Board approves waiver of liquidated damages for departing administrator after divided debate

The Liberty Elementary District governing board voted 3–2 on June 8 to approve personnel action item 5.3 as amended, including removing an incorrect ESY teacher line and waiving liquidated damages for Robert Young, a departing district employee.

The vote followed an extended debate about whether the district’s liquidated-damages policy applied to the resignation. Board member Miss Zimmerman moved to approve the item with exceptions; administration and the district attorney’s office had recommended placing the waiver on the consent agenda, saying it aligned with policy reason three: "The teacher has been offered a promotional or other opportunity for career advancement with documented increase in pay and benefits." Miss Zimmerman said she was uncomfortable approving the waiver without more information, calling adherence to policy important even when people are well regarded: "It's nothing personal," she said, "but we have a policy and if we bend the policy for certain people and enforce it for others, that to me isn't ethical."

Administration told the board the attorney reviewed both resignations and recommended waivers under the policy; a staff member confirmed legal provided the recommendation "without input from staff." Board member Michael Todd said he preferred to follow the attorney’s guidance to avoid legal exposure: "I recommend we follow what legal is telling us," he said.

After an amendment and a roll-call vote on the revised motion, the board approved the personnel action, with the minutes noting the ESY line for Michaela Ferrer would be corrected and that Robert Young would not be held responsible for liquidated damages. The board instructed staff to include the legal rationale in the minutes.

The board did not adopt new policy language at the meeting. Several members urged future policy review to clarify whether administrative resignations should be treated differently from teacher resignations and to avoid similar ambiguity going forward.

No additional documentation of the attorney’s review was presented at the meeting; board members asking for more detail were told the recommendation came from legal and could be revisited through a policy amendment later. The board’s action was procedural: it approved the personnel item as amended and placed the particulars in the meeting minutes.