LBUSD’s Superintendent Shortcut

Don Austin may be qualified, familiar, and even reassuring, but that does not make the route that brought him back any less concerning.

Jun 02, 2026

Every superintendent transition has a version that looks perfectly reasonable in the final agenda packet because the board has authority, the contract is public, the public can comment, the vote happens in open session, and the press release arrives polished with the familiar language of stability, continuity, and moving forward.

The question is whether the final agenda reflects the actual process, or only the public-facing end of a process that began elsewhere.

Oakland Unified recently gave the state of California a public example of how quickly a superintendent transition can become a trust crisis when the community believes the real decision was decided behind closed doors. While Oakland is larger, messier, and faces problems that Laguna Beach does not, we should heed the warning as a community because the controversy focused on secrecy.

In Oakland, Superintendent Kyla Johnson-Trammell had her contract extended through 2027. Eight months later, the board moved to end her tenure early through what was announced as a voluntary separation agreement, following a 4-3 split. The effect was immediate; closed-session concerns, community outrage, and criticism that the board had done more behind closed doors than it disclosed.

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, one Oakland board member said the board had discussed Johnson-Trammell’s future in closed session and taken a straw vote even though the item was allegedly discussion only, and the ACLU of Northern California later criticized the board over alleged Brown Act issues involving closed-session activity around her departure, a separation agreement, and a superintendent search while the public was told no final action had been taken.

The superintendent left, but the instability did not, as Oakland then appointed Denise Saddler as interim superintendent for the 2025-26 school year. Later, it was reported that there was community frustration over delays in the superintendent search, the unexplained suspension of a $150,000 search contract, and ongoing leadership uncertainty amid a fiscal crisis.

Again, I want to emphasize Laguna Beach is not Oakland Unified. Our school district is smaller, more stable, and we went through a superintendent search less than a year ago, but it is hard to watch Oakland’s chaos and then look at Laguna without noticing the shared concern that the public is being asked to accept the end of a process while still having basic questions about when it began.

The June 4th LBUSD Board Meeting agenda includes “Discussion and Applicability of Board Policy 2120,” LBUSD’s superintendent recruitment and selection policy, before closed session for superintendent appointment and labor negotiations, followed by open-session approval of contracts for the interim superintendent and Dr. Don Austin.

That agenda language does not feel accidental, because the Board did not simply agendize “superintendent appointment” or “superintendent search,” it agendized the “applicability” of BP 2120, which suggests the Board is preparing to explain either how the policy applies to what it has already done or why the full policy does not require the current search process the community might expect.

The likely argument is already visible: LBUSD completed a superintendent search less than a year ago, Leadership Associates served as the independent search firm, the community gave input on the desired qualities and needs of the district, Dr. Don Austin was included somewhere in that vetted pool, and because the Board majority believes those district needs have not materially changed, it can rely on that prior process instead of starting over.

That is probably why “applicability” is on the agenda, because the Board majority’s likely move is to say BP 2120 was satisfied through the prior search, the Board retained its authority to hire, closed session was the proper place to discuss appointment, contract negotiations were properly handled, and the public contract vote is happening in open session.

That is the strongest version of their case, and it is true: BP 2120 gives the Board direct responsibility for selecting and employing the superintendent, and California law gives boards room to deliberate in closed session when the Brown Act allows it.

However, I think that leaves a very low standard for a decision this important.

BP 2120 is supposed to be LBUSD’s own guardrail, and while it gives the Board authority to select and employ the superintendent, it also says that when a vacancy needs to be filled, the Board shall establish and implement a search and selection process that includes district needs, desired characteristics, search scope, internal and external candidates, stakeholder involvement, advertising and recruitment, screening, interviews, reference checks, and transition planning.

A prior search may explain how Dr. Austin entered LBUSD’s orbit, but it does not explain why he was not selected then or why he is the choice now, whether the Board reopened the process, completed updated reference checks, whether Leadership Associates had any current role, if anyone else was considered, or if his changed professional circumstances after Palo Alto were evaluated.

A lot has changed for Dr. Austin since he was likely vetted, and his departure from Palo Alto does not appear to be the sort of quiet, universally celebrated exit that can be tied with a gold bow and politely ignored while the Board tells everyone that last year’s vetting still answers today’s questions.

The February timeline is where the explanation starts to strain. If the February 20 departure date for Dr. Austin’s is correct, then just six days later, on February 26, LBUSD held an unscheduled closed-session review of Dr. Glass. After that, future closed-session agenda items reportedly avoided using the superintendent job title until Dr. Glass was removed on May 12.

If the Board’s answer on Thursday is essentially “last year’s search still counts,” then the follow-up needs to be immediate: did it count as background or did it count as the actual search for this appointment?

That question is not an attack on Don Austin’s qualifications, because by all accounts, he is qualified: he knows Laguna schools and this community, and it is reassuring that someone with that history would want to come back.

My concern is the route that brought him here. Sheri Morgan’s description of “securing and appointing Don” as a win for the district, made before the Board had publicly considered and approved his contract, only feeds the perception that the decision had already happened and that the public process was being arranged around it.

If BP 2120 was followed, the Board should explain exactly how, including what was satisfied last year, what was revisited this year, if Leadership Associates had any current role, if updated reference checks were completed after Palo Alto, when Austin became an active candidate, why he was not selected in the prior search, and why he is the right person now.

Those are not combative questions, even if this Board majority treats basic public accountability like an ambush.

There is one California counterexample worth acknowledging, because in San Diego Unified, Superintendent Bill Kowba announced his retirement on February 26, 2013, and the next day the board appointed Cindy Marten, then an elementary school principal, without a traditional search process or community input, in a move described as highly unusual and virtually unheard of.

San Diego’s gamble did not collapse because Marten served for years as superintendent and later became U.S. Deputy Secretary of Education, making it the standalone example I found of a board that skipped the cleaner path and still landed on its feet.

Perhaps Laguna Beach can become the second example, and Dr. Austin will be strong enough that people eventually stop caring how this Board majority brought him back. He has a lot to do, even with his familiarity with Laguna and his ability to lead, and needs to do what this Board has so far failed to do: calm the district down and restore some confidence that competent people are in charge.

But “the outcome may be good enough to bury the process” is not the transparency standard this Board majority promised, and after everything LBUSD has already been dragged through, families, staff, students, and taxpayers should not be asked to accept a governance gamble dressed up as a policy discussion.

The Board may be complying with the law, but the community is entitled to more than the bare minimum.