Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Personnel Discipline topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Parents and community members urge Los Alamitos Unified School District board to revisit teacher disciplinary action
Summary
During public comment the board heard repeated appeals for reconsideration of disciplinary action against music teacher David Mollenkamp, including a petition of 'over 513 verified signatures'; a district official said personnel matters limit what the board can disclose.
Public speakers urged the Los Alamitos Unified School District Board of Education to reconsider recent disciplinary action involving teacher David Mollenkamp during the meeting’s public-comment period, then the board recessed into closed session on personnel matters.
Corey Veil Leon, an alumnus parent, told the board he believed the district had handled the matter poorly and asked that Mollenkamp be offered a chance to “do better.” He said he had collected a petition “with over 513 verified signatures” supporting the teacher and questioned why district officials had not communicated more clearly or offered corrective steps before escalating discipline.
Another speaker, Steve Kahn, challenged the district’s process and warned of legal risk. “This is gonna end up with litigation,” Kahn said, adding he did not see evidence that the teacher had committed an offense so serious as to warrant termination. Kahn argued standard human-resources practice is to document issues and try corrective action before removing an employee.
An unidentified district administrator responded during the public-comment period that the board is limited in what it can share about personnel matters. “The board really is limited in what they can share, particularly anything, regarding to personnel matters,” the administrator said, and added that employees are represented by unions that provide due-process protections. The administrator also noted some absences from yearbook photos can reflect timing (for example, staff not present on the day photos were taken) and expressed institutional support for site leader Christiana Krauss without addressing case specifics.
Speakers presented conflicting characterizations of the teacher’s conduct: commenters described past classroom practices that included ordering students to run and said those practices were not egregious, while some critics previously brought complaints about students’ experiences. Board members did not discuss the substance of personnel allegations in open session.
After public comment the board recessed into closed session to discuss personnel matters; the meeting notice indicated the board would return at 6:00 p.m. The transcript does not record any formal board action on the personnel issue in open session.
