Civic Leaders File Complaints Alleging Governance, Transparency, and Fiscal Violations by Burbank Unified School District Board Members

January 30, 2026

201

BUSD Hdqtrs without Signals (Photo by © Ross A Benson) xxxx — (Photo By Ross Benson)

A coalition of former elected officials, education leaders, and longtime community members has filed formal complaints against four current trustees of the Burbank Unified School District (BUSD), alleging violations of open-meeting laws, financial oversight requirements, and board governance policies.

Named in the complaints are Board President Abigail Pontzer-Kamkar, Vice President Emily Weisberg, Clerk Laurette Cano, and Member Armond Aghakhanian.

The complainants — including two former Burbank mayors, a former BUSD board member, a past BUSD Education Foundation chair, and retired district administrators — say their concerns are based on months of research using public records requests, board agendas, and meeting recordings.

Allegations Center on Oversight, Minutes, and Legal Compliance

Among the most serious claims is that the board failed to establish a legally required independent citizens’ bond oversight committee tied to the voter-approved $458 million Measure ABC bond, while allegedly moving forward with tens of millions of dollars in bond-related spending.

“When board members fail to establish a legally required oversight committee and proceed to spend nearly $40 million without citizen oversight, we cannot stand by and watch,” said Jef Vander Borght, a former Burbank mayor and BUSD grandparent, in a prepared statement accompanying the complaint. “Our children and taxpayers deserve better.”

The complaints also allege:

Missing or unapproved official board minutes for more than 18 months
Consultant contract overpayments made without proper board approval
A claimed violation of the collective bargaining agreement with the California School Employees Association involving contracted-out work
Concerns over a promotion and raise for Andy Cantwell that complainants say was described as cost-neutral but resulted in an estimated $11,000 annual salary increase with fewer work days

Complainants further contend that some board actions may have violated the Ralph M. Brown Act, California’s open-meeting law, as well as portions of the Education and Government Codes.

Parallels to Findings in Other California Districts

Community members raising concerns in Burbank point to a recent example from Northern California as a cautionary tale. In 2024, a civil grand jury investigation into the Merced City School District found trustees there had violated the Brown Act and state education laws by failing for months to approve and post meeting minutes and by conducting so-called “serial meetings” through text messages and email chains.

According to reporting by The Merced FOCUS, the grand jury concluded the Merced board failed to follow its own governance procedures and noted that missing minutes and poor transparency eroded public trust. Jurors also cited concerns about board conduct during meetings and confusion around complaint procedures within the district.

While the situations involve different districts and governing bodies, Burbank complainants say the Merced case shows how governance lapses can escalate into formal outside investigations when transparency breaks down.

Broader Context: Criminal Case and Fiscal Warning

The Burbank complaints come amid heightened scrutiny of district leadership following felony charges filed in October 2025 against former BUSD board member Charlene Tabet, who is accused of holding a financial interest in a district contract while in office. That case is ongoing, and she is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.

Separately, the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) recently designated BUSD as a “lack of going concern” district, according to the complainants. That designation — defined under state regulations and guidance from the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team — signals serious concern about a district’s financial stability and its ability to meet future obligations such as payroll.

LACOE has attributed the warning to ongoing fiscal and personnel investigations and vacancies in key administrative roles, and has assigned a fiscal expert to review the district’s financial condition and develop a solvency plan.

Calls for Transparency and Response

The complainants say they have submitted formal uniform complaints and supporting documentation to appropriate oversight bodies and are calling for corrective action, improved transparency, and independent oversight moving forward.

As of publication, the four board members named in the complaints have not publicly responded to the specific allegations.

Community members seeking additional information can contact the group that filed the complaints at BurbankUSDWatch@gmail.com or 818-860-1607.

Below are the entire complaints filed against each Board Member:

Summary of Uniform Complaint against Burbank Unified Board of Education Vice President Emily Weisberg submitted on January 22, 2026

Evidence shows that current BUSD Board of Education Vice President Emily Weisberg knowingly and deliberately deceived the BUSD community, and the voters of the City of Burbank, aiding in the conflict of interest financial benefit to fellow Trustee Tabet. She intentionally deceived a member of the public regarding the irregular consultant contract with former Superintendent Paramo’s personal trainer. Weisberg demonstrated a pattern of

harassment in both public and private communications with community members in response to criticism of Board actions. Trustee Weisberg demonstrated an ongoing pattern of disregard for the laws and policies for governance that apply to school board trustees. She failed to perform her duties as a Trustee of the Burbank Unified School District including, but not limited to, the complaints listed below, violating the following rules of governance and bargaining unit contracts:

VIOLATION 1: At multiple Board of Education meetings Trustee Weisberg denied any prior to June 2025 knowledge of the conflict of interest in the Specialized Support Services contract approved on September 5, 2024. Recent information reveals that she knew as early as February 2025 (if not earlier).

VIOLATION 2. Weisberg’s approval of the Specialized Support Services consultant contract was in violation of “BUSD Policy 3312: Contracts” and California Education Code section 45103.1. It was also a violation of the CSEA Bargaining Unit Agreement Article 7.

VIOLATION 3. Weisberg demonstrated a Failure of Fiduciary Duty and Oversight as defined by the California School Board Members Association (CSBA) in the approval of the Specialized Support Services contract, and the payments made for work that was never completed.

VIOLATION 4. – Weisberg’s approval of the employment contract for Andrew Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer was in violation of her Duty of Care as a Trustee, and the Brown Act’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government.

VIOLATION 5. Weisberg failed to perform her duties as a Trustee in the legally required formation of a Civilian Oversight Committee/Schools Facilities Oversight Committee (SFOC) for the voter approved (November 2024) Measure ABC Bond in violation of the following:

VIOLATION 6. Weisberg approved spending almost $40 million in Measure ABC Bond funds without the establishment of an SFOC and the legal oversight required prior to spending bond funding in violation of California Assembly Bill 1908 (2000), California Education Code §15278 et seq, BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214.

VIOLATION 7. Weisberg failed to demand Warrants as part of Board Packets as required for a year in violation of “BUSD Board Policy 3314: The Board shall approve all warrants at a regularly scheduled Board meeting.” She is also in violation of the Brown Act’s fundamental

spirit of transparency and open government in false statements she provided to the Burbank Leader.

VIOLATION 8. California Education Code (EDC) 17604 primarily authorizes a school district’s governing board to delegate its power to enter into contracts to the district superintendent or another designated officer/employee, streamlining operations, but all such contracts still require ultimate board approval or ratification to be valid. Weisberg routinely violated this code and her responsibilities as a fiduciary of public funds by allowing unapproved over payments of up to 5% for contracts with vendors and consultants.

VIOLATION 9. Weisberg served in the office of Board President from December 2023 through December 2024. During her term as Board President, she failed to include the approval of minutes as part of the Board meeting agenda in violation of BUSD Bylaw 9121: President. As Board Trustee she failed to ensure the production of and approval of minutes of the Board of Education meetings for more than 18-months in violation of BUSD Board Bylaws 9005 Governance Standards, and California Education Code Section 35145 requiring school boards to keep complete and accurate minutes of their meetings and CSBA Guidelines that define the duties of the President.

VIOLATION 10. Trustee Weisberg has a demonstrated pattern of harassment in both public and private communications with community members in response to criticism of Board actions in violation of BUSD Bylaw 9323: Meeting Conduct: “6.b. The Board shall not prohibit public

criticism of its policies, procedures, programs, services, acts, or omissions.”

Violation 11. In an email to a community member on June 20, 2025, Trustee Weisberg denied knowledge of the irregular consultant contract with then Superintendent Paramo’s personal trainer in violation of Brown Act (Government Code 54950) – “…actions that deceive the public are considered violations of the law’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open

government.”

Please contact BurbankUSDWatch@gmail.com for additional information and see the attached Uniform Complaint in its entirety.

Burbank Unified School District Uniform Complaint

1900 West Olive Avenue Burbank, CA 91506

Date: January 22, 2026

Submitted to: Dr. Oscar Macias, Interim Superintendent oscarmacias@burbankusd.org

Cc: Debra Duardo, Los Angeles County Superintendent Duardo Debra@LACOE.edu

Octavio Castelo, Director Business Advisory Services, LACOE Castelo Octavio@LACOE.edu

Rick Holash, Fiscal Expert, LACOE cp-holash richard@lacoe.edu

Michael H. Fine, Chief Executive Officer, FCMAT mfine@fcmat.org

Megan Reilly, Chief Administrative Officer, FCMAT mreilly@fcmat.org

Detective John Voorhees, Burbank Police Department jvoorhis@ci.burbank.ca.us

Dr. Peter Knapik, Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services, BUSD peterknapik@burbankusd.org

Submitted by:

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former Burbank mayor, former BUSD Bond Oversight Committee Chair
- Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former fundraiser for BUSD

– Burbank homeowner, former BUSD Board Member, former BUSD Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/grandparent, retired BUSD

administrator

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/current grandparent, former

Burbank Mayor

SECTION 1:

This complaint is against: Emily Weisberg

Location: Burbank Unified School District, 1900 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91506 Position: Board of Education Trustee, Vice President (Term December 2020 through December 2028)

SECTION 2:

Dates of conduct for this complaint: December 2023 – Present

This complaint is about the following: Current BUSD Board of Education Vice President Emily Weisberg knowingly and deliberately deceived the BUSD community, and the voters of the City of Burbank, aiding in the conflict of interest financial benefit to fellow Trustee Tabet. She intentionally deceived a member of the public regarding the irregular consultant contract with former Superintendent Paramo’s personal trainer. Weisberg demonstrated a pattern of harassment in both public and private communications with community members in response to criticism of Board actions. Trustee Weisberg demonstrated an ongoing pattern of disregard for the laws and policies for governance that apply to school board trustees. She failed to perform her duties as a Trustee of the Burbank Unified School District including, but not limited to, the complaints listed below, violating the following rules of governance and bargaining unit contracts:

Brown Act (Government Code 54950) – “…actions that deceive the public are considered violations of the law’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government.”

California School Board Members Association (CSBA): Fiduciary Duty, Duty of Care, Duty of Loyalty, and Fiscal Responsibility

BUSD Board Policy 4119.21: Professional Standards

“An employee who observes or has evidence of another employee’s inappropriate conduct shall immediately report such conduct to the principal or Superintendent or

designee…. An employee who has knowledge of but fails to report inappropriate

employee conduct may also be subject to discipline.” (Board Trustees are paid by BUSD and expected to uphold the same standards of conduct.)

Government Code Section 1090: “prohibits an officer, employee, or agency from participating in making government contracts in which the official or employee within the agency has a financial interest.”

family, or other personal interest or consideration…. publicly identify each financial interest that gives rise to the conflict or potential conflict of interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the public.”

2024 California Code, Government Code – GOV, TITLE 9 – POLITICAL REFORM, CHAPTER 7 – Conflicts of Interest, ARTICLE 1 – General Prohibition, Section 87100. “A public official at any level of state or local government shall not make, participate in making, or in any way attempt to use the public official’s official position to influence a

governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know the official has

a financial interest.”

CSEA Bargaining Unit Agreement Article 7 – “7.1 The District shall not contract out work which has been customarily and routinely performed by bargaining unit members.

7.1.1 Prior to contracting out any bargaining unit work, and subject to section 1, the District shall notify CSEA, both the Chapter President and Labor Relations Representative, in writing of its intention to contract out bargaining unit work as soon as practicable, but not less than ten (10) days before service would be due.”

California Assembly Bill 1908 (2000) (known as the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act) established mandatory Citizens’ Oversight Committees (COCs) for school districts using Proposition 39 bond funds, requiring these independent committees to oversee bond expenditures, review audits, inspect facilities, and inform the public that funds are spent only on approved school construction/improvements, ensuring accountability for taxpayer money. The COC advises the public on compliance with constitutional requirements, with members serving terms without pay, and must include representatives from specific community groups like business and taxpayers’ organizations, while excluding district employees or contractors.

members to a Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee within 60 days of voting the election

results into the minutes.

BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214: If a general obligation bond requiring 55% approval is passed, the Board shall appoint

an independent citizens’ advisory oversight committee. The Board must appoint the committee within 60 days of recording the election results in the minutes (per Ed Code reference in Board policy). The Board is to follow Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 7214 for committee membership and governance processes (this policy is referenced on the District’s Oversight Committee webpage).

BUSD Policy 3312: Contracts – “1. The contract is for new district functions. 2. The services contracted are not available within the district, cannot be performed satisfactorily by district employees.”

California Education Code section 45103.1 – Sets strict conditions for school districts to contract out services “currently or customarily” performed by classified employees for cost savings, requiring demonstrated overall savings, no displacement of workers, contractor pay at industry levels, and substantial savings justifying the contract.

BUSD Board Policy 3314: “The Board shall approve all warrants at a regularly scheduled Board meeting.”

BUSD Board Bylaw 9005 Governance Standards – “3. Operate openly, with trust and integrity. 5. Govern within Board-adopted policies and procedures. 6. Take collective responsibility for the Board’s performance.

BUSD Bylaw 9121: President – 2. Consult with the Superintendent or designee on the preparation of Board meeting agendas

California Education Code (EDC) 17604 primarily authorizes a school district’s governing board to delegate its power to enter into contracts to the district superintendent or another designated officer/employee, streamlining operations, but all such contracts still require ultimate board approval or ratification to be valid.

California Education Code section 35145: requires that school boards keep complete and accurate minutes of their meetings

BUSD Bylaw 9323: Meeting Conduct: 6.b. The Board shall not prohibit public criticism of its policies, procedures, programs, services, acts, or omissions.

Describe the incidents:

VIOLATION 1: At multiple Board of Education meetings Trustee Weisberg denied any prior to June 2025 knowledge of the conflict of interest in the Specialized Support Services contract approved on September 5, 2024. Recent information reveals that she knew as early as February 2025 (if not earlier) in violation of the following:

Government Code Section 1090 “prohibits an officer, employee, or agency from participating in making government contracts in which the official or employee within the agency has a

financial interest.”

BUSD Board Policy 4119.21: Professional Standards

“An employee who observes or has evidence of another employee’s inappropriate conduct shall immediately report such conduct to the principal or Superintendent or designee…. An employee who has knowledge of but fails to report inappropriate employee conduct may also be subject to discipline.”

BUSD Board Bylaw 9270: Conflict of Interest: “The Board of Education desires to maintain the highest ethical standards and help ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of the district and the public. Accordingly, no Board member, district employee, or other person in a designated position shall participate in the making of any decision for the district when the decision will or may be affected by his/her financial, family, or other personal interest or consideration…. publicly identify each financial interest that gives rise to the conflict or potential conflict of interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the public.”

Brown Act – “actions that deceive the public are considered violations of the law’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government.”

Evidence:

January 15, 2026, Board of Education Meeting: During public comment, speaker referenced this email discussing the Charlene Tabet and daughter Brianne (sic)

(Weist) Clerical Services Contract written by Pontzer Kamkar to then Assistant Superintendent Andrew Cantwell and Trustee Weisberg.

June 4, 2025, 2:04 am Email from Abigail Pontzer Kamkar to Andrew Cantwell and Trustee Emily Weisberg:

John Paramo

Friday, Feb 21 • 3:13 PM

Disney will post a link in their bulletin.

I don’t even know the options with Char. But this is ridiculous

Call you right back. On the phone with Emily.

