The Parlier Unified school board is trying to get out of paying a former superintendent as much as $250,000 because they say her separation agreement was approved illegally by a lame-duck school board.

Altagracia Guerrero, the former superintendent who resigned late last year, is seeking a court order to enforce the agreement. According to her attorney, Guerrero hasn’t received a cent.

The district’s board members meanwhile claim the separation agreement is invalid and say they shouldn’t have to honor it.

“The agreement was not lawfully approved,” said attorney Jimmy Gutierrez at the district’s most recent board meeting. The district hired Gutierrez on Jan. 10 specifically to review its separation agreement with Guerrero.

He said that the agreement wasn’t properly listed on the board’s closed session agenda at the Dec. 6 meeting where it was approved and that the board failed to disclose it before going into closed session that day, both of which he said violate the Brown Act, California’s laws open meeting laws for elected governing boards.

Despite that, the separation agreement was approved by trustees 4-1 with only board member Martin Mares voting against it during the Dec. 6 meeting.

Guerrero’s attorney, Barry Bennett, filed a petition Feb. 10, asking the court to order Parlier Unified to hold up their end of the bargain.

The agreement includes 12 months of Guerrero’s salary – which was over $193,000 toward the end of her tenure – plus benefits as well as 30 days of unused vacation time.

Bennett told the Ed Lab that the district has 30 days from when the petition was filed to respond, unless they request more time.

This brewing legal battle is the latest in a series of recent controversies the board of the small district of just under 3,500 students is facing regarding recent superintendents.

It also has renewed tensions between Trustee Eric Molina and the rest of the board.

During discussion of the separation agreement’s validity, he called it not only a waste of taxpayer money but questioned whether it arose from a “personal vendetta against Dr. Guerrero.”

Other trustees doubled down on why they hired Gutierrez to investigate.

“I think it is our due diligence as a board to continue with it,” said board member Elena Gonzales, “not a waste of taxpayers’ money.”

A new school board

Guerrero’s Dec. 6 separation agreement was approved during the final meeting the outgoing board of trustees, following’s November’s mid-term elections.

That board was led by Eric Molina and Joe Vasquez, the previous board’s respective president and vice president. Elizabeth Tienda, Gonzales, and Mares were also on the board prior to the election.

The election changed the makeup of the board – as well as its power dynamics, some say. Two challengers, Nathaniel Cid and Mary “Dee Dee” Sanchez replaced incumbents as Vasquez lost his bid for re-election and Tienda didn’t seek another term.

Mares and Gonzales became the new board president and vice president respectively in December.

Before the new board was sworn in, Guerrero approached the sitting trustees with a proposal, according to the petition from her lawyer.

She suggested she resign, despite having received a contract extension through June 2024, “to give the incoming Board members an opportunity to select a District Superintendent of their own choice,” according to the petition.

In exchange, she sought a partial payment of her salary and benefits.

The petition claims the board drew up a separation agreement “with the assistance of District counsel” and approved it at a “duly-agendized and noticed” meeting Dec. 6, during which the board was notified in open session about the agreement.

A resolution the Parlier Unified board approved 4-1 at their Feb. 21 meeting, on the other hand, claims the Dec. 6 meeting agenda didn’t list the separation agreement on the closed or public session portions, nor did the board’s president at the time, Molina, disclose it before going into closed session or immediately after returning to public session.

Molina was the only trustee to vote against the resolution Feb. 21.

The resolution notes that Molina later reported out a vote in closed session on a separation agreement while not naming Guerrero and instead giving an employee ID number.

Both Molina and Mares confirmed that the board consulted with the district’s legal counsel on the separation agreement – although the district’s new lawyer Gutierrez has taken a different stance.

“Just because an attorney approves a contract doesn’t mean that it’s correct,” Mares told the Ed Lab. “We have to adhere to all the bylaws and rules and governing policies, like the Brown Act, and make sure that ... we’re good stewards of our of our community’s resources.”

Mares added that the board took the initiative to freeze any payments to Guerrero while their attorney reviewed the separation agreement.

Bennett said he hasn’t heard from Parlier Unified’s legal counsel, nor was he present at the district’s last board meeting Feb. 21, so he wasn’t yet aware of what the district’s “objection” to the separation agreement is.

“I don’t acknowledge that there was one,” he said, regarding Parlier Unified’s allegation of Brown Act violations. “I spoke to Dr. Guerrero, and she said as far as she knows, it was done according to the Brown Act. So I guess we’ll find out.”

The board’s reaction

Molina criticized the board’s move regarding the separation agreement, calling it fiscally irresponsible.

“We can’t go back and change what a board has approved,” he said. “If that’s the case, I go back three years and change what the board approved three years ago. That is a violation.”

He also stated that everything the board did at the Dec. 6 meeting was done properly and in compliance with the Brown Act.

Sanchez, Gonzales, and Mares, on the other hand, thanked Gutierrez for his investigation into the separation agreement. Cid was absent from the meeting.

“We look forward to the revelations,” Mares said.

“It’s imperative that we do the right thing, and that is to protect our students and our community, our teachers and not to be providing any type of secret deal.”

Mares and Molina have also been at odds over the appointment of Guerrero’s successor Rafael Iñiguez, who previously served as the district’s Career Technical Education director.

He was chosen to replace Guerrero three days after her resignation. Molina criticized the board for not advertising the position or conducting a formal search, calling Iñiguez’s appointment “unethical.” Mares pushed back that the board has the legal prerogative to appoint a superintendent from inside the district or by conducting an outside search.

As for what’s next with the separation agreement, Bennett told the Ed Lab he expects Parlier Unified to respond in one of three ways.

The district’s attorneys can answer the petition with a defense as to why they don’t owe the money, as one option. Alternately, PUSD’s counsel could file a demurrer, citing some issue with the petition from Guerrero’s counsel. Or, their lawyers could motion for a summary judgment, as a third course of action.

No response was on file from Parlier Unified’s attorneys according to Fresno County Superior Court records Monday afternoon.

Education Lab Newsletter

Get stories that matter on education issues critical to the advancement of San Joaquin Valley residents, with a focus on Fresno. Sign up, and join the conversation.

SIGN UP

The Education Lab is a local journalism initiative that highlights education issues critical to the advancement of the San Joaquin Valley. It is funded by donors. Learn about The Bee’s Education Lab at its website.