Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Beverly Hills USD board approves personnel separations amid public outcry over El Rodeo notices
Summary
The Beverly Hills Unified School District Board of Education on March 11 announced in open session that it had approved a separation agreement and issued personnel notices affecting several certificated administrative employees, then voted to eliminate certain classified management positions — actions that drew sustained public comment urging the board to retract pink slips issued to El Rodeo Elementary administrators.
The Beverly Hills Unified School District Board of Education on March 11 announced in open session that it had approved a separation agreement reached in closed session and took multiple personnel actions affecting certificated administrative employees.
Board Secretary (open‑session announcement) said the board “voted to approve a separation agreement with employee 0000025477.” The board also announced it had taken action in closed session to notify and reassign a set of certificated administrative employees and to issue non‑reelection or probationary notices to others pursuant to Education Code requirements; the roll calls for those actions were recorded as five yes, zero no, zero abstentions.
The personnel announcements drew lengthy public comment. Multiple parents and local clinicians urged the board to retract so‑called “pink slips” and to restore or retain El Rodeo Elementary school administrators. Romy Acevedo told the board the changes had created “chaos,” saying the district needed “stability, transparency, and real leadership, not reckless governance.” Jonathan Goldfinger, a pediatrician and consultant who described his work with trauma‑informed care, urged the board to retain El Rodeo leaders, saying they provided “safe, stable, nurturing relationships.” Pamela Cohen, a parent and nonprofit executive, also urged the board not to remove the El Rodeo executive administration.
After the public comment period the board took further formal action. Trustees voted 5–0 to approve Resolution No. 2024–2025–26 to eliminate listed classified management positions (the resolution title appeared on the agenda). Trustees also confirmed the closed‑session separation and the issuance of specified notices under the Education Code; motions were made and seconded on the record and recorded as unanimous votes.
Board members and supporters framed the decisions as responses to fiscal and statutory obligations. During discussion Trustee Mrs. Marcus and other board members said the district must comply with audit and county guidance and restore longer‑term fiscal sustainability; board members emphasized that some actions reflected multi‑year strategic planning and past audit findings about staff and expenditure levels.
What the board decided and what it did not: the board approved the separation agreement and the administrative notices described in its closed‑session announcement and adopted the resolution eliminating certain classified management positions. The actions announced specify that legal notices be sent and that some reassignments and releases be effective at the end of the 2024–25 school year, per the closed‑session announcement. The board did not adopt any item at the meeting that rescinded or reversed the personnel notices public speakers asked them to withdraw.
Votes at a glance - Separation agreement with employee 0000025477 — motion by Trustee Mrs. Marcus, seconded by Trustee Mrs. Manicheri; roll call: 5 yes, 0 no; outcome: approved. - Closed‑session notices and reassignment of identified certificated administrative employees (IDs read into the record) — roll call: 5 yes, 0 no; action: approved; effective at the end of the 2024–25 school year per Education Code procedures. - Resolution 2024–2025–26 (elimination of classified management positions) — motion and roll call vote recorded as 5–0; outcome: approved.
Board members said they would send required legal notices and work with the superintendent’s office on next steps; the superintendent or designee was directed to send those notices. The meeting record shows substantial community concern about process and transparency; residents indicated they are organizing recall efforts and additional public outreach.
Ending: The personnel items are likely to generate further requests for details from the community and possible follow‑up litigation or administrative appeals. The board recorded the actions and directed staff to send the required notices; community speakers asked for greater transparency and for the board to reconsider specific dismissals or non‑reelections.