Okay

Call me back when you can

Will do. Picking up kids and will get them settled

From: Abigail Pontzer Kamkar <AbigailPontzerKamkar@burbankusd.org>

Sent: Tuesday, February ZS, 2025 1:29 PM

To: Emily Weisberg <EmilyWeisberg@burbankusd.org>

Subject: Fw: Conflict of Interest Language

Sent this to John in December, will add to your doc where applicable.

From: Abigail Pontzer Kamkar

Sent: Thursday, December 19, ZOZ4 3:SZ PM

To: John Paramo <lohnParamo@burbankusd.org>

Subject: Conflict of Interest language

Possible language for COi – pulled from around the web. I want to ensure we include:

Being prepared
Treating district staff with respect
Not using position of influence for personal or professional gain

Irvine Unified

In the conduct of their activities as Board members, the application of the above moral values will encourage each Board member to:

Consider his/her position on the Board as a public trust and not use it for private advantage or personal gain.
Be constantly aware that he/she has no legal authority except when acting as a member of the Board. Board members shall present their concerns and concepts through the process of Board debate. If in the minority of any decision, they shall abide by and support the majority decision. Divergent opinions shall be respected.
Encourage ideas and opinions from the residents of the District and endeavor to incorporate community views into the deliberations and decisions of the Board.
Devote sufficient time, thought, and study to proposed actions so as to be able to base decisions upon all available facts and vote in accordance with honest convictions, unswayed by partisan bias of any kind.

The Board of Education and all District personnel exemplify work relationships that accord just and equitable treatment to all by fulfillment of the following obligations:

1. Accord just, equitable, and unbiased treatment to all District personnel in the exercise of their professional rights and responsibilities.

From Texas’ version of CSBA

Commitment to Service

I will focus my attention on fulfilling the Board’s responsibilities of goal setting, policymaking, and evaluation.

I will diligently prepare for and attend Board meetings.

I will avoid personal involvement in activities the Board has delegated to the Superintendent. I will seek continuing education that will enhance my ability to fulfill my duties effectively.

From Idaho:

9. Understand the chain of command and refer problems or complaints to the proper administrative office while refraining from communications that may create conditions of bias should a concern ever rise to the attention of the board as a hearings panel;

Give staff the respect and consideration due skilled, professional employees and support the employment of those best qualified to serve as district staff, while insisting on regular and impartial evaluation of all staff;
Present personal criticism of district operations to the superintendent or administrator, not to district staff or to a board meeting;
Refuse to use my board position for personal or family gain or prestige. I will announce any conflicts of interest

before board action is taken; a

Avoid conflicts of interest and refrain from using the position for personal gain.
Take no private action that will compromise the School Board or administration.

Abby Pontzer Kamkar

Burbank USD Board Member

In her 2:04 am email, Pontzer Kamkar states:

“I checked my texts with John (Paramo) and my conversation where he DISCLOSED THE

MINUTES CONTRACT WITH BRIANNE (sic) and “money troubles” was on February 21. I believe Em (Weisberg) and I met with John the following Tuesday.”

This email clearly indicates:

As early as February 2025, if not prior, Trustees Pontzer Kamkar and Weisberg were made aware by then Superintendent Paramo that the contract with Specialized Support Services was with former Trustee Tabet’s daughter. It is unclear if Assistant Superintendent Cantwell was also aware of this illegal contract.
They were aware of the conflict of interest in that contract.
They were fully aware of the ethics issues.

Weisberg has publicly emphatically denied any prior to June 2025 knowledge of the ownership behind the clerical services contract. At no time did she question the payments made for services that were not provided. Instead, she approved $93,000 in payments to fellow Trustee Charlene Tabet and enabled an ongoing conflict of interest to occur.

June 4, 2025, 6:34 am, Andrew Cantwell’s first response:

In this reply, Cantwell refers to an alleged conflict of interest with Trustee Char Tabet regarding her relationship with the Vikings Club Football team and their use of BUSD facilities. He also explains that he was told by John (Paramo) that “Char was going to get held accountable by the two of you (Trustee Weisberg and Pontzer Kamkar) and that you were going to blast her with some conflict of interest policies.”

Attached to Pontzer Kamkar’s June 4, 2025 2:05 am email (above), she forwards a December 19, 2024 email in which she discusses the conflict of interest policies with former Superintendent Paramo, indicating that she was aware of the Trustee Tabet conflict of interest at that time, and working on a plan to “blast” Trustee Tabet. Weisberg is a recipient of the email.

June 4, 2025, 6:41 am, Andrew Cantwell’s second response:

In this reply, Cantwell established that “no one should have walked away from that conversation thinking it was fine for a board member to directly vote on compensation for a family member.” It is clear Weisberg was aware of the conflict of interest caused by the Specialized Support Services contract and the daughter of Trustee Tabet.

This email provides evidence indicating a deliberate deception by Weisberg, in collusion with Trustee Pontzer Kamkar, that led to the misappropriation of (at least) $93,000 of public funds. Furthermore, had she acted to bring former Trustee Tabet’s contract with her daughter to the public’s attention at the next available board meeting after February 21, 2025 she could have prevented the district from spending $45,000, which had not yet been paid on the minutes contract, in violation of her fiduciary duty as a Trustee. As shown on the Board’s web site “Specialized Support Service INVESTIGATION,” Exhibit F Check Images, the last three checks, each for $15,000, were issued March 14, April 18, and May 14, 2025.

On July 24, 2025, Weisberg knowingly and intentionally lied to the public about her prior knowledge of the involvement of fellow Trustee Tabet’s financial interest in Specialized Support Services in violation of the Brown Act – “actions that deceive the public are considered

violations of the law’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government.”

July 24, 2025 Board of Education Meeting: Weisberg’s response to public comment:

“I didn’t know Char‘s children’s name and even if I did know that her child was

Breeann – that wasn’t on the contract when I asked questions. If there had been a

name that was related to Char Tabet there would’ve been no way I would’ve approved a contract. And I’m pretty sure I can speak for the rest of the board when I say nobody up here would have either. I don’t know how to know the names of people and this is the first time once we’ve got more information…”

“BreeAnn Weist” WAS clearly readable on the contract with Specialized Support Services. It contained a very legible signature of the consultant, “BreeAnn M. Weist” (see below). Pontzer Kamkar acknowledged in her June 4, 2025 email to Cantwell that she and Weisberg knew Ms. Weist’s name as early as February 2025, if not earlier. Weisberg’s public comments were a knowing and deliberate decision to lie to the public about her involvement in the conflict of interest.

Evidence:

September 5, 2024 – At the Board of Education meeting Weisberg approved Agenda Item “13.f Clerical Specialized (also known as Specialized Support Services).”

The consultant agreement with Specialized Student Services was a direct conflict with the collective bargaining agreement between BUSD and the California School Employees Association (CSEA) Article 7. Weisberg did not raise this concern.

“ARTICLE 7 – CONTRACTING OUT BARGAINING UNIT WORK

The District shall not contract out work which has been customarily and routinely performed by bargaining unit members, except as authorized by Education Code Section 45103.1 or as required by law. Per Government Code Section 3543.2, contracting out, when within the scope of representation, is subject to decision and effects bargaining. Contracting out, or subcontracting, and the transferring out of bargaining unit work, where there may be a direct impact on employee wages, working conditions, and hours, shall not occur except where agreed to between the parties. The decision to contract out or receive services outside of the scope of the classified bargaining unit is not negotiable.
- Prior to contracting out any bargaining unit work, and subject to section 1, the District shall notify CSEA, both the Chapter President and Labor

Relations Representative, in writing of its intention to contract out bargaining unit work as soon as practicable, but not less than ten (10) days before service would be due.”

(CSEA Contract 2021-2024, pg 20)

July 24, 2025 Board of Education Meeting: Weisberg’s response to public comment from a

CSEA Union member:

“But I want you to know that the questions were asked your question about why were new members (CSEA union) not offered this first. I have been told they were. And why did we feel comfortable approving this? It’s a great question. I felt like I’d gotten the answers to the questions.”

Weisberg did not ask for written notification of approval from CSEA, in violation of the Bargaining Unit agreement with CSEA. By hiring a contractor, the board and the school district denied that work to a CSEA union staff member and failed to ensure prior agreement with CSEA.

Weisberg’s approval of the Specialized Support Services consultant contract was in violation of “BUSD Policy 3312: Contracts.” The production of minutes was NOT a “new district function.” and the services contracted for were proven able to be “performed satisfactorily by district employees” as they had been for decades prior and are currently being done.

(BUSD Policy 3312: Contracts)

The board’s approval of the Specialized Support Services consultant contract was also a direct violation of California Education Code section 45103.1. The proposed contract did NOT result in a cost savings to the district. In fact, it was a total loss of $93,000. If the REQUIRED comparison of costs had been completed and presented, it would have been clear that the

$90,000 contract was far greater than the expense of salary and benefits for a staff member to perform the same duties.

(California Education Code Section 45103.1)

July 24, 2025, Board of Education Meeting: Weisberg’s response to public comment from a

CSEA Union member:

“There’s not much I can tell you that is other than to say that my goal was asking those questions to prioritize current employees and to better understand why we were spending money because it’s a lot of money to your point. We definitely wouldn’t have needed to have spent that much money if we had used a BUSD employee.

These questions were not on the record. Weisberg approved the Specialized Support Services contract resulting in a total loss of $93,000 in BUSD funds.

According to the CSBA, fiduciary duty means acting in the district’s best financial and long-term interest with care and loyalty, focusing on the Duty of Care (good faith, reasonable inquiry, best interests), the Duty of Loyalty (avoiding conflicts of interest like financial gain), and Fiscal Responsibility (managing budgets, assets, accountability to the public), essentially holding resources in trust for the community and students.

Evidence:

Competent, CSEA union, full time staff could have been hired for half of the $93,000 paid to Specialized Support Services for services they failed to provide between December 2024 and May 2025. This approval and lack of oversight is a violation of Weisberg’s duty of care, duty of loyalty, and fiduciary duty as a trustee.

December 12, 2024, Board of Education Meeting

Trustee Tabet’s daughter, BreeAnn M. Weist, was named in Purchase Order report. The approval of the Purchase Order report, containing over $995,964 of purchase orders took less than 30 seconds for a unanimous approval, 5-0 of the consent agenda. No questions were asked by any member of the Board. There were only 7 items in the 14-page purchase order list that cost more than $25,000. The third largest item on the list was for $90,000 for BreeAnn M. Weist.

Weisberg approved this payment. There was no work product, no minutes submitted, to substantiate payment due to this vendor, in violation of board fiduciary duty.

(BOE Agenda 12/12/2024, Item 12.c. Purchase order report page 12)

Weisberg strongly supported the approval of this contract, misrepresented spending, and failed to oversee upper cabinet staff in violation of the CSBA Duty of Care standards and the Brown Act.

Evidence:

May 1, 2025, Board of Education Meeting, Approval of Employment Contract for Andrew Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer

Agenda item 12.l Page 6, “Approval of Employment Contract for Andrew Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer Sarah Rudchenko, Assistant Superintendent, Human Resources Services, recommends that the Board of Education approve the Employment Contract for Andrew

Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer, effective July 1, 2025, as presented.”

Superintendent Paramo says, “I wanna make sure the public know that this is 100% cost neutral this is not this is not an increase in FTE. It is the same number of FTE this position and the new responsibilities for Mr. Cantwell will warrant a 5% raise there is no monetary compensation additional. What we do is reduce the amount of (paid) days that he would be able to receive which is about 13 furlough days so it’s not costing us any money.”

The contract was approved by the Board unanimously.
Andrew Cantwell’s previous salary as Assistant Superintendent of Administrative

Services was $233,655.

His new contract places him at step 4 of the new salary schedule, which DOES increase his salary to $245,338 annually by $11,683.
The 2025 contract requires him to take 13.1 furlough days annually, thereby reducing his work year from 262 days to 248.9 work days per year.
This means he will earn a new daily rate of pay of $985.68 versus the previous daily rate of $891.81 per day ($233,655 annual salary/262 days).
The contract states, “The Board retains the right to consider the awarding of an annual stipend with consideration to performance and depending on the financial condition of the district.” This language indicates an annual bonus. BUSD is facing significant budget cuts, reduced enrollment, and reductions to school funding. Is it irresponsible to suggest a potential bonus to any staff member, “with consideration to performance and depending on the financial condition of the district?”
The new contract requires less days, less responsibility, and a raise in his daily rate of pay.
Mr. Cantwell is now given 70.1 days off during each calendar year. That is 14 weeks, more than three months of paid leave annually.

Weisberg did not point this out or question the financial impact of this contract.

Mr. Cantwell’s oversight of Fiscal Services from 2023 to the present involved the $11 million accounting error and many recommendations for improvement in the 2/24 FCMAT report. Those recommendations have (still) not been successfully implemented. There are multiple questions about his oversight with consultant contracts, including the one with “Clerical Services/Specialized Support Services” from September 2024 through June 2025.
During open comment at Board meetings in June 2025 community members asked the BOE to withdraw their approval of this new contract pending the outcome of the Sobel Group investigation into “Clerical Services/Specialized Support Services.” The BOE moved forward with the approval of the contract.
Mr. Cantwell frequently worked from home or was not in the office performing oversight duties.
Mr. Cantwell passed the California Bar Examination in January 2023 while working for BUSD. He has never formally practiced law. What prior experience does Mr. Cantwell have dealing with school district litigation? Does this mean that an entirely unexperienced attorney will now be representing the district? According to Dr. Paramo, “Andy would be freed up to take on more of our legal cases.”
Given Mr. Cantwell’s lack of legal experience, why wasn’t this position flown to allow

others to apply? Why was it automatically given or created for him?

There were already several community questions brought to the Board about his management of personnel and Paid Administrative Leave settlements, and if they were managed correctly.

At no time did Weisberg ask for a performance review for Mr. Cantwell in consideration of her approval of his promotion and raise, and, according to Mr. Cantwell on December 18, 2025, no

performance review was done, despite the many errors and missteps in his area of oversight, several leaving BUSD open to significant liability. These errors have been made public in the statement of charges against Mr. Cantwell at the December 18, 2025 hearing to terminate Mr. Cantwell for cause. Most of the charges were previously brought to the Board during public comment by community members as matters of concerns, and in requests to prevent the promotion and raise for Mr. Cantwell. A summary of the charges can be found in the Burbank Leader article, “Burbank School Official Claims Retaliation for Blowing Whistle,” December 26, 2025, by Jarrett Liotta.

https://outlooknewspapers.com/burbankleader/burbank-school-official-claims-retaliation-for-blowing-whistle/article 050ac63d-1f97-41fd-9512-7dbb85ce87e9.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawPbftNleHRuA2FlbQIxMQBzcnRjBmFwcF9pZBAyMjIwMzkx Nzg4MjAwODkyAAEeVKrY4MMdCsvz6EGYsWcfEnMVXdghlguMBOXqqsJHlDlssa1k-CWagar0xWg aem 74Em8jpjddYkiOlVFhyVA

California Assembly Bill 1908 (2000) (known as the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act) established mandatory Citizens’ Oversight Committees (COCs) for school districts using Proposition 39 bond funds, requiring these independent committees to oversee bond expenditures, review audits, inspect facilities, and inform the public that funds are spent only on approved school construction/improvements, ensuring accountability for taxpayer money. The COC advises the public on compliance with constitutional requirements, with members serving terms without pay, and must include representatives from specific community groups like business and taxpayers’ organizations, while excluding district employees or contractors.

