Pendley’s $100K in employee bonuses is for the birds

Union Democrat Editorial Board /

It's Thanksgiving, and what better time to skewer the biggest turkeys in Tuolumne County - Columbia Elementary Superintendent John Pendley and his board majority.

The latest embarrassment involving the district's so-called "leadership" entails tens of thousands of dollars in employee bonuses.

Pendley proposed the payments - about $2,000 for each employee - to "reward" his staff for reasons he's never specified.

More likely, it was just another lame attempt to win friends and manipulate people.

The board, slippery as ever, approved the $100,000-plus allurement.

The first question the public should ask: Can the district afford it?

Pendley and the board seem to think so.

Hard to imagine when Trustee Laura Phelan claims the district can't even afford to hold a $2,000 special election to put a new person on the board, to replace resigning Trustee Jeff Costello. (The board majority, of course, would rather cherry pick another stooge than risk asking voters).

Is it affordable:

• when school budgets statewide are being pinched?

• at a time when Columbia students are routinely asked to peddle candy to raise money for field trips?

• when an expensive legal settlement or lawsuit is surely in the wings - the result of a legal claim from the girl sexually exploited on campus by the superintendent's son?

Saying the district can pay this largess clearly signals one of two things: Columbia's leaders are stiffing voters and students, or they're lying about the district's finances.

Second question: Can this be legal?

Bonuses paid to public school employees are very rare, but not without precedent.

At the larger Summerville High School District, staffers last summer split about $45,000 in bonuses.

Columbia Elementary trustees rubber stamped their district's bonuses in a "closed session" meeting with the district's union representatives.

The Brown Act, the state's open-meeting law, very narrowly allows boards to meet behind closed doors for very specific reasons. Among them: to discuss an actual or very probable lawsuit; to negotiate land or labor contracts; or to conduct an employee evaluation.

Attempting to buy the love of staffers who have been tarred by a leadership's bad judgments is not mentioned anywhere in the act.

Our legal advisers say it was likely legal if construed as a labor negotiation.

So the bonuses may pass the legal test, but certainly fail the smell test.

They'll certainly play well with employees, who are unlikely to refuse this gift of public money.

But don't be fooled into thinking this is anything less than the shallowest of bribes.

The Union Democrat
This image is copyrighted.

Reach all of Sonora, Calaveras County, Tuolumne, Angels Camp, Twain Harte, & Jamestown with your items to sell.

Ads appear Online and in Print

View Classifieds Place an Ad

Connect with The Union Democrat

Union Democrat Newsstand

Thursday May 26, 2016

Read digital interactive editions of our publications

Read Today's Edition Take A Tour

More Publications by The Union Democrat

View All Publications
On lifeguards, laptops, letting the public in


Bravos Fire agreement — For the first time in quite a while, ... more

GOP in danger of becoming No.3 choice in state


Even before Californians at last start marking absentee ballots this month or ... more

Letters to the Editor for May 24, 2016


Fire agreement response To the Editor: RE: Response to May 18, 2016, ... more

Graduation season is upon us


This is the season of college Commencement speeches — an art form ... more

What would our grandparents think?


Please join me on a whirlwind tour around the zany world of ... more