Woodland Hills board moves to place superintendent’s employee record on unpaid leave amid contested investigation

The Woodland Hills School Board announced March 4 that it would change the employment status of employee number 7525 from paid to unpaid administrative leave while the board considers next steps. Board leadership opened the special meeting with an explanation that the superintendent had returned from military training the week of Feb. 21 and was again placed on paid administrative leave; the board then said it would consider switching that status to unpaid leave pending further action.

Public comment preceding the vote centered on allegations that the firm hired to investigate district complaints had conflicts of interest. Callers including Tara Ree and online participant John Jeffers told the board that the investigator has long-standing relationships with district-aligned individuals and questioned why the district chose that firm, calling the selection an appearance of impropriety. “To hire an investigator who is so far from unbiased, it’s borderline criminal,” Tara Ree said during public comment. Several speakers urged the board to disclose billing statements and any ties between firm personnel and district officials.

Board members described their decision to retain a Pennsylvania public-sector labor and employment law firm after employees raised concerns the board could not resolve internally. One board member explained the board’s intent was to secure an independent review and noted the firm presented a recommendation the board found persuasive.

The motion to move employee number 7525 to unpaid leave was introduced during board matters and was announced in the meeting as passing. The transcript contains conflicting on-record tallies: an early announcement states “It passes 4 to1,” while a subsequent line in the same meeting says “It was four to two and one abstension.” The motion was announced as approved; the board did not, during the public transcript, list a uniform roll-call vote with member names tied to each vote. The board indicated it will provide further updates as allowable under law.

The board framed the action as consistent with its responsibilities to students and staff and said the action is not motivated by the superintendent’s public statements; it also denied the allegations contained in the superintendent’s public communication. The board emphasized a commitment to transparency when permitted by legal constraints and asked that official minutes or the clerk’s certified record be consulted for the final vote tally and formal minute language.

Next steps: the board said it would continue to consider personnel action and share updates as appropriate, subject to legal limits on personnel confidentiality.