California Education Code §15278 et seq.: (the Strict Accountability in Local School Construction Bonds Act of 2000), when a school district bond measure passes (such as Measure ABC in BUSD) the district’s governing board must establish and appoint members to a Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee within 60 days of voting the election results into the minutes.

BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214: If a general obligation bond requiring 55% approval is passed, the Board shall appoint an independent citizens’ advisory oversight committee. The Board must appoint the committee within 60 days of recording the election results in the minutes (per Ed Code reference in Board policy). The Board is to follow Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 7214 for committee membership and governance processes (this policy is referenced on the District’s Oversight Committee webpage).

Evidence:

November 5, 2024: BUSD was successful at an election in obtaining authorization from at least 55% of District voters to issue up to $458,205,000 aggregate principal amount of general obligation bonds for the purpose of financing the specific types of school facilities projects set forth in the general obligation bond measure approved by voters (“Measure ABC”).

The January 16, 2025 “Report to the Board” submitted by Cantwell submitted Bylaws to govern

Measure ABC,

“Pursuant to State law, the District is required to establish and appoint a citizens’ oversight committee to review bond expenditures for the purpose of ensuring that Measure ABC funds are spent on voter approved projects. This resolution approves bylaws that will govern the administration of the committee. Committee members are expected to be appointed by the Board at a public meeting, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, within 60 days. District staff will commence the notice and recruitment period following adoption of this Resolution.”

https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3078382/Resolution 19 –

Adopting Bylaws Governing the Measure ABC COC 011625.pdf

Weisberg approved the bylaw, which passed unanimously. The board was informed that this action started the 60-day clock to form a Schools Facilities Oversight Committee (SFOC) no later than March 17, 2025. No such committee was formed by the deadline. Weisberg did not publicly direct or question staff about the delay.

At an August 2025 Board meeting, a community member, Jef Vander Borght, asked the Board why forming a Civilian Oversight Committee for the Measure ABC Bond was removed from the agenda for this meeting. It was already five months overdue at that time.

On August 21, 2025 former Board of Education trustee spoke about the lack of an SFOC, reminding the board that in January, Mr. Cantwell brought forth bylaws to form an ABC bond committee and that the board had 60 days to form the committee. He pointed out that as of this date, August 21, no committee has been formed in direct violation of Assembly Bill 1908 that authorizes the 55% approval for school construction bonds and calls for strict accountability. Unauthorized expenditures of school bond revenues are vigorously investigated, prosecuted and courts act swiftly to restrain improper expenditures. He stated that the public knows that much work was completed over the summer with NO citizen oversight at all. Nearly $40 million dollars of bond funds had already been spent. He demanded that they cease and desist from any further expenditure until an oversight committee is in place.

August 25, 2025: “BUSDeNews: SFOC Statement “

District was obligated to form this committee within 60 days of entering the November 2024 election results into the official record at a Board meeting.

While the Board formally recognized the passage of Bond Measure ABC on January 16, 2025, and initial outreach to interested applicants began on April 15, 2025, the process regrettably stalled thereafter.”

On September 18, 2025 Jef Vander Borght spoke during public comment about the SFOC still not being formed. He also pointed out that on Cantwell’s newly approved job description, 100% of his salary is to be paid from bond funds, completely against what the bond language stated. He also pointed out that the Board of Education had already approved nearly $40 million in spending from bond funds without the formation of an oversight committee, a violation of the law.

At no time after the 60 days had lapsed did Trustee Weisberg publicly demand the formation of the SFOC, as part of her duties of oversight.

March 6, 2025 Board of Education Meeting – Weisberg and fellow Trustees unanimously approved contracts for almost $40 million in Measure ABC Bond funds without the establishment of an SFOC and the legal oversight required prior to spending bond funding. At no time did they question the spending, the use of SFOC funds, the need to establish an SFOC, or ask why one did not exist.

(See “Adopted Minutes of the Board of Education, Burbank Unified School District – March 06, 2025 items 10.g, 10.h, 10.i, 10.j, 10k., 10.l, 10.m, 10.n, 10.o, 10.p, 10.q, 10.r, 10.s, 10.t, 10.u.,

10.v, 10.w, 10.x, 10.y, 10.z, 10.aa)

The Board had been informed about this requirement prior to the November 2024 election, and at the January 16, 2025 Board meeting as noted in Violation 5. Without the establishment of a Civilian Oversight Committee, or an SFOC the Board, and Weisberg knowingly violated California Assembly Bill 1908 (2000), California Education Code §15278 et seq, BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214. California school boards cannot legally spend Proposition 39 bond funds without an active, properly constituted Citizens’ Oversight Committee because the committee’s establishment and function are mandatory accountability measures required by law (Prop 39 and subsequent legislation) to ensure funds are used for voter-approved purposes, not salaries or operations, and failing to have one can lead to legal challenges by taxpayers. While the committee doesn’t direct spending, its absence or non-functionality undermines the legal framework for bond expenditure, making it a prerequisite for proper use of funds.

At the September 18, 2025 School Board meeting community member public speaker Jef Vander Borght alerted the Board of Education that financial reports showed that the salary for Andrew Cantwell was being paid 100% out of Measure ABC Bond funds, in violation of accountability measures required by law.

Evidence:

June 5, 2025, Board of Education Meeting

Warrants appear in the agenda for the first time since July 1, 2024. At no time did Weisberg demand or ask for them in order to fulfill her fiduciary duty as a Board Member, as required by Board Policy 3314. The missing Warrants are a glaring indication of failures in the Fiscal Services department of BUSD and demanded Board attention and review. In addition, the FCMAT report from February 2024 states that warrants are “essential” for board review and approval.

June 21, 2025, Burbank Leader Article “Documents Show Burbank Unified Lagged in Reporting Millions in Payments”

under criminal investigation for financial misconduct involving the district, an examination of BUSD documents by the Leader revealed.

District policy requires that outgoing payments — known as pay warrants — be reported at regularly scheduled Board of Education meetings to allow oversight by elected officials. However, payments made between July 1, 2024, and April 30, 2025, were not presented to the board until June 2025. The delayed 35-page report includes thousands of payments to about 1,600 vendors, among them Weist.

‘This is a way for us to monitor the actual cash that is going out of our accounts,’ said Board Vice President Abby Pontzer Kamkar. ‘It should have been on the agenda more frequently.’ Pontzer Kamkar expressed concern, noting that had the board seen the payment reports earlier, people — including community members — may have flagged Weist’s involvement in the clerical services contract.

Officials attributed the lapse in reports to high staff turnover and the lack of formal procedures in the fiscal services department — issues that were flagged in a third-party Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team (FCMAT) audit last year after BUSD misplaced $11 million intended mostly for teacher raises, an incident that led to the termination of former Superintendent Matt Hill.”

August 11, 2025, Board of Education meeting, Public Comment by teacher :

“This board approved the contract for $90,000 (referring to the conflict of interest contract with Trustee Tabet and her daughter), yet records show that $93,000 was paid.

$3000 more than authorized. This is not rounding error. This is an unauthorized payment that violates California education code 17604 which requires that contracts be authorized or ratified by the governing board and only the governing board. During the July 24 board meeting board member Dr. Weisberg said, and I quote, ‘I think somebody brought up the $3000. As long as you’re within 5% you don’t have to reapprove. So the $3000, that is within normal range.’ End quote. This is deeply concerning. There is no California law or education code that allows district staff to exceed a board approved contract by 5% without board preapproval.”

September 4, 2025, Board of Education meeting, Public Comment by community member

“At last month’s meeting, presented detailed concerns regarding the consultant contract with Specialized Support Services, including the $3,000 overpayment beyond the Board-approved $90,000 limit. In that speech, she asked specific questions:

Who approved the extra $3,000?
Under what authority?
Why was it not brought back to the Board for approval as required?
And how many other contracts have been quietly exceeded under the mistaken belief

that “within 5%” is acceptable?

She also requested that the district clarify publicly that there is no legal or policy basis for the claim made by Trustee Weisberg when she stated and I quote: ‘I think somebody

brought up the $3000. As long as you’re within 5% you don’t have to reapprove. So the

$3000 is within normal range.’

Over a month has passed since speech that laid out critical questions for this board or District Staff to answer. No answers have been given. No corrections have been made. The silence is as troubling as the overpayment itself. When members of this community raise concerns grounded in Education Code and Board policy, we deserve more than silence. We deserve a response. This is not a matter of interpretation or opinion — it is a matter of law, fiscal responsibility, and public trust.”

These questions remain unanswered.

Evidence:

As of August 2025, minutes for 40 meetings are/were missing from the public record, dating back to early 2024.

“5. Govern within Board-adopted policies and procedures

6. Take collective responsibility for the Board’s performance”

(Bylaw 9005, Governance Standards)

It is not possible to take responsibility for the Board’s performance without approved minutes.

“2.Consult with the Superintendent or designee on the preparation of Board meeting agendas.”

(Bylaw 9121 President)

It was the specific duty of Board President Weisberg (December 2023 – 2024) to prepare Board meeting agendas, including required minutes of board meetings. During her presidency, 22 board meetings were held. Minutes presented were often 10 to 15 months late, and none were from meetings that actually occurred in 2024. This failure of duty created the opportunity for Trustee Tabet to submit her unlawful conflict of interest contract.

CSBA specifies in a BoardWise publication that a Board President has “… Key duties including agenda setting… and ensuring effective oversight of district operations.” CSBA refers to Board Policy or the LEA’s governance handbook as to where the President’s duties are set out, but BUSD Board Members explained at the January 11, 2026 Board retreat that there is no BUSD governance handbook. (CSBA BoardWise “Roles and responsibilities of board officers.”)

July 28, 2025, MyBurbank Letter to the Editor:

Letter to the Editor: “Board of Education May Need to be Held Legally Responsible,” by

“Every Board – corporate, nonprofit and, yes, school district – has a legal and non-negotiable fiduciary duty to protect the interests of those they represent. We the public place our trust in those we elect to the School Board to protect the assets of BUSD and perform oversight. That trust is the foundation for this fiduciary duty. A Board of Trustees can be sued for the breach of fiduciary duty. Not the superintendent, not employees – the Board itself which is the group that has agreed to take on this fiduciary duty by running for and being elected to the Board.”

Letter to the Editor: Board of Education May Need to be Held Legally Responsible

criticism of its policies, procedures, programs, services, acts, or omissions.”

Evidence: Public Communications

July 24, 2025 Board of Education Meeting: As reported by the Burbank Leader, several community members spoke and asked some difficult questions that remain unanswered. At the meeting, Board Clerk Emily Weisberg provided a 12 minute long response.

Burbank Leader, July 31, 2025, “Resignation Demands Swell Over Burbank Unified Contract, Oversight” by Gavin Quinton:

“Fallout from a controversial Burbank Unified School Board (BUSD) contract continues to grow as a group of community members — consisting largely of parents and retired district employees — are calling not only for the resignation of Board of Education member Charlene Tabet, but also for those among board leadership and senior district staff.

Speaking at board meetings and in several comments to the Leader, community members cited concerns over board oversight of district spending, a history of compliance failures and assertions that the district violated its bargaining agreement with union partners. Several also expressed concern over the prolonged absence of Chief Administrative Officer Andrew Cantwell, who oversees risk management and has not been at work for most of June and July following the recent allegations.”

https://outlooknewspapers.com/burbankleader/news/resignation-demands-swell-over-burbank-unified-contract-oversight/article 4740b781-46e6-42a1-88b7-0e6a398463c6.html

July 24, 2025 Board of Education Meeting: Weisberg’s response to public comment:

“But when you choose to bring somebody on at some point when you have a leader, you choose to trust them or not trust them and I understand that it’s really easy on Facebook and sitting there to talk to us as if we were being lazy or stupid or ignorant. This job for me is a 50 to 60 hour a week job and I make $450 a month after taxes. I also work a full-time job as a middle school teacher and I do it because I love students. I love education and I have dedicated my life to this constant barrage of willfully, ignoring what’s being spent based on conjecture and assumption. We admitted one of us here that we were told first, and I don’t remember who said that. Ms. Schackmann, who until this evening I thought we had a really respectful back-and-forth. I didn’t know Char‘s children’s name and even if I did know that her child was BreeAnn – that wasn’t on the contract when I asked questions. If there had been a name that was related to Char Tabet there would’ve been no way I would’ve approved a contract. And I’m pretty sure I can speak for the rest of the board when I say nobody up here would have either. I don’t know how to know the names of people and this is the first time once we’ve got more information, I thought well I guess I should’ve gone back and googled every single company. You have to put faith in the people that you hire to do the job and sometimes you’re wrong and every day I am learning more and more how wrong I was, but it’s not because I didn’t do the work. And there are a lot of you, Mr. Vander Borght, who feel really comfortable, degrading and maligning our work ethic and our intelligence and you can shake your head, but it’s real comfy for you to do that. I don’t know how that helps our students or helps our teachers or helps our staff. We’re a couple weeks away from school. We are involved in two investigations a third-party investigation and a criminal investigation.”

(New kindergarten parents attending their first BUSD Board Meeting laugh uncomfortably.)

“I’m not sure that’s funny.” (stern reprimand from Trustee Weisberg)

(Kindergarten parents later ask community members if its normal for a board member to speak this way.)

(Timestamp 1:03:59-1:08:54)

This lengthy response by Weisberg is one example of many of her calling out community members by name, accusing them of being disrespectful, degrading, maligning her intelligence, and of Weisberg responding inappropriately to community member questions about Board member responsibilities that have not been fulfilled. It is worth noting that Ms. Schackmann is a former BUSD administrator and Mr. Vander Borght is a former Burbank Mayor. Both are professionals who speak respectfully and follow the rules of decorum, as can be seen in a review of the video record of the meeting.

Trustee Weisberg refers here to the private Facebook page, “BUSD Watch.” She is not a member of the page and does not personally have access to it. The contents are restricted to BUSD communications and media about events in BUSD since the disclosure of the Specialized Support Services conflict of interest scandal. The rules for the page state that posts are fact checked and based on truth. False, or misleading posts are corrected or deleted. Weisberg references this Facebook page several times in public and private communications.

Weisberg continues:

“Like I said if it brings people a sense of comfort to lash out I also understand that that’s that’s a very human response but fundamentally nobody up here on the dais is doing this for financial gain or for the fame and glory that comes with being a school board member, or for any reason other than a real authentic desire to help our district.” (Timestamp 1:09:00 – 1:15:55)

No speaker “lashed out.”

At this meeting, and others, Dr. Weisberg asked community members if critical public

comments “helps our students, or helps our teachers, or helps our staff.” There is a widely held perspective that a governing body forcing a narrative of only good or deemed “helpful” news may be shared during public comment constitutes a form of censorship by omission or suppression of information in violation of BUSD Bylaw 9323.

Key points regarding this perspective include:

Selective Filtering: Requesting the exclusion of “bad news” means a selective filtering of reality, which prevents a full and accurate understanding of events or situations.
Impact on Public Discourse: Such an expectation hinders open and honest discussion, which many argue is essential for a functioning, informed society and for addressing problems effectively.

Freedom of Expression: In many democratic societies, the principle of free speech and freedom of the press protects the right to report both positive and negative information without government interference or undue social pressure.

Therefore, from the viewpoint of advocates for free expression, any expectation or policy that restricts information to only positive news is fundamentally opposed to the principles of free, uncensored communication.

