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.
I have been impressed by Dr. Mary Ann Dewan’s county service, and in less than two months, the newly elected county school board after the election can reappoint her if a majority of that board wishes so.
I do however take pause with any superintendent, that was appointed by the board (not elected by the voters), to say that the elected board has the power to hire and give pay raises, but no power to dismiss. That precedent would give functionally unlimited power to a superintendent.
The judge made the right decision to defend how a democracy is supposed to work. If people are unhappy, they can express that through their ballot for county school board members. Dr. Dewan should reapply for her job with the new board. I thank Dr. Dewan for her past leadership of the county no matter what happens.
Dr. Dewan has been a strong leader of the county education office, and in less than two months, after the board elections, that new board can easily reappoint her.
I however take issue with any superintendent that is appointed (rather than elected) that seeks to set a precedent that the elected school board has the power to hire them, give them raises, but not the power to remove them. A superintendent (good or bad) that cannot practically be removed would have too much power.
I thank Dr. Dewan for leading the county, and hope Dr. Dewan applies for the position when the new county board takes over their superintendent search; certainly that would be faster and less costly to taxpayers than a legal battle.