Parents and staff split over proposed rehiring of Dr. Melissa Gooden at El Segundo Unified

Public speakers at the El Segundo Unified School District board meeting on May 26 urged sharply different responses to the district’s reported plan to bring Dr. Melissa Gooden back into senior leadership.

At the start of the public-comment period, a commenter identified on the speaker card as Jamine/Jamon Griffiths asked the board to reconsider rehiring Gooden, saying the decision “is the wrong message to send to the community, especially concerning her controversial history.” Griffiths cited a 2019 lawsuit, the 2022 jury verdict that found the district negligent and awarded roughly $1 million in damages, and later appellate review that upheld the verdict, and he urged the district to prioritize accountability and student safety over institutional loyalty.

The dispute centers on actions and findings described in the civil case referenced by multiple speakers. Parent Nina Bumler read from the published California Court of Appeal decision in Ions v. ESUSD and summarized the document’s account that the student repeatedly notified the middle school’s principal — identified in the opinion as Dr. Melissa Gooden — and counselor about harassing messages and on-campus harassment. “Miss Ions testified that over the course of several months, she repeatedly notified the middle school's principal, that's Dr. Melissa Gooden, and counselor about the harassing messages,” Bumler said, urging the board to consider the message rehiring would send to students and families.

Not all public comments opposed the hire. Eden Finstra, a lifelong resident, alumnus and current teacher at Center Street, told trustees that many district staff and colleagues have had positive experiences with Gooden and value her “experience, relationships, and understanding of our community.” Finstra said continuity and local knowledge can be valuable when districts face turnover and said she supported Gooden’s appointment for those reasons.

Board materials and public remarks indicate the proposed appointment is for the position of chief business official and that any formal appointment is subject to board approval. The board did not debate the non-agendized public comments during the meeting; the president noted administrators will follow up with those who raised items not on the agenda. The board’s next regular meeting on June 9 was identified in the meeting as the next scheduled opportunity for action on posted agenda items.

Why it matters: The exchange centers on how a district responds to past legal findings and balances community trust, staff experience, and accountability when considering senior hires that oversee operations and public resources.

What the record shows: Speakers cited the jury verdict and appellate decision; supporters emphasized Gooden’s district experience and relationships. The district’s public materials and the meeting transcript do not record a board vote on the Gooden appointment during the May 26 session and describe the appointment as subject to board approval.