While boards can create a less welcoming environment through unpleasant (or bullying) responses, they must still allow criticism and unpopular viewpoints as long as the speech doesn’t cause a “substantial disruption” and follows reasonable rules on time and conduct. Governing bodies can force self-censorship through the creation of a general climate of fear and uncertainty. (Self-censorship is the act of censoring or classifying one’s own discourse, typically out of fear or deference to the perceived preferences, sensibilities, or infallibility of others, and often without or little overt external pressure.) These tactics create a “chilling effect” that makes individuals choose to restrict their own expression to avoid consequences. Citizens have a right to free speech during public comment, which includes the right to criticize school policies and officials.

Dr. Weisberg’s response to public comments were received by both speakers and audience members as harassment, or bullying, members of the community.

July 24, 2025 Board of Education Meeting, Weisberg’s response to public comment:

“If you want to reach out to me, I think we’ve emailed before. I’m happy to give you my cell phone and talk as well.”

Weisberg’s frequent insistence that people email her, call, or meet with her one on one is to control the narrative, silence public comment, and create a culture of self-censorship to reduce public comment critical of the actions of the Board.

August 11, 2025 Board of Education Meeting, Weisberg’s response to public comment: “Miss Helfrich, You can save it for Facebook.”

This was in response to public comment by Alexandra Helfrich:

“At this moment, there is no public record of the board’s actions, no legal record of the decisions of the Board of Education for all of 2024 and 2025. This is a shared failure of duty by the entire Board, each of you.

When this issue first came to light last fall, there were 26 missing sets of minutes. That number is now up to 35. And we still don’t have clear answers.

Here’s my questions … that deserve to be answered:

Did any of you, at any point during the past 18 months, ask in a public meeting:

“What’s going on with the missing minutes?”

Now that this issue has been widely acknowledged since early June, why haven’t the most recent meetings at least been submitted for approval? Especially with a police investigation underway, doesn’t the district need accurate records?
Do you recognize that approving minutes from meetings over a year ago is nearly impossible—and, in some cases, a violation of Education Code?”

The questions asked were not answered. Instead, Weisberg seemed unreasonably concerned about the BUSD Watch Facebook page. The comment targeting community member Alexandra Helfrich felt inappropriate and aggressive. Guests in the BUSD Board Room gasped in surprise when it occurred.

January 11, 2026 Study Session Board of Education – To further control public speakers, Weisberg advocates for reducing the time allocated for public comment from 5 minutes per speaker to 3 minutes per speaker. This discussion takes approximately one hour.

Evidence: Private Communications

November 10, 2025 – email from Anita Schackmann (retired BUSD administrator) to Trustee Weisberg:

“I am writing to express my deep concern regarding BUSD’s current fiscal condition and the magnitude of cuts now required to reach budget stabilization. As we approach the December 5th deadline for the Fiscal Stabilization Plan required by LACOE, there continues to be ongoing correspondence from the County that is not being proactively shared with the community. Why was this information not shared immediately upon receipt of the LACOE letter? Meetings should have begun immediately upon notice from LACOE…

The amount of reductions required to balance the budget is staggering — and will likely require consideration of furlough days, staff layoffs, program elimination, and other painful measures, including potential school closures. These conversations should have begun months ago in partnership with site administration, district leadership, our union partners, and community members who have extensive experience in school finance.

We cannot wait until proposals are finalized before we begin outreach — by then it will

be too late for meaningful input or collaboration….

Excerpts from LACOE 9/8/25 letter:

The updated FSP is projected to generate cumulative savings of $8.27 million over the three-year period. We appreciate the District’s continued efforts to address its structural deficit spending and request that the District provide another updated FSP, with the 2025-26 First Interim Report, due to our office by December 5, 2025.”

November 17, 2025 Response from Trustee Weisberg:

“The conversations you allude to below have been happening for months. In many forms. Consistently. The assertion that we have no plan, have had no discussion and are incapable of addressing the serious concerns we need to make is factually inaccurate and deeply inflammatory. If, as you claim, your goal is help and support the District, I would ask you to please pause before spreading this kind of misinformation on social media. So many people have reached out to me scared and anxious based on what is being shared via Burbank Watch. I am beyond grateful that they did reach out, so I was able to allay their concerns. There is so much to be concerned about, the last thing BUSD needs is fear stemming from misinformation.”

Weisberg refers here to the BUSD Watch Facebook page (again) in which the LACOE letter dated September 8, 2025 was shared as a matter of public information. Community members are aware of how neighboring Pasadena USD managed their own Fiscal Stabilization Plan (FSP). In contrast, BUSD did not share the letter, or the need for an FSP, with the public. As was later revealed at the December 11, 2025 Board meeting, the district submitted a slight revision of the FSP previously submitted in June 2025.

Accusations of “misinformation,” “false assertations,” “factually inaccurate,” and “deeply inflammatory” were not true, and intended to intimidate and silence Ms. Schackmann. Ms.

Schackmann immediately replied with a request for clarity, and examples of any false or

inaccurate information regarding the “misinformation” so that it might be corrected. There was

no reply, and no corrections offered via email, or in a public board meeting.

It is worth noting that BUSD failed to meet the December 5, 2025 deadline to submit their FSP, as mentioned in Ms. Schackmann’s letter of concern. And, on January 7, 2026, BUSD received a formal notice of “lack of going concern” from LACOE.

government.”

Evidence:

June 5, 2025 – Report from Andrew Cantwell to all Board of Education members regarding the details of the irregular consultant contract, Isaiah Knoll, with then Superintendent Paramo’s personal trainer.

June 18, 2025 an email was sent from a community member to all Board members with concerns about Cantwell’s new 4 year contract, new title, and responsibilities and requesting it be put on hold until the Sobel investigation is completed. The member of the public also asked about the hiring of the former Superintendent’s trainer as shown here:

“After diving deeper into board agendas, I can see other questionable budget/accounting missteps. Why are we hiring John Paramo’s personal trainer as a trainer for our student athletes without checking the box on whether he would be working with students? Is he fingerprinted and cleared to do that? Also, John Paramo stated at the board meeting of May 1, 2025 that the trainer had not reported to John Burroughs High School even though I notice that John Burroughs High School (I recognize the appropriation number) was charged in full for this trainer. Looks like fraud or at least sloppy fiscal management to me.”

Two days later, on June 20, 2025 Board member Weisberg writes in response the following comment:

“In reference to your mention of a trainer, I don’t see this person listed as Dr. Paramo’s

personal trainer on any of the agenda documents. If you could provide me with more

information regarding this, I would appreciate it. There are so many rumors being floated

around, so much information being stated as fact, when it’s hearsay,…”

Board member Weisberg’s response is an untrue and misleading statement. She received an email on June 5, 2025 (shown above) from Andrew Cantwell, disclosing all the details associated with the hiring of former superintendent John Paramo’s personal trainer, including his name, the invoice details showing the same, $6,000 monthly payments for 5 months, regardless of how many hours or days he worked. If Board member Weisberg missed the June 5th email, on June 11th Mr. Cantwell sent the Board a formal 4-page memo summarizing all concerns regarding the consultant agreement with Isaiah Knoll (John Paramo’s personal trainer), 9 days before Board member Weisberg’s denied knowledge of Dr. Paramo’s personal trainer in her June 20^th email to the community member.

Please see memo to the Board of Education, dated June 11, 2025, regarding “Summary of

Concerns Regarding Consultant Agreement with Isaiah Knoll,” page 2 excerpt here:

“Mr. Knoll was known to be Dr. Paramo’s personal trainer. He did not have the qualifications and certification to serve as an athletic trainer, so his role morphed to be more of an extra support in the weight room rather than serve any functional purpose supporting the athletic training program.”

SECTION 3:

Locations where the conduct for this complaint occurred: The incidents occurred in the BUSD administrative offices, board room, and in the Burbank City Council Chambers. Records of these incidents exist in recorded board meetings, meeting minutes, emails, and text messages.

SECTION 4:

Name(s) of persons who have been contacted/spoken with about these complaints: The public has spoken about this conduct on multiple occasions to the administration and Board of Education during the open comment section of Board of Education meetings from June 5, 2025 until the present. These comments are part of the public record in recordings of the meetings. Those in attendance at the meetings include Dr. Oscar Macias, Dr. Peter Knapik, Abigail Pontzer Kamkar, Dr. Emily Weisberg, Laurette Cano, Dr. Armond Aghakhanian, and more recently Kelsey Olson. Other members of BUSD administrative staff have also been present at various meetings.

SECTION 5:

The undersigned individuals may provide additional pertinent information if needed:

SECTION 6:

What would you like in response to this complaint? What do you think would be an appropriate remedy or resolution?

We are asking for the following corrective actions in response to this complaint:

An immediate and thorough internal BUSD investigation into the conduct and actions detailed here
Immediately remove Weisberg from the officer position of Vice President pending the outcome of the internal investigation
A Grand Jury review of the complaints where appropriate
Recusal of Weisberg from the Superintendent Search process
Recusal of Weisberg from all Board votes/decisions pending the outcome of the internal investigation
Censure of Trustee Weisberg
Review of all past decisions/votes regarding spending made by Weisberg
Immediate resignation of Weisberg upon confirmation of her prior knowledge and approval of the conflict of interest Clerical Services Contract with former Trustee Tabet, and payment of $93,000 to Tabet.
Findings from all investigations be reported publicly to the extent permitted by law, and any required remedial or corrective actions be clearly identified in public information.

SECTION 7:

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

We understand that the site administrator, Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent, or Board of Education may request from us further information about the complaint and, if such

information is available, we shall present it upon request. We also understand that a copy of this complaint will be given to the employee or student against whom this complaint is being made. We certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing and any attachments are true and correct to the best of our knowledge.

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANTS:

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former Burbank mayor, former BUSD Bond Oversight Committee Chair

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former fundraiser for BUSD

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD Board Member, former BUSD Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/grandparent, retired BUSD administrator

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/current grandparent, former Burbank Mayor

DATE: January 22, 2026

Summary of Uniform Complaint against Burbank Unified Board of Education Trustee Armond Aghakhanian submitted on January 27, 2026

Current Burbank Unified Board of Education Trustee Armond Aghakhanian demonstrated an ongoing pattern of disregard for the laws and policies for governance that apply to school board trustees. The evidence shows he failed to perform his duties as a Trustee of the Burbank Unified School District including, but not limited to, the complaints listed below, violating more than a dozen rules of governance and bargaining unit contracts.

VIOLATION 1. Aghakhanian’s approval of the Specialized Support Services consultant contract was in violation of “BUSD Policy 3312: Contracts” and California Education Code section 45103.1. It was also a violation of the CSEA Bargaining Unit Agreement Article 7.

VIOLATION 2. Trustee Aghakhanian demonstrated a Failure of Fiduciary Duty and Oversight as defined by the California School Board Members Association (CSBA), BUSD Board Policy 4119.21: Professional Standards, Government Code Section 1090, 2024 California Code, Government Code – GOV, TITLE 9 – POLITICAL REFORM, CHAPTER 7 – Conflicts of Interest, ARTICLE 1 – General Prohibition, Section 87100, and BUSD Board Bylaw 9270: Conflict of Interest in the approval of payments made to the Specialized Support Services contract, for work that was never completed.

VIOLATION 3. – Aghakhanian’s approval of the employment contract for Andrew Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer was in violation of his Duty of Care as a Trustee, and the Brown Act’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government.

VIOLATION 4. Aghakhanian failed to perform his duties as a Trustee in the legally required formation of a Civilian Oversight Committee/Schools Facilities Oversight Committee (SFOC) for the voter approved (November 2024) Measure ABC Bond.

VIOLATION 5. Aghakhanian approved spending almost $40 million in Measure ABC Bond funds without the establishment of an SFOC and the legal oversight required prior to spending bond funding in violation of California Assembly Bill 1908 (2000), California Education Code §15278 et seq, BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214.

VIOLATION 6. Aghakhanian failed to demand Warrants as part of Board Packets as required for a year in violation of “BUSD Board Policy 3314: The Board shall approve all warrants at a regularly scheduled Board meeting.”

VIOLATION 7. California Education Code (EDC) 17604 primarily authorizes a school district’s governing board to delegate its power to enter into contracts to the district superintendent or another designated officer/employee, streamlining operations, but all such contracts still require ultimate board approval or ratification to be valid. Aghakhanian routinely violated this

code and his responsibilities as a fiduciary of public funds by allowing unapproved over payments of up to 5% for contracts with vendors and consultants.

VIOLATION 8. Trustee Aghakhanian served as a member of the Board from December 2015 through the present. Aghakhanian served in the office of Board President from December 2024 through December 2025. During much of his term as Board President, he failed to include the approval of minutes as part of the Board meeting agenda in violation of BUSD Bylaw 9121: President. As a Board Trustee he failed to ensure the production of and approval of minutes of the Board of Education meetings for more than 18-months in violation of BUSD Board Bylaws 9005 Governance Standards, and California Education Code Section 35145 requiring school boards to keep complete and accurate minutes of their meetings and CSBA Guidelines that define the duties of the President.

Please contact BurbankUSDWatch@gmail.com for additional information and see the attached Uniform Complaint in its entirety.

Burbank Unified School District Uniform Complaint

1900 West Olive Avenue Burbank, CA 91506

Date: January 27, 2026

Submitted to: Dr. Oscar Macias, Interim Superintendent oscarmacias@burbankusd.org

Cc: Debra Duardo, Los Angeles County Superintendent Duardo Debra@LACOE.edu

Octavio Castelo, Director Business Advisory Services, LACOE Castelo Octavio@LACOE.edu

Rick Holash, Fiscal Expert, LACOE cp-holash richard@lacoe.edu

Michael H. Fine, Chief Executive Officer, FCMAT mfine@fcmat.org

Megan Reilly, Chief Administrative Officer, FCMAT mreilly@fcmat.org

Dr. Peter Knapik, Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services, BUSD peterknapik@burbankusd.org

Submitted by:

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former Burbank mayor, former BUSD Bond Oversight Committee Chair
- Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former BUSD Education

Foundation Chair

– Burbank homeowner, former BUSD Board Member, former BUSD Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/grandparent, retired BUSD

administrator

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/current grandparent, former

Burbank Mayor

SECTION 1:

This complaint is against: Dr. Armond Aghakhanian

Location: Burbank Unified School District, 1900 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91506

Position: Board of Education Trustee, (Term December 2015 through December 2028)

SECTION 2:

Dates of conduct for this complaint: December 2023 – Present

This complaint is about the following: Trustee Aghakhanian demonstrated an ongoing pattern of disregard for the laws and policies for governance that apply to school board trustees. He failed to perform his duties as a Trustee of the Burbank Unified School District including, but not limited to, the complaints listed below, violating the following rules of governance and bargaining unit contracts:

Brown Act (Government Code 54950) – “…actions that deceive the public are considered violations of the law’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government.”

California School Board Members Association (CSBA): Fiduciary Duty, Duty of Care, Duty of Loyalty, and Fiscal Responsibility

BUSD Board Policy 4119.21: Professional Standards

governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know the official has

a financial interest.”

CSEA Bargaining Unit Agreement Article 7 – “7.1 The District shall not contract out work which has been customarily and routinely performed by bargaining unit members.

members to a Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee within 60 days of voting the election

results into the minutes.

BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214: If a general obligation bond requiring 55% approval is passed, the Board shall appoint

BUSD Board Policy 3314: “The Board shall approve all warrants at a regularly scheduled Board meeting.”

BUSD Bylaw 9121: President – 2. Consult with the Superintendent or designee on the preparation of Board meeting agendas

California Education Code section 35145: requires that school boards keep complete and accurate minutes of their meetings.

Evidence:

September 5, 2024 – At the Board of Education meeting Aghakhanian approved Agenda Item

“13.f Clerical Specialized (also known as Specialized Support Services).”

“ARTICLE 7 – CONTRACTING OUT BARGAINING UNIT WORK

The District shall not contract out work which has been customarily and routinely performed by bargaining unit members, except as authorized by Education Code Section 45103.1 or as required by law. Per Government Code Section 3543.2, contracting out, when within the scope of representation, is subject to decision and effects bargaining.

Contracting out, or subcontracting, and the transferring out of bargaining unit work, where there may be a direct impact on employee wages, working conditions, and hours, shall not occur except where agreed to between the parties. The decision to contract out or receive services outside of the scope of the classified bargaining unit is not negotiable.

Prior to contracting out any bargaining unit work, and subject to section 1, the District shall notify CSEA, both the Chapter President and Labor

Relations Representative, in writing of its intention to contract out bargaining unit work as soon as practicable, but not less than ten (10) days before service would be due.”

(CSEA Contract 2021-2024, pg 20)

Trustee Aghakhanian did not ask for notification of approval from CSEA, in violation of the Bargaining Unit agreement with CSEA. By hiring a contractor, the board and the school district denied that work to a CSEA union staff member and failed to ensure prior agreement with CSEA.

Aghakhanian’s approval of the Specialized Support Services consultant contract was in violation of “BUSD Policy 3312: Contracts.” The production of minutes was NOT a “new district function.” and the services contracted for were proven able to be “performed satisfactorily by district employees” as they had been for decades prior and are currently being done.

(BUSD Policy 3312: Contracts)

$90,000 contract was far greater than the expense of salary and benefits for a staff member to perform the same duties.

(California Education Code Section 45103.1)

VIOLATION 2. Trustee Aghakhanian demonstrated a Failure of Fiduciary Duty and Oversight as defined by the California School Board Members Association (CSBA), BUSD Board Policy

4119.21: Professional Standards, Government Code Section 1090, 2024 California Code, Government Code – GOV, TITLE 9 – POLITICAL REFORM, CHAPTER 7 – Conflicts of Interest, ARTICLE 1 – General Prohibition, Section 87100, and BUSD Board Bylaw 9270: Conflict of Interest in the approval of payments made to the Specialized Support Services contract, for work that was never completed.

Evidence:

Competent, CSEA union, full time staff could have been hired for half of the $93,000 paid to Specialized Support Services for services they failed to provide between December 2024 and May 2025. This approval of payment, and lack of oversight, is a violation of Aghakhanian’s duty of care, duty of loyalty, and fiduciary duty as a trustee.

December 12, 2024, Board of Education Meeting

Trustee Tabet’s daughter, Breeann M. Weist, was named in Purchase Order report. The approval of the Purchase Order report, containing over $995,964 of purchase orders took less than 30 seconds for a unanimous approval, 5-0 of the consent agenda. No questions were asked by any member of the Board. There were only 7 items in the 14-page purchase order list that cost more than $25,000. The third largest item on the list was for $90,000 for Breeann M. Weist.

Aghakhanian approved this payment. There was no work product, no minutes submitted, to substantiate payment due to this vendor, in violation of board fiduciary duty.

(BOE Agenda 12/12/2024, Item 12.c. Purchase order report page 12)

Aghakhanian supported the approval of this contract, misrepresented spending, and failed to oversee upper cabinet staff in violation of the CSBA Duty of Care standards and the Brown Act.

Evidence:

May 1, 2025, Board of Education Meeting, Approval of Employment Contract for Andrew Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer

Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer, effective July 1, 2025, as presented.”

The contract was approved by the Board unanimously.
Andrew Cantwell’s previous salary as Assistant Superintendent of Administrative

Services was $233,655.

His new contract places him at step 4 of the new salary schedule, which DOES increase his salary to $245,338 annually by $11,683.
The 2025 contract requires him to take 13.1 furlough days annually, thereby reducing his work year from 262 days to 248.9 work days per year.
This means he will earn a new daily rate of pay of $985.68 versus the previous daily rate of $891.81 per day ($233,655 annual salary/262 days).
The contract states, “The Board retains the right to consider the awarding of an annual stipend with consideration to performance and depending on the financial condition of the district.” This language indicates an annual bonus. BUSD is facing significant budget cuts, reduced enrollment, and reductions to school funding. Is it irresponsible to suggest a potential bonus to any staff member, “with consideration to performance and depending on the financial condition of the district?”
The new contract requires less days, less responsibility, and a raise in his daily rate of pay.
Mr. Cantwell is now given 70.1 days off during each calendar year. That is 14 weeks, more than three months of paid leave annually.

Aghakhanian did not point this out or question the financial impact of this contract.

Mr. Cantwell’s oversight of Fiscal Services from 2023 to the present involved the $11 million accounting error and many recommendations for improvement in the 2/24 FCMAT report. Those recommendations have (still) not been successfully implemented. There are multiple questions about his oversight with consultant contracts, including the one with “Clerical Services/Specialized Support Services” from September 2024 through June 2025.
During open comment at Board meetings in June 2025 community members asked the BOE to withdraw their approval of this new contract pending the outcome of the Sobel Group investigation into “Clerical Services/Specialized Support Services.” The BOE moved forward with the approval of the contract.
Mr. Cantwell frequently works from home or is not in the office performing oversight duties.
Mr. Cantwell passed the California Bar Examination in January 2023 while working for BUSD. He has never formally practiced law. What prior experience does Mr. Cantwell have dealing with school district litigation? Does this mean that an entirely unexperienced attorney will now be representing the district? According to Dr. Paramo, “Andy would be freed up to take on more of our legal cases.”
Given Mr. Cantwell’s lack of legal experience, why wasn’t this position flown to allow

others to apply? Why was it automatically given or created for him?

There were already several community questions brought to the Board about his management of personnel and Paid Administrative Leave settlements, and if they were managed correctly.

At no time did Aghakhanian ask for a performance review for Mr. Cantwell in consideration of his approval of his promotion and raise, and, according to Mr. Cantwell on December 18, 2025, no performance review was done, despite the many errors and missteps in his area of oversight, several leaving BUSD open to significant liability. These errors have been made public in the statement of charges against Mr. Cantwell at the December 18, 2025 hearing to terminate Mr. Cantwell for cause. Most of the charges were previously brought to the Board during public comment by community members as matters of concerns, and in requests to prevent the promotion and raise for Mr. Cantwell. A summary of the charges can be found in the Burbank Leader article, “Burbank School Official Claims Retaliation for Blowing Whistle,” December 26, 2025, by Jarrett Liotta.

Evidence:

The January 16, 2025 “Report to the Board” submitted by Cantwell submitted Bylaws to govern Measure ABC, “Pursuant to State law, the District is required to establish and appoint a citizens’ oversight committee to review bond expenditures for the purpose of ensuring that Measure ABC funds are spent on voter approved projects. This resolution approves bylaws that will govern the administration of the committee. Committee members are expected to be appointed by the Board at a public meeting, upon recommendation of the Superintendent, within 60 days. District staff will commence the notice and recruitment period following adoption of this Resolution.” https://legistarweb-production.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/attachment/pdf/3078382/Resolution 19 –

Adopting Bylaws Governing the Measure ABC COC 011625.pdf

Aghakhanian approved the bylaw, which passed unanimously. The board was informed that this action started the 60-day clock to form a Schools Facilities Oversight Committee (SFOC) no later than March 17, 2025. No such committee was formed by the deadline. Aghakhanian did not publicly direct or question staff about the delay.

The August 7, 2025 Board meeting agenda listed “item 10.g” amending the bylaws for the Civilian Oversight Committee for the Measure ABC Bond. That meeting was cancelled. This item was removed from the agenda of the next Board meeting which took place four days later on August 11, 2025. By this point the empaneling of the SFOC for the Measure ABC bond work was already five months overdue.

On August 11, 2025 Jef Vander Borght spoke during public comment about the SFOC not being formed. He pointed out that on Cantwell’s newly approved job description, a portion of his salary is to be paid from bond funds, completely against what the bond language stated. He also revealed that the Board of Education had already approved nearly $40 million in spending from bond funds without the formation of an oversight committee, a violation of the law.

On August 21, 2025 former Board of Education trustee spoke about the lack of an SFOC, reminding the board that in January, Mr. Cantwell brought forth bylaws to form an ABC bond committee and that the board had 60 days to form the committee. He pointed out that as of this date, August 21, no committee has been formed in direct violation of Assembly Bill 1908 that authorizes the 55% approval for school construction bonds and calls for strict accountability. Unauthorized expenditures of school bond revenues are vigorously investigated, prosecuted and courts act swiftly to restrain improper expenditures. He stated that the public knows that much work was completed over the summer with NO citizen oversight at all. Nearly $40 million dollars of bond funds had already been spent. He demanded that they cease and desist from any further expenditure until an oversight committee is in place.

August 25, 2025: “BUSDeNews: SFOC Statement “

“The Burbank Unified School District (BUSD) leadership team acknowledges that we did not meet the statutory deadline to establish and appoint the School Facilities Oversight Committee as required under California Education Code Section 15278. Specifically, the District was obligated to form this committee within 60 days of entering the November 2024 election results into the official record at a Board meeting.

At no time after the 60 days had lapsed did Trustee Aghakhanian publicly demand the formation of the SFOC, as part of his duties of oversight.

March 6, 2025 Board of Education Meeting – Aghakhanian and fellow Trustees unanimously approved contracts for almost $40 million in Measure ABC Bond funds without the establishment of an SFOC and the legal oversight required prior to spending bond funding. At no time did they question the spending, the use of SFOC funds, the need to establish an SFOC, or ask why one did not exist.

10.v, 10.w, 10.x, 10.y, 10.z, 10.aa)

are used for voter-approved purposes, not salaries or operations, and failing to have one can lead to legal challenges by taxpayers. While the committee doesn’t direct spending, its absence or non-functionality undermines the legal framework for bond expenditure, making it a prerequisite for proper use of funds.

At the August 11, 2025 School Board meeting community member public speaker Jef Vander Borght alerted the Board of Education that financial reports showed that the salary for Andrew Cantwell was being paid 100% out of Measure ABC Bond funds, in violation of accountability measures required by law.

Evidence:

June 5, 2025, Board of Education Meeting

Warrants appear in the agenda for the first time since July 1, 2024. At no time did Aghakhanian demand or ask for them in order to fulfill his fiduciary duty as a Board Member, as required by Board Policy 3314. The missing Warrants are a glaring indication of failures in the Fiscal Services department of BUSD and demanded Board attention and review. In addition, the FCMAT report from February 2024 states that warrants are “essential” for board review and approval.

June 21, 2025, Burbank Leader Article “Documents Show Burbank Unified Lagged in Reporting Millions in Payments”

“Burbank Unified School District administrators failed to report nearly one year’s worth of payments to vendors and partners totaling $82.5 million, including $78,000 paid to BreeAnn Weist, the daughter of Board of Education member Charlene Tabet, who is under criminal investigation for financial misconduct involving the district, an examination of BUSD documents by the Leader revealed.

August 11, 2025, Board of Education meeting, Public Comment by teacher :

“This board approved the contract for $90,000 (referring to the conflict of interest contract with Trustee Tabet and her daughter), yet records show that $93,000 was paid.

$3000 more than authorized. This is not rounding error. This is an unauthorized payment that violates California education code 17604 which requires that contracts be authorized or ratified by the governing board and only the governing board. During the July 24 board meeting board member Aghakhanian said, and I quote, ‘I think somebody brought up the $3000. As long as you’re within 5% you don’t have to reapprove. So the $3000, that is within normal range.’ End quote. This is deeply concerning. There is no California law or education code that allows district staff to exceed a board approved contract by 5% without board preapproval.”

September 4, 2025, Board of Education meeting, Public Comment by community member

Who approved the extra $3,000?
Under what authority?
Why was it not brought back to the Board for approval as required?
And how many other contracts have been quietly exceeded under the mistaken belief

that “within 5%” is acceptable?

She also requested that the district clarify publicly that there is no legal or policy basis for the claim made by Trustee Weisberg when she stated and I quote: ‘I think somebody brought up the $3000. As long as you’re within 5% you don’t have to reapprove. So the

$3000 is within normal range.’

These questions remain unanswered.

Evidence:

As of August 2025, minutes for 40 meetings are/were missing from the public record, dating back to early 2024.

“5. Govern within Board-adopted policies and procedures

Take collective responsibility for the Board’s performance”

(Bylaw 9005, Governance Standards)

It is not possible to take responsibility for the Board’s performance without approved minutes.

July 28, 2025, MyBurbank Letter to the Editor:

Letter to the Editor: “Board of Education May Need to be Held Legally Responsible,” by

Letter to the Editor: Board of Education May Need to be Held Legally Responsible

SECTION 3:

SECTION 4:

Name(s) of persons who have been contacted/spoken with about these complaints: The public has spoken about this conduct on multiple occasions to the administration and Board of Education during the open comment section of Board of Education meetings from June 5, 2025 until the present. These comments are part of the public record in recordings of the meetings. Those in attendance at the meetings include Dr. Oscar Macias, Dr. Peter Knapik, Abigail Pontzer Kamkar, Dr. Emily Weisberg, Laurette Aghakhanian, Dr. Armond Aghakhanian, and more recently Kelsey Olson. Other members of BUSD administrative staff have also been present at various meetings.

SECTION 5:

The undersigned individuals may provide additional pertinent information if needed:

SECTION 6:

What would you like in response to this complaint? What do you think would be an appropriate remedy or resolution?

We are asking for the following corrective actions in response to this complaint:

An immediate and thorough internal BUSD investigation into the conduct and actions detailed here
1. Recusal of Aghakhanian from all Board votes/decisions pending the outcome of the internal investigation
1. Censure of Trustee Aghakhanian
1. Review of all past decisions/votes regarding spending made by Aghakhanian
1. Findings from all investigations be reported publicly to the extent permitted by law, and any required remedial or corrective actions be clearly identified in public information.

SECTION 7:

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

We understand that the site administrator, Superintendent/Assistant Superintendent, or Board of Education may request from us further information about the complaint and, if such information is available, we shall present it upon request. We also understand that a copy of this complaint will be given to the employee or student against whom this complaint is being made. We certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing and any attachments are true and correct to the best of our knowledge.

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANTS:

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former Burbank mayor, former BUSD Bond Oversight Committee Chair

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former BUSD Education

Foundation Chair

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD Board Member, former BUSD Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/grandparent, retired BUSD

administrator

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/current grandparent, formerBurbank Mayor

DATE: January 27, 2026

Summary of Uniform Complaint against Burbank Unified Board of Education Clerk Laurette Cano submitted on January 27, 2026

Current BUSD Board of Education Trustee Cano demonstrated an ongoing pattern of disregard for the laws and policies for governance that apply to school board trustees. The evidence shows she failed to perform her duties as a Trustee of the Burbank Unified School District including, but not limited to, the complaints listed below, violating the following rules of governance and bargaining unit contracts.

VIOLATION 1. Trustee Cano demonstrated a Failure of Fiduciary Duty and Oversight as defined by the California School Board Members Association (CSBA), BUSD Board Policy 4119.21: Professional Standards, Government Code Section 1090, 2024 California Code, Government Code – GOV, TITLE 9 – POLITICAL REFORM, CHAPTER 7 – Conflicts of Interest, ARTICLE 1 –

General Prohibition, Section 87100, and BUSD Board Bylaw 9270: Conflict of Interest in the approval of payments made to the Specialized Support Services contract, for work that was never completed.

