Speakers at LAUSD meeting allege conflicts of interest involving acting superintendent and interim inspector general
Loading...
Summary
During public comment at the April 10 LAUSD special meeting, a remote speaker and parents alleged that the acting superintendent is related by marriage to UTLA leadership and that the interim inspector general holds roles that compromise independence; the board recessed to closed session and returned with no report.
Allegations of potential conflicts of interest were raised during public comment at a Los Angeles Unified School District Board of Education special meeting on April 10.
A remote commenter identified as Victor told the board the acting superintendent is related by marriage to two high-ranking United Teachers Los Angeles (UTLA) officers and said the superintendent’s wife is a UTLA member, which he said creates an appearance of conflict that the board should consider when evaluating any contract that might provide the union larger concessions than an independent fact-finder recommended. He also warned that declining enrollment could make current staffing levels financially unsustainable and asked the district to be transparent about long-term fiscal projections.
Parent advocate Diana Guillen said she represents a group of parents for school security and urged a robust inspector general, saying the office should protect the integrity of the education system by auditing contracts and exposing fraud. Guillen alleged that McLean — referred to in public comment as the interim inspector general or as having responsibilities tied to the board — represents a conflict because the role must be independent of the board to effectively review contracts and operations.
David Tokofsky also urged the board to interview all inspector-general candidates and to involve the district’s internal audit unit (IAU), saying oversight should focus on general-fund as well as facilities spending.
Why it matters: If true, the conflict-of-interest concerns could affect public confidence in the negotiation process and in oversight of district spending. Those assertions were raised by members of the public during the meeting; the board did not answer these allegations in open session and provided no report after recessing to closed session.
Board action: The board recessed at 10:20 a.m. into closed session to consider personnel and labor negotiations under Government Code sections 54957 and 54957.6. When the board reconvened at 3:02 p.m., the moderator reported there was nothing to report and the meeting was adjourned at 3:03 p.m.
The allegations in public comment are unverified in the meeting record.
