Vishakan was hired as the Palo Alto Unified School District's first-ever general counsel in December 2018. Vishakan's responsibilities included providing legal guidance on public records and meetings laws, special education law, Title IX compliance and board governance, among other areas.
At the time, Vishakan — who previously worked as the district's compliance manager — was unanimously approved by the board, which had decided to hire an in-house lawyer in an attempt to improve legal compliance and reduce costs.
In a statement, Vishakan said that she has "been a patient but persistent advocate for reform" whose goal has been to make the district's schools safe places for all students.
"Sometimes advocating for change does not make everyone equally happy," Vishakan said. "I'm proud where I've been able to inspire change, even if there is work left to do. I wish the best to the next person in my role and hope they will continue to be an advocate for change."
The general counsel position reports directly to the board but has a dotted line to the superintendent.
The board plans to hire a new general counsel, Dauber said, adding that he expects the board will discuss the role at an upcoming regular public meeting, potentially the first one of the new school year, which is set for Aug. 23.
In June 2020, the school board approved an employment contract with Vishakan that ran through June 30, 2022. Dauber did not answer a question from the Weekly about whether that agreement had been extended.
The contract lists eight types of termination that can occur. Dauber said the board took action on Aug. 4 "under a provision of the contract that provided for termination without cause" but didn't say which specific provision the board used.
Vishakan's contract also calls for the board to provide her a written performance evaluation by June 30 of each year. If her performance is unsatisfactory, the board is supposed to prepare a remediation plan, under which Vishakan would have 90 days to remediate her performance.
According to Vishakan, the board failed to give her any evaluation this year.
"My past performance reviews have been uniformly positive. This year, I was not given a performance review," Vishakan said. "In fact, what I was asked to do was to prepare both a renewal of my contract and a pay raise."
The board doesn't appear to have ever voted on that contract.
At a May 24 meeting, the board met in closed session to consider the performance evaluations of seven high-ranking district employees. When the board reconvened into open session, Dauber announced a list of six employees who had received satisfactory evaluations. Dauber didn't list any performance evaluation for Vishakan.
When asked about the evaluation, Dauber wouldn't comment beyond confirming that the district didn't report anything in open session. He told the Weekly that he "can't comment on communications around personnel matters discussed in closed session."
The remaining four board members — Todd Collins, Shounak Dharap, Vice President Jennifer DiBrienza and Ladomirak — all declined requests to discuss why the board terminated Vishakan's employment. DiBrienza referred questions to Dauber; Collins said personnel and closed session matters are "both not permitted to be discussed"; