent until the court determines the outcome of her Dec. 8 lawsuit asking the court to reinstate her.
In the lawsuit, Dewan’s lawyers said the county Board of Education only has the authority to appoint a superintendent and set her salary.
The board’s vote came after a group of six state assembly members and senators sent a letter to board members Monday opposing the decision to terminate Dewan.
“The board’s decision wastes finite public resources and will significantly disrupt student services, district supports and critical programs that benefit our highest need populations,” said the letter from Assemblymembers Gail Pellerin, Robert Rivas, Marc Berman and Evan Low and Senators Josh Becker and Dave Cortese.
The county Board of Education had voted privately 4-2-1 to dismiss Dewan after six years leading the county Office of Education. In demanding reinstatement, she claims the board not only had no authority to fire her but also that it violated California’s Brown Act regulating open meetings of public bodies.
San Jose lawyer Steven Ellenberg, a partner in the Lathrop GPM law firm acting on behalf of Dewan, said the board “wrongfully and unlawfully met in closed session” in July, August and September with attorney Ash Pirayou “reputedly to discuss anticipated litigation,” even though “no litigation was anticipated.”
The Brown Act allegation could lead to legal action by the district attorney against the elected board of education.
On Oct. 3, the board announced that it had voted to “terminate [Dewan] without cause,” and an approved unannounced severance package. In 2022, the board had approved a new four-year contract with its superintendent.
