Letter to the Editor:
The Burbank Unified School District’s May 14 response to Mr. Vander Borght’s April 2 Cure and Correct demand confirms a troubling reality: no formal, lawful Board action was ever taken to change former Superintendent Paramo’s separation status from resignation to retirement or to authorize retiree health benefits on his behalf.
That is precisely the problem. The status change occurred, the benefits are being paid, and public money continues to be spent. If the Board never approved this action, the public is entitled to ask a basic question: who did?
Board leadership previously indicated that this matter had been discussed repeatedly in closed session and that the District “had no choice” but to pay these benefits based on supposed prior precedent. Yet responses to Public Records Act requests and staff communications reveal no such precedent exists, and retroactive and ongoing monthly payments continue.
September 2025 emails from the former Human Resources Assistant Superintendent discussed changing Dr. Paramo’s status from resignation to retirement so benefits could be paid. In addition, PTR documents approving the status change clearly state that the action occurred with the “approval and direction of the Board of Education.”
That directly conflicts with the District’s legal response, which now claims the Board never approved or directed any such action. Both statements cannot be true.
The Board still had repeated opportunities to stop the payments. It reviews purchase orders and warrant reports every month and could have questioned, rejected, or halted these expenditures. Instead, the payments have continued.
The Brown Act is not satisfied by avoiding a formal vote while allowing the substance of an action to proceed behind closed doors. If Board members discussed this matter privately, reached a consensus, directed staff informally, and then allowed public funds to be spent without proper public action, the public has every reason to question whether the law was violated. At minimum, the community deserves a clear explanation of who authorized these payments, why they continue, and why the issue has not been placed before the public for lawful action.
As the Fiscal Crisis and Management Assistance Team recently observed, “The Board lacks proper training in governance and finance.” This controversy is a stark example of the cost of that failure. The public has a right to transparency, accountability, and lawful governance—especially when taxpayer dollars are involved.
Alexandra Helfrich
Burbank