VIOLATION 2. – Cano’s approval of the employment contract for Andrew Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer was in violation of her Duty of Care as a Trustee, and the Brown Act’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government.

VIOLATION 3. Cano failed to perform her duties as a Trustee in the legally required formation of a Civilian Oversight Committee/Schools Facilities Oversight Committee (SFOC) for the voter approved (November 2024) Measure ABC Bond.

VIOLATION 4. Cano approved spending almost $40 million in Measure ABC Bond funds without the establishment of an SFOC and the legal oversight required prior to spending bond funding in violation of California Assembly Bill 1908 (2000), California Education Code §15278 et seq, BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214.

VIOLATION 5. Cano failed to demand Warrants as part of Board Packets as required for a year in violation of “BUSD Board Policy 3314: The Board shall approve all warrants at a regularly scheduled Board meeting.” As she assumed her leadership role on the Board of Education, Cano should have been aware of the existing and ongoing backlog of warrants as part of her primary responsibility as a trustee.

VIOLATION 6. California Education Code (EDC) 17604 primarily authorizes a school district’s governing board to delegate its power to enter into contracts to the district superintendent or another designated officer/employee, streamlining operations, but all such contracts still require ultimate board approval or ratification to be valid. Cano routinely violated this code and her responsibilities as a fiduciary of public funds by allowing unapproved over payments of up to 5% for contracts with vendors and consultants.

VIOLATION 7. Trustee Cano served as a member of the Board from December 2024 through the present. As she assumed her leadership role on the Board of Education, Cano should have been aware of the existing and ongoing backlog of meeting minutes as part of her primary responsibility as a trustee. As Board Trustee she failed to ensure the production of and approval of minutes of the Board of Education meetings until recently in violation of BUSD Board Bylaws 9005 Governance Standards, and California Education Code Section 35145 requiring school boards to keep complete and accurate minutes of their meetings and CSBA Guidelines that define the duties of Board Members.

Please contact BurbankUSDWatch@gmail.com for additional information and see the attached Uniform Complaint in its entirety.

Burbank Unified School District Uniform Complaint

1900 West Olive Avenue Burbank, CA 91506

Date: January 27, 2026

Submitted to: Dr. Oscar Macias, Interim Superintendent oscarmacias@burbankusd.org

Cc: Debra Duardo, Los Angeles County Superintendent Duardo Debra@LACOE.edu

Octavio Castelo, Director Business Advisory Services, LACOE Castelo Octavio@LACOE.edu

Rick Holash, Fiscal Expert, LACOE cp-holash richard@lacoe.edu

Michael H. Fine, Chief Executive Officer, FCMAT mfine@fcmat.org

Megan Reilly, Chief Administrative Officer, FCMAT mreilly@fcmat.org

Dr. Peter Knapik, Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services, BUSD peterknapik@burbankusd.org

Submitted by:

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former Burbank mayor, former BUSD Bond Oversight Committee Chair

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former BUSD Education

Foundation Chair

– Burbank homeowner, former BUSD Board Member, former BUSD Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/grandparent, retired BUSD

administrator

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/current grandparent, former

Burbank Mayor

SECTION 1:

This complaint is against: Laurette Cano

Location: Burbank Unified School District, 1900 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91506

Position: Board of Education Trustee, Clerk (Term December 2024 through December 2028)

SECTION 2:

Dates of conduct for this complaint: December 2024 – Present

This complaint is about the following: Trustee Cano demonstrated an ongoing pattern of disregard for the laws and policies for governance that apply to school board trustees. She failed to perform her duties as a Trustee of the Burbank Unified School District including, but not limited to, the complaints listed below, violating the following rules of governance and bargaining unit contracts:

Brown Act (Government Code 54950) – “…actions that deceive the public are considered violations of the law’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government.”

California School Board Members Association (CSBA): Fiduciary Duty, Duty of Care, Duty of Loyalty, and Fiscal Responsibility

BUSD Board Policy 4119.21: Professional Standards

governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know the official has

a financial interest.”

members to a Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee within 60 days of voting the election

results into the minutes.

BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214: If a general obligation bond requiring 55% approval is passed, the Board shall appoint

BUSD Board Policy 3314: “The Board shall approve all warrants at a regularly scheduled Board meeting.”

California Education Code section 35145: requires that school boards keep complete and accurate minutes of their meetings.

VIOLATION 1. Trustee Cano demonstrated a Failure of Fiduciary Duty and Oversight as defined by the California School Board Members Association (CSBA), BUSD Board Policy 4119.21: Professional Standards, Government Code Section 1090, 2024 California Code, Government Code – GOV, TITLE 9 – POLITICAL REFORM, CHAPTER 7 – Conflicts of Interest, ARTICLE 1 –

Evidence:

Competent, CSEA union, full time staff could have been hired for half of the $93,000 paid to Specialized Support Services for services they failed to provide between December 2024 and May 2025. This approval of payment, and lack of oversight, is a violation of Cano’s duty of care, duty of loyalty, and fiduciary duty as a trustee.

December 12, 2024, Board of Education Meeting

At Trustee Cano’s first meeting as an elected Board Member, Trustee Tabet’s daughter, Breeann M. Weist, was named in Purchase Order report. It is common knowledge and has been acknowledged by Trustee Cano that her daughter and Trustee Tabet’s daughter, BreeAnn Weist, grew up together as friends, and both participated in the Burbank based

mother/daughter philanthropic organization “National Charity League.” Cano’s years long close

friendship with Trustee Tabet is also known.

The approval of the Purchase Order report, containing over $995,964 of purchase orders took less than 30 seconds for a unanimous approval, 5-0 of the consent agenda. No questions were asked by any member of the Board. There were only 7 items in the 14-page purchase order list

that cost more than $25,000. The third largest item on the list was for $90,000 for Breeann M. Weist.

Cano approved this payment. There was no work product, no minutes submitted, to substantiate payment due to this vendor, in violation of board fiduciary duty.

(BOE Agenda 12/12/2024, Item 12.c. Purchase order report page 12)

Cano supported the approval of this contract, misrepresented spending, and failed to oversee upper cabinet staff in violation of the CSBA Duty of Care standards and the Brown Act.

Evidence:

May 1, 2025, Board of Education Meeting, Approval of Employment Contract for Andrew Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer

Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer, effective July 1, 2025, as presented.”

The contract was approved by the Board unanimously.
Andrew Cantwell’s previous salary as Assistant Superintendent of Administrative

Services was $233,655.

His new contract places him at step 4 of the new salary schedule, which DOES increase his salary to $245,338 annually by $11,683.
The 2025 contract requires him to take 13.1 furlough days annually, thereby reducing his work year from 262 days to 248.9 work days per year.
This means he will earn a new daily rate of pay of $985.68 versus the previous daily rate of $891.81 per day ($233,655 annual salary/262 days).
The contract states, “The Board retains the right to consider the awarding of an annual stipend with consideration to performance and depending on the financial condition of the district.” This language indicates an annual bonus. BUSD is facing significant budget cuts, reduced enrollment, and reductions to school funding. Is it irresponsible to suggest a potential bonus to any staff member, “with consideration to performance and depending on the financial condition of the district?”
The new contract requires less days, less responsibility, and a raise in his daily rate of pay.
Mr. Cantwell is now given 70.1 days off during each calendar year. That is 14 weeks, more than three months of paid leave annually.

Cano did not point this out or question the financial impact of this contract.

Mr. Cantwell’s oversight of Fiscal Services from 2023 to the present involved the $11 million accounting error and many recommendations for improvement in the 2/24 FCMAT report. Those recommendations have (still) not been successfully implemented. There are multiple questions about his oversight with consultant contracts, including the one with “Clerical Services/Specialized Support Services” from September 2024 through June 2025.
During open comment at Board meetings in June 2025 community members asked the BOE to withdraw their approval of this new contract pending the outcome of the Sobel Group investigation into “Clerical Services/Specialized Support Services.” The BOE moved forward with the approval of the contract.
Mr. Cantwell frequently works from home or is not in the office performing oversight duties.
Mr. Cantwell passed the California Bar Examination in January 2023 while working for BUSD. He has never formally practiced law. What prior experience does Mr. Cantwell have dealing with school district litigation? Does this mean that an entirely unexperienced attorney will now be representing the district? According to Dr. Paramo, “Andy would be freed up to take on more of our legal cases.”
Given Mr. Cantwell’s lack of legal experience, why wasn’t this position flown to allow

others to apply? Why was it automatically given or created for him?

There were already several community questions brought to the Board about his management of personnel and Paid Administrative Leave settlements, and if they were managed correctly.

At no time did Cano ask for a performance review for Mr. Cantwell in consideration of her approval of his promotion and raise, and, according to Mr. Cantwell on December 18, 2025, no performance review was done, despite the many errors and missteps in his area of oversight, several leaving BUSD open to significant liability. These errors have been made public in the statement of charges against Mr. Cantwell at the December 18, 2025 hearing to terminate Mr. Cantwell for cause. Most of the charges were previously brought to the Board during public comment by community members as matters of concerns, and in requests to prevent the promotion and raise for Mr. Cantwell. A summary of the charges can be found in the Burbank Leader article, “Burbank School Official Claims Retaliation for Blowing Whistle,” December 26, 2025, by Jarrett Liotta.

is to follow Board Policy and Administrative Regulation 7214 for committee membership and governance processes (this policy is referenced on the District’s Oversight Committee webpage).

Evidence:

Adopting Bylaws Governing the Measure ABC COC 011625.pdf

Cano approved the bylaw, which passed unanimously. The board was informed that this action started the 60-day clock to form a Schools Facilities Oversight Committee (SFOC) no later than March 17, 2025. No such committee was formed by the deadline. Cano did not publicly direct or question staff about the delay.

The August 7, 2025 Board meeting agenda item 10.g listed amending the bylaws for the Civilian Oversight Committee for the Measure ABC Bond. That meeting was cancelled. This item was removed from the agenda of the next Board meeting which took place four days later on August 11, 2025. By this point the empaneling of the SFOC for the Measure ABC bond work was already five months overdue.

accountability. Unauthorized expenditures of school bond revenues are vigorously investigated, prosecuted and courts act swiftly to restrain improper expenditures. He stated that the public knows that much work was completed over the summer with NO citizen oversight at all. Nearly $40 million dollars of bond funds had already been spent. He demanded that they cease and desist from any further expenditure until an oversight committee is in place.

August 25, 2025: “BUSDeNews: SFOC Statement “

At no time after the 60 days had lapsed did Trustee Cano publicly demand the formation of the SFOC, as part of her duties of oversight.

March 6, 2025 Board of Education Meeting – Cano and fellow Trustees unanimously approved contracts for almost $40 million in Measure ABC Bond funds without the establishment of an SFOC and the legal oversight required prior to spending bond funding. At no time did they question the spending, the use of SFOC funds, the need to establish an SFOC, or ask why one did not exist.

10.v, 10.w, 10.x, 10.y, 10.z, 10.aa)

The Board had been informed about this requirement prior to the November 2024 election, and at the January 16, 2025 Board meeting as noted in Violation 5. Without the establishment of a Civilian Oversight Committee, or an SFOC the Board, and Cano knowingly violated California Assembly Bill 1908 (2000), California Education Code §15278 et seq, BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214. California school boards cannot legally spend Proposition 39 bond funds without an active, properly constituted Citizens’ Oversight Committee because the committee’s establishment and function are mandatory accountability measures required by law (Prop 39 and subsequent legislation) to ensure funds are used for voter-approved purposes, not salaries or operations, and failing to have one can lead to legal challenges by taxpayers. While the committee doesn’t direct spending, its absence or non-functionality undermines the legal framework for bond expenditure, making it a prerequisite for proper use of funds.

Evidence:

June 5, 2025, Board of Education Meeting

Warrants appear in the agenda for the first time since July 1, 2024. At no time did Cano demand or ask for them in order to fulfill her fiduciary duty as a Board Member, as required by Board Policy 3314. The missing Warrants are a glaring indication of failures in the Fiscal Services department of BUSD and demanded Board attention and review. In addition, the FCMAT report from February 2024 states that warrants are “essential” for board review and approval.

June 21, 2025, Burbank Leader Article “Documents Show Burbank Unified Lagged in Reporting Millions in Payments”

August 11, 2025, Board of Education meeting, Public Comment by teacher :

“This board approved the contract for $90,000 (referring to the conflict of interest contract with Trustee Tabet and her daughter), yet records show that $93,000 was paid.

$3000 more than authorized. This is not rounding error. This is an unauthorized payment that violates California education code 17604 which requires that contracts be authorized or ratified by the governing board and only the governing board. During the July 24 board meeting board member Cano said, and I quote, ‘I think somebody brought up the $3000. As long as you’re within 5% you don’t have to reapprove. So the $3000, that is within normal range.’ End quote. This is deeply concerning. There is no California law or education code that allows district staff to exceed a board approved contract by 5% without board preapproval.”

September 4, 2025, Board of Education meeting, Public Comment by community member

Who approved the extra $3,000?
Under what authority?
Why was it not brought back to the Board for approval as required?
And how many other contracts have been quietly exceeded under the mistaken belief

that “within 5%” is acceptable?

She also requested that the district clarify publicly that there is no legal or policy basis for the claim made by Trustee Weisberg when she stated and I quote: ‘I think somebody

brought up the $3000. As long as you’re within 5% you don’t have to reapprove. So the

$3000 is within normal range.’

These questions remain unanswered.

VIOLATION 7. Trustee Cano served as a member of the Board from December 2024 through the present. As she assumed her leadership role on the Board of Education, Cano should have been aware of the existing and ongoing backlog of meeting minutes as part of her primary

responsibility as a trustee. As Board Trustee she failed to ensure the production of and approval of minutes of the Board of Education meetings until recently in violation of BUSD Board Bylaws 9005 Governance Standards, and California Education Code Section 35145 requiring school boards to keep complete and accurate minutes of their meetings and CSBA Guidelines that define the duties of Board Members.

Evidence:

As of August 2025, minutes for 40 meetings are/were missing from the public record, dating back to early 2024.

“5. Govern within Board-adopted policies and procedures

Take collective responsibility for the Board’s performance”

(Bylaw 9005, Governance Standards)

It is not possible to take responsibility for the Board’s performance without approved minutes.

July 28, 2025, MyBurbank Letter to the Editor:

Letter to the Editor: “Board of Education May Need to be Held Legally Responsible,” by

Letter to the Editor: Board of Education May Need to be Held Legally Responsible

SECTION 3:

SECTION 4:

until the present. These comments are part of the public record in recordings of the meetings. Those in attendance at the meetings include Dr. Oscar Macias, Dr. Peter Knapik, Abigail Pontzer Kamkar, Dr. Emily Weisberg, Laurette Cano, Dr. Armond Aghakhanian, and more recently Kelsey Olson. Other members of BUSD administrative staff have also been present at various meetings.

SECTION 5:

The undersigned individuals may provide additional pertinent information if needed:

SECTION 6:

What would you like in response to this complaint? What do you think would be an appropriate remedy or resolution?

