Staff and former employees press Newman-Crows Landing USD for explanation of retroactive-pay exclusions
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
SubscribeSummary
Two public commenters asked the board to explain why some classified management employees were excluded from a 2024–25 retroactive settlement payment, saying they were under contract when the tentative agreement was signed and seeking transparency about payroll reversals.
Two public commenters urged the Newman-Crows Landing Unified School District board on Jan. 12 to explain why certain classified management staff were excluded from a 2024–25 retroactive settlement payment.
Karen Mendoza told the board the recommendation to exclude former employees “goes against years of past practices” and said the exclusion came from the assistant superintendent of HR. She asked: “What is the justification for the exclusion when the impacted classified management employees were clearly under contract when the TA was signed?”
Cassandra Figueroa, a former fiscal analyst who said she helped prepare the retro payroll files, described being told verbally that an active-employment clause would not be added and then seeing funds deposited and later removed. “When employees later saw the money deposited and then taken back without explanation, it was shocking and distressing,” she said, and asked the board for transparency and action to correct the matter.
Figueroa also noted that the Brown Act permits a brief response from the board and administration during public comment. The transcript shows no substantive administrative explanation or corrective action offered during the public-comment period; the board proceeded with the published agenda after comments.
The commenters referenced a tentative agreement with the California School Employees Association (CSEA) signed on 05/08/2025 and said prior practice had included anyone under contract during the relevant contract year. They urged the board to provide a clear justification for the exclusion and to consider corrective options if the exclusion resulted from changed payroll guidance.
The board did not announce a follow-up or a timeline for responding during the meeting. The matter remained unresolved on the record at adjournment.