We are asking for the following corrective actions in response to this complaint:

An immediate and thorough internal BUSD investigation into the conduct and actions detailed here
1. Recusal of Cano from all Board votes/decisions pending the outcome of the internal investigation
1. Censure of Trustee Cano
1. Review of all past decisions/votes regarding spending made by Cano
1. Findings from all investigations be reported publicly to the extent permitted by law, and any required remedial or corrective actions be clearly identified in public information.

SECTION 7:

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANTS:

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former Burbank mayor, former BUSD Bond Oversight Committee Chair

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former BUSD Education

Foundation Chair

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD Board Member, former BUSD Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/grandparent, retired BUSD

administrator

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/current grandparent, former Burbank Mayor

DATE: January 27, 2026

Summary of Uniform Complaint against Burbank Unified Board of Education President Abigail Pontzer Kamkar submitted on January 21, 2026

Evidence shows that current BUSD Board of Education President Abigail Pontzer Kamkar knowingly and deliberately deceived the BUSD community, and the voters of the City of Burbank, aiding in the conflict of interest financial benefit to fellow Trustee Tabet. Pontzer Kamkar demonstrated an ongoing pattern of disregard for the laws and policies for governance that apply to school board trustees. She failed to perform her duties as a Trustee of the Burbank Unified School District including, but not limited to, the complaints listed below, violating rules of governance and bargaining unit contracts:

VIOLATION 1: At multiple Board of Education meetings Trustee Pontzer Kamkar denied any prior to June 2025 knowledge of the conflict of interest in the Specialized Support Services contract approved on September 5, 2024. Recent information reveals that she knew as early as February 2025 (if not earlier).

VIOLATION 2. Pontzer Kamkar’s approval of the Specialized Support Services consultant contract was in violation of “BUSD Policy 3312: Contracts” and California Education Code section 45103.1. It was also a violation of the CSEA Bargaining Unit Agreement Article 7.

VIOLATION 3. Pontzer Kamkar demonstrated a Failure of Fiduciary Duty and Oversight as defined by the California School Board Members Association (CSBA) in the approval of the Specialized Support Services contract, and the payments made for work that was never completed.

VIOLATION 4. – Pontzer Kamkar’s approval of the employment contract for Andrew Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer was in violation of her Duty of Care as a Trustee, and the Brown Act’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government.

VIOLATION 5. Pontzer Kamkar failed to perform her duties as a Trustee in the legally required formation of a Civilian Oversight Committee/Schools Facilities Oversight Committee (SFOC) for the voter approved (November 2024) Measure ABC Bond.

VIOLATION 6. Pontzer Kamkar approved spending almost $40 million in Measure ABC Bond funds without the establishment of an SFOC and the legal oversight required prior to spending bond funding in violation of California Assembly Bill 1908 (2000), California Education Code

§15278 et seq, BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214.

VIOLATION 7. Pontzer Kamkar failed to demand Warrants as part of Board Packets as required for a year in violation of “BUSD Board Policy 3314: The Board shall approve all warrants at a regularly scheduled Board meeting.” She is also in violation of the Brown Act’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government in false statements she provided to the Burbank Leader.

VIOLATION 8. California Education Code (EDC) 17604 primarily authorizes a school district’s governing board to delegate its power to enter into contracts to the district superintendent or another designated officer/employee, streamlining operations, but all such contracts still require ultimate board approval or ratification to be valid. Pontzer Kamkar routinely violated this code and her responsibilities as a fiduciary of public funds by allowing unapproved over payments of up to 5% for contracts with vendors and consultants.

VIOLATION 9. Pontzer Kamkar served in the office of Board Clerk from December 2023 through December 2024. During her term, she failed to ensure the production of and approval of minutes of the Board of Education meetings for more than 18-months in violation of BUSD Board Bylaws 9005 Governance Standards, BUSD Bylaw 9123 Clerk, California Education Code Section 35145 requiring school boards to keep complete and accurate minutes of their meetings and CSBA Guidelines that define the duties of the Clerk.

Please contact BurbankUSDWatch@gmail.com for additional information and see the attached Uniform Complaint in its entirety.

Burbank Unified School District Uniform Complaint

1900 West Olive Avenue Burbank, CA 91506

Date: January 21, 2026

Submitted to: Dr. Oscar Macias, Interim Superintendent oscarmacias@burbankusd.org

Cc: Debra Duardo, Los Angeles County Superintendent Duardo Debra@LACOE.edu

Octavio Castelo, Director Business Advisory Services, LACOE Castelo Octavio@LACOE.edu

Rick Holash, Fiscal Expert, LACOE cp-holash richard@lacoe.edu

Michael H. Fine, Chief Executive Officer, FCMAT mfine@fcmat.org

Megan Reilly, Chief Administrative Officer, FCMAT mreilly@fcmat.org

Detective John Voorhees, Burbank Police Department jvoorhis@ci.burbank.ca.us

Dr. Peter Knapik, Assistant Superintendent, Educational Services, BUSD peterknapik@burbankusd.org

Submitted by:

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former Burbank mayor, former BUSD Bond Oversight Committee Chair

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former fundraiser for BUSD

– Burbank homeowner, former BUSD Board Member, former BUSD Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/grandparent, retired BUSD

administrator

Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/current grandparent, former

Burbank Mayor

SECTION 1:

This complaint is against: Abigail Pontzer Kamkar

Location: Burbank Unified School District, 1900 West Olive Avenue, Burbank, CA 91506 Position: Board of Education Trustee, President (Term December 2022 through December 2026)

SECTION 2:

Dates of conduct for this complaint: December 2023 – Present

This complaint is about the following: Current BUSD Board of Education President Abigail Pontzer Kamkar knowingly and deliberately deceived the BUSD community, and the voters of the City of Burbank, aiding in the conflict of interest financial benefit to fellow Trustee Tabet. Pontzer Kamkar demonstrated an ongoing pattern of disregard for the laws and policies for governance that apply to school board trustees. She failed to perform her duties as a Trustee of the Burbank Unified School District including, but not limited to, the complaints listed below, violating the following rules of governance and bargaining unit contracts:

Brown Act (Government Code 54950) – “…actions that deceive the public are considered violations of the law’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government.”

California School Board Members Association (CSBA): Fiduciary Duty, Duty of Care, Duty of Loyalty, and Fiscal Responsibility

BUSD Board Policy 4119.21: Professional Standards

governmental decision in which the official knows or has reason to know the official has

a financial interest.”

CSEA Bargaining Unit Agreement Article 7 – “7.1 The District shall not contract out work which has been customarily and routinely performed by bargaining unit members.

members to a Citizens’ Bond Oversight Committee within 60 days of voting the election

results into the minutes.

BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214: If a general obligation bond requiring 55% approval is passed, the Board shall appoint

BUSD Board Policy 3314: “The Board shall approve all warrants at a regularly scheduled Board meeting.”

BUSD Bylaw 9123 Clerk – “3. Sign the minutes of Board meetings following their approval.”

California Education Code section 35145: requires that school boards keep complete and accurate minutes of their meetings

Describe the incidents:

VIOLATION 1: At multiple Board of Education meetings Trustee Pontzer Kamkar denied any prior to June 2025 knowledge of the conflict of interest in the Specialized Support Services contract approved on September 5, 2024. Recent information reveals that she knew as early as February 2025 (if not earlier) in violation of the following:

Government Code Section 1090 “prohibits an officer, employee, or agency from participating in making government contracts in which the official or employee within the agency has a

financial interest.”

BUSD Board Policy 4119.21: Professional Standards

BUSD Board Policy 9270: Conflict of Interest: “The Board of Education desires to maintain the highest ethical standards and help ensure that decisions are made in the best interest of the district and the public. Accordingly, no Board member, district employee, or other person in a designated position shall participate in the making of any decision for the district when the decision will or may be affected by his/her financial, family, or other personal interest or consideration…. publicly identify each financial interest that gives rise to the conflict or potential conflict of interest in detail sufficient to be understood by the public.”

Brown Act – “actions that deceive the public are considered violations of the law’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government.”

Evidence:

January 15, 2026, Board of Education Meeting: During public comment, speaker referenced this email discussing the Charlene Tabet and daughter Brianne (sic)

(Weist) Clerical Services Contract written by Pontzer Kamkar to then Assistant Superintendent Andrew Cantwell and Trustee Weisberg.

June 4, 2025, 2:04 am Email from Abigail Pontzer Kamkar to Andrew Cantwell and Trustee Emily Weisberg:

John Paramo

Friday, Feb 21 • 3:13 PM

Disney will post a link in their bulletin.

I don’t even know the options with Char. But this is ridiculous

Call you right back. On the phone with Emily.

Okay

Call me back when you can

Will do. Picking up kids and will get them settled

From: Abigail Pontzer Kamkar <AbigailPontzerKamkar@burbankusd.org>

Sent: Tuesday, February ZS, 2025 1:29 PM

To: Emily Weisberg <EmilyWeisberg@burbankusd.org>

Subject: Fw: Conflict of Interest Language

Sent this to John in December, will add to your doc where applicable.

From: Abigail Pontzer Kamkar

Sent: Thursday, December 19, ZOZ4 3:SZ PM

To: John Paramo <lohnParamo@burbankusd.org>

Subject: Conflict of Interest language

Possible language for COi – pulled from around the web. I want to ensure we include:

Being prepared
Treating district staff with respect
Not using position of influence for personal or professional gain

Irvine Unified

In the conduct of their activities as Board members, the application of the above moral values will encourage each Board member to:

Consider his/her position on the Board as a public trust and not use it for private advantage or personal gain.
Be constantly aware that he/she has no legal authority except when acting as a member of the Board. Board members shall present their concerns and concepts through the process of Board debate. If in the minority of any decision, they shall abide by and support the majority decision. Divergent opinions shall be respected.
Encourage ideas and opinions from the residents of the District and endeavor to incorporate community views into the deliberations and decisions of the Board.
Devote sufficient time, thought, and study to proposed actions so as to be able to base decisions upon all available facts and vote in accordance with honest convictions, unswayed by partisan bias of any kind.

The Board of Education and all District personnel exemplify work relationships that accord just and equitable treatment to all by fulfillment of the following obligations:

1. Accord just, equitable, and unbiased treatment to all District personnel in the exercise of their professional rights and responsibilities.

From Texas’ version of CSBA

Commitment to Service

I will focus my attention on fulfilling the Board’s responsibilities of goal setting, policymaking, and evaluation.

I will diligently prepare for and attend Board meetings.

I will avoid personal involvement in activities the Board has delegated to the Superintendent. I will seek continuing education that will enhance my ability to fulfill my duties effectively.

From Idaho:

Give staff the respect and consideration due skilled, professional employees and support the employment of those best qualified to serve as district staff, while insisting on regular and impartial evaluation of all staff;
Present personal criticism of district operations to the superintendent or administrator, not to district staff or to a board meeting;
Refuse to use my board position for personal or family gain or prestige. I will announce any conflicts of interest

before board action is taken; a

Avoid conflicts of interest and refrain from using the position for personal gain.
Take no private action that will compromise the School Board or administration.

Abby Pontzer Kamkar

Burbank USD Board Member

In her 2:04 am email, Pontzer Kamkar states:

“I checked my texts with John (Paramo) and my conversation where he DISCLOSED THE

MINUTES CONTRACT WITH BRIANNE (sic) and “money troubles” was on February 21. I believe Em (Weisberg) and I met with John the following Tuesday.”

This email clearly indicates:

As early as February 2025, if not prior, Trustees Pontzer Kamkar and Weisberg were made aware by then Superintendent Paramo that the contract with Specialized Support Services was with former Trustee Tabet’s daughter. It is unclear if Assistant Superintendent Cantwell was also aware of this illegal contract.
They were aware of the conflict of interest in that contract.
They were fully aware of the ethics issues.

Pontzer Kamkar has publicly emphatically denied any prior to June 2025 knowledge of the ownership behind the clerical services contract. At no time did she question the payments made for services that were not provided. Instead, she approved $93,000 in payments to fellow Trustee Charlene Tabet and enabled an ongoing conflict of interest to occur.

June 4, 2025, 6:34 am, Andrew Cantwell’s first response:

In this reply, Cantwell refers to an alleged conflict of interest with Trustee Char Tabet regarding her relationship with the Vikings Club Football team and their use of BUSD facilities. He also explains that he was told by John (Paramo) that “Char was going to get held accountable by the two of you (Pontzer Kamkar and Trustee Weisberg) and that you were going to blast her with some conflict of interest policies.”

June 4, 2025, 6:41 am, Andrew Cantwell’s second response:

In this reply, Cantwell established that “no one should have walked away from that conversation thinking it was fine for a board member to directly vote on compensation for a family member.” It is clear Pontzer Kamkar was aware of the conflict of interest caused by the Specialized Support Services contract and the daughter of Trustee Tabet.

This email provides evidence indicating a deliberate deception by Pontzer Kamkar, in collusion with Trustee Emily Weisberg, that led to the misappropriation of (at least) $93,000 of public funds. Furthermore, had she acted to bring former Trustee Tabet’s contract with her daughter to the public’s attention at the next available board meeting after February 21, 2025 she could have prevented the district from spending $45,000, which had not yet been paid on the minutes contract, in violation of her fiduciary duty as a Trustee. As shown on the Board’s web site “Specialized Support Service INVESTIGATION,” Exhibit F Check Images, the last three checks, each for $15,000, were issued March 14, April 18 and May 14, 2025.

On June 11, 2025, and July 10, 2025, Pontzer Kamkar knowingly and intentionally lied to the public about her prior knowledge of the involvement of fellow Trustee Tabet’s financial interest in Specialized Support Services in violation of the Brown Act – “actions that deceive the public are considered violations of the law’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open

government.”

June 11, 2025, Regular BOE meeting Board Member comments on Specialized Support Services Investigation

Board Member Pontzer Kamkar:

“You know as Dr. Macias, I spent many sleepless nights since last Monday thinking through where were the other places that I could’ve asked more questions cause I know I remember asking questions about this agenda item when it came up, but I didn’t ask enough, you know. Why, why should I have to ask if this person is somehow related to someone on the board? If someone’s going to deliberately conceal their involvement in something that’s, that’s really hard for me to operate from a place of assuming that every single item that comes in front of us is somehow fraudulent because that’s what our policy is – that if a family member is somehow to benefit from a contract. So, I don’t know that I’m willing to completely pivot how I approach Board meeting, agendas, and agenda items to assume the worst intentions in everyone. Just, that’s just not who I am, and I don’t trust anybody right now and that’s why we’re doing the third-party

investigation. You know I’ve developed a relationship with Dr. Macias and Dr. Knapik and Dr. Rudchenko and Mr. Cantwell and especially Dr. Rudchenko and Mr. Cantwell did a, I think a very thorough very difficult job with the investigation that board members have seen, and I want someone else to tell me there’s nothing else going on.

Unfortunately, and as embarrassing as this all is for all of us, but I think I certainly feel embarrassed about it. I think it’s, I think it feels like a very necessary step. The other thing that I will say is that you know in another world we could like press pause on everything and figure this all out and figure out that we can trust everyone on staff.

Figure out that, you know, if there’s anything else going on, but we have school. It will start two months from now. And, so, we can’t press pause. We have to keep going and just doing the next thing in front of us so that that’s what I’ve been trying to do.”

This public statement contradicts the email Pontzer Kamkar sent to Cantwell on June 4, 2025, in which she acknowledges that she knew about the conflict of interest with Breeann Weist as early as February 21, 2025 (if not earlier).

July 10, 2025, Board of Education Meeting Pontzer Kamkar response to a community

member’s questions regarding missing Warrant reports:

Pontzer Kamkar said: “It does happen to be a pretty wild coincidence that the first time that we um had it on the agenda was, the agenda was, ya know, sent out, and disseminated the day we were made aware of the allegations against Specialized Support Services. So, everyone was able to go to that report and see Ms. Weist’s name in there. Um. It. You know, I was thinking about could we have seen this sooner, right? Umm. Because again, ah, Miss Tabet and her daughter don’t share a last name. I didn’t know that. Umm. Her name did appear in the December 2024 PO report when that PO was probably finally opened so that payments could go out against it, right? We know the first check went out in December. Um, so that was another time that that name and

connection could have been caught. Um, if people knew the names of board members

children.”

Pontzer Kamkar acknowledged in her June 4, 2025 email to Cantwell that she knew Ms. Weist’s name as early as February 2025, if not earlier. These public comments were a knowing and deliberate decision to lie to the public about her involvement in the conflict of interest.

Evidence:

September 5, 2024 – At the Board of Education meeting Kamkar Pontzer approved Agenda Item

“13.f Clerical Specialized (also known as Specialized Support Services).”

“ARTICLE 7 – CONTRACTING OUT BARGAINING UNIT WORK

The District shall not contract out work which has been customarily and routinely performed by bargaining unit members, except as authorized by Education Code Section 45103.1 or as required by law. Per Government Code Section 3543.2, contracting out, when within the scope of representation, is subject to decision and effects bargaining. Contracting out, or subcontracting, and the transferring out of bargaining unit work, where there may be a direct impact on employee wages, working conditions, and hours, shall not occur except where agreed to between the parties. The decision to contract out or receive services outside of the scope of the classified bargaining unit is not negotiable.

Prior to contracting out any bargaining unit work, and subject to section 1, the District shall notify CSEA, both the Chapter President and Labor

Relations Representative, in writing of its intention to contract out bargaining unit work as soon as practicable, but not less than ten (10) days before service would be due.”

(CSEA Contract 2021-2024, pg 20)

She did not ask for notification of approval from CSEA, in violation of the Bargaining Unit agreement with CSEA. By hiring a contractor, the board and the school district denied that work to a CSEA union staff member and failed to ensure prior agreement with CSEA.

Pontzer Kamkar’s approval of the Specialized Support Services consultant contract was in violation of “BUSD Policy 3312: Contracts.” The production of minutes was NOT a “new district function.” and the services contracted for were proven able to be “performed satisfactorily by district employees” as they had been for decades prior and are currently being done.

(BUSD Policy 3312: Contracts)

$90,000 contract was far greater than the expense of salary and benefits for a staff member to perform the same duties.

(California Education Code Section 45103.1)

Evidence:

Competent, CSEA union, full time staff could have been hired for half of the $93,000 paid to Specialized Support Services for services they failed to provide between December 2024 and May 2025. This approval and lack of oversight is a violation of Pontzer Kamkar’s duty of care, duty of loyalty, and fiduciary duty as a trustee.

December 12, 2024, Board of Education Meeting

Pontzer Kamkar approved this payment. There was no work product, no minutes submitted, to substantiate payment due to this vendor, in violation of board fiduciary duty.

(BOE Agenda 12/12/2024, Item 12.c. Purchase order report page 12)

Pontzer Kamkar strongly supported the approval of this contract, misrepresented spending, and failed to oversee upper cabinet staff in violation of the CSBA Duty of Care standards and the Brown Act.

Evidence:

May 1, 2025, Board of Education Meeting, Approval of Employment Contract for Andrew Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer

Cantwell for Chief Administrative Officer, effective July 1, 2025, as presented.”

The contract was approved by the Board unanimously.
Andrew Cantwell’s previous salary as Assistant Superintendent of Administrative

Services was $233,655.

His new contract places him at step 4 of the new salary schedule, which DOES increase his salary to $245,338 annually by $11,683.
The 2025 contract requires him to take 13.1 furlough days annually, thereby reducing his work year from 262 days to 248.9 work days per year.
This means he will earn a new daily rate of pay of $985.68 versus the previous daily rate of $891.81 per day ($233,655 annual salary/262 days).
The contract states, “The Board retains the right to consider the awarding of an annual stipend with consideration to performance and depending on the financial condition of the district.” This language indicates an annual bonus. BUSD is facing significant budget cuts, reduced enrollment, and reductions to school funding. Is it irresponsible to suggest a potential bonus to any staff member, “with consideration to performance and depending on the financial condition of the district?”
The new contract requires less days, less responsibility, and a raise in his daily rate of pay.
Mr. Cantwell is now given 70.1 days off during each calendar year. That is 14 weeks, more than three months of paid leave annually.

Pontzer Kamkar did not point this out or question the financial impact of this contract.

Mr. Cantwell’s oversight of Fiscal Services from 2023 to the present involved the $11 million accounting error and many recommendations for improvement in the 2/24 FCMAT report. Those recommendations have (still) not been successfully implemented. There are multiple questions about his oversight with consultant contracts, including the one with “Clerical Services/Specialized Support Services” from September 2024 through June 2025.
During open comment at Board meetings in June 2025 community members asked the BOE to withdraw their approval of this new contract pending the outcome of the Sobel Group investigation into “Clerical Services/Specialized Support Services.” The BOE moved forward with the approval of the contract.
Mr. Cantwell frequently works from home or is not in the office performing oversight duties.
Mr. Cantwell passed the California Bar Examination in January 2023 while working for BUSD. He has never formally practiced law. What prior experience does Mr. Cantwell have dealing with school district litigation? Does this mean that an entirely unexperienced attorney will now be representing the district? According to Dr. Paramo, “Andy would be freed up to take on more of our legal cases.”
Given Mr. Cantwell’s lack of legal experience, why wasn’t this position flown to allow

others to apply? Why was it automatically given or created for him?

There were already several community questions brought to the Board about his management of personnel and Paid Administrative Leave settlements, and if they were managed correctly.

At no time did Pontzer Kamkar ask for a performance review for Mr. Cantwell in consideration of her approval of his promotion and raise, and, according to Mr. Cantwell on December 18, 2025, no performance review was done, despite the many errors and missteps in his area of oversight, several leaving BUSD open to significant liability. These errors have been made public in the statement of charges against Mr. Cantwell at the December 18, 2025 hearing to terminate Mr. Cantwell for cause. Most of the charges were previously brought to the Board during public comment by community members as matters of concerns, and in requests to prevent the promotion and raise for Mr. Cantwell. A summary of the charges can be found in the Burbank Leader article, “Burbank School Official Claims Retaliation for Blowing Whistle,” December 26, 2025, by Jarrett Liotta.

VIOLATION 5. Pontzer Kamkar failed to perform her duties as a Trustee in the legally required formation of a Civilian Oversight Committee/Schools Facilities Oversight Committee (SFOC) for the voter approved (November 2024) Measure ABC Bond in violation of the following:

Evidence:

Adopting Bylaws Governing the Measure ABC COC 011625.pdf

Pontzer Kamkar moved to approve, and the bylaw was passed unanimously. The board was informed that this action started the 60-day clock to form a Schools Facilities Oversight Committee (SFOC) no later than March 17, 2025. No such committee was formed by the deadline. Pontzer Kamkar did not publicly direct or question staff about the delay.

At the August 7, 2025 Board meeting, a community member, Jef Vander Borght, asked the Board why forming a Civilian Oversight Committee for the Measure ABC Bond was removed from the agenda for this meeting. It was already five months overdue at that time.

On August 11, 2025 Jef Vander Borght spoke again during public comment about the SFOC not being formed. He pointed out that on Cantwell’s newly approved job description, a portion of his salary is to be paid from bond funds, completely against what the bond language stated. He also revealed that the Board of Education had already approved nearly $40 million in spending from bond funds without the formation of an oversight committee, a violation of the law.

On August 21, 2025 former Board of Education trustee spoke about the lack of an SFOC, reminding the board that in January, Mr. Cantwell brought forth bylaws to form an ABC bond committee and that the board had 60 days to form the committee. He pointed out that as of this date, August 21, no committee has been formed in direct violation of Assembly Bill 1908 that authorizes the 55% approval for school construction bonds and calls for strict accountability. Unauthorized expenditures of school bond revenues are vigorously investigated, prosecuted and courts act swiftly to restrain improper expenditures. He stated that the public knows that much work was completed over the summer with NO citizen oversight at all. Nearly $40 million dollars of bond funds had already been spent. He demanded that they cease and desist from any further expenditure until an oversight committee is in place.

August 25, 2025: “BUSDeNews: SFOC Statement “

At no time after the 60 days had lapsed did Trustee Pontzer Kamkar publicly demand the formation of the SFOC, as part of her duties of oversight.

§15278 et seq, BUSD Board Policy and Administrative Regulation BP 7214 and AR 7214.

March 6, 2025 Board of Education Meeting – Pontzer Kamkar and fellow Trustees unanimously approved contracts for almost $40 million in Measure ABC Bond funds without the establishment of an SFOC and the legal oversight required prior to spending bond funding. At no time did they question the spending, the use of SFOC funds, the need to establish an SFOC, or ask why one did not exist.

10.v, 10.w, 10.x, 10.y, 10.z, 10.aa)

Evidence:

June 5, 2025, Board of Education Meeting

Warrants appear in the agenda for the first time since July 1, 2024. At no time did Pontzer Kamkar demand or ask for them in order to fulfill her fiduciary duty as a Board Member, as required by Board Policy 3314. The missing Warrants are a glaring indication of failures in the Fiscal Services department of BUSD and demanded Board attention and review. In addition, the FCMAT report from February 2024 states that warrants are “essential” for board review and approval.

June 21, 2025, Burbank Leader Article “Documents Show Burbank Unified Lagged in Reporting Millions in Payments”

‘This is a way for us to monitor the actual cash that is going out of our accounts,’ said Board Vice President Abby Pontzer Kamkar. ‘It should have been on the agenda more

frequently.’ Pontzer Kamkar expressed concern, noting that had the board seen the payment reports earlier, people — including community members — may have flagged Weist’s involvement in the clerical services contract.

Pontzer Kamkar’s comments to the Burbank Leader appear to be untrue, in violation of the Brown Act’s fundamental spirit of transparency and open government. As established in Violation 1, she was aware of the conflict of interest in the clerical services contract as early as February 21, 2025, if not earlier.

VIOLATION 8. California Education Code (EDC) 17604 primarily authorizes a school district’s governing board to delegate its power to enter into contracts to the district superintendent or another designated officer/employee, streamlining operations, but all such contracts still require ultimate board approval or ratification to be valid. Pontzer Kamkar routinely violated this code and her responsibilities as a fiduciary of public funds by allowing unapproved over payments of up to 5% for contracts with vendors and consultants.

August 11, 2025, Board of Education meeting, Public Comment by teacher :

“This board approved the contract for $90,000 (referring to the conflict of interest contract with Trustee Tabet and her daughter), yet records show that $93,000 was paid.

$3000 more than authorized. This is not rounding error. This is an unauthorized payment that violates California education code 17604 which requires that contracts be authorized or ratified by the governing board and only the governing board. During the July 24 board meeting board member Dr. Weisberg said, and I quote, ‘I think somebody brought up the $3000. As long as you’re within 5% you don’t have to reapprove. So the $3000, that is within normal range.’ End quote. This is deeply concerning. There is no California law or education code that allows district staff to exceed a board approved contract by 5% without board preapproval.”

September 4, 2025, Board of Education meeting, Public Comment by community member

Who approved the extra $3,000?
Under what authority?

Why was it not brought back to the Board for approval as required?
And how many other contracts have been quietly exceeded under the mistaken belief

that “within 5%” is acceptable?

She also requested that the district clarify publicly that there is no legal or policy basis for the claim made by Trustee Weisberg when she stated and I quote: ‘I think somebody

brought up the $3000. As long as you’re within 5% you don’t have to reapprove. So the

$3000 is within normal range.’

These questions remain unanswered.

VIOLATION 9. Pontzer Kamkar served in the office of Board Clerk from December 2023 through December 2024. During her term, she failed to ensure the production of and approval of minutes of the Board of Education meetings for more than 18-months in violation of BUSD Board Bylaws 9005 Governance Standards, BUSD Bylaw 9123 Clerk, California Education Code Section 35145 requiring school boards to keep complete and accurate minutes of their meetings and CSBA Guidelines that define the duties of the Clerk.

Evidence:

As of August 2025, minutes for 40 meetings are/were missing from the public record, dating back to early 2024.

“5. Govern within Board-adopted policies and procedures

Take collective responsibility for the Board’s performance”

(Bylaw 9005, Governance Standards)

It is not possible to take responsibility for the Board’s performance without approved minutes. “3. Sign the minutes of Board meetings following their approval.”

(Bylaw 9123 Clerk)

It was the specific duty of Board Clerk Pontzer Kamkar (December 2023 – 2024) to sign approved minutes of board meetings. There were none done during her entire year of service as Clerk. At no time did she ask for them to be provided per a review of the public records available. This failure of duty created the opportunity for Trustee Tabet to submit her unlawful conflict of interest contract.

CSBA specifies in a BoardWise publication that a Board Clerk has “… duties in signing and

certifying documents that are part of every district’s commitment to complying with obligations mandated by regulation or law.” CSBA refers to Board Policy or the LEA’s governance handbook as to where the Clerk duties are set out, but BUSD Board Members explained at the January 11, 2026 Board retreat that there is no BUSD governance handbook. (CSBA BoardWise “Roles and responsibilities of board officers.”)

July 28, 2025, MyBurbank Letter to the Editor:

Letter to the Editor: “Board of Education May Need to be Held Legally Responsible,” by

Letter to the Editor: Board of Education May Need to be Held Legally Responsible

SECTION 3:

Locations where the conduct for this complaint occurred: The incidents occurred in the BUSD administrative offices and board room and in the Burbank City Council Chambers. Records of these incidents exist in recorded board meetings, meeting minutes, emails, and text messages.

SECTION 4:

SECTION 5:

The undersigned individuals may provide additional pertinent information if needed:

SECTION 6:

What would you like in response to this complaint? What do you think would be an appropriate remedy or resolution?

We are asking for the following corrective actions in response to this complaint:

An immediate and thorough internal BUSD investigation into the conduct and actions detailed here
1. Immediately remove Pontzer Kamkar from the officer position of President pending the outcome of the internal investigation
1. A Grand Jury review of the complaints where appropriate
1. Recusal of Pontzer Kamkar from the Superintendent Search process
1. Recusal of Pontzer Kamkar from all Board votes/decisions pending the outcome of the internal investigation
1. Censure of Trustee Pontzer Kamkar
1. Review of all past decisions/votes regarding spending made by Pontzer Kamkar
1. Immediate resignation of Pontzer Kamkar upon confirmation of her prior knowledge and approval of the conflict of interest Clerical Services Contract with former Trustee Tabet, and payment of $93,000 to Tabet.
1. Findings from all investigations be reported publicly to the extent permitted by law, and any required remedial or corrective actions be clearly identified in public information.

SECTION 7:

DECLARATION UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY

SIGNATURE OF COMPLAINANTS:

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former Burbank mayor, former BUSD Bond Oversight Committee Chair

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent, former fundraiser for BUSD

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD Board Member, former BUSD Assistant Superintendent, Administrative Services

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/grandparent, retired BUSD

administrator

, Burbank homeowner, former BUSD parent/current grandparent, former Burbank Mayor

DATE: January 21, 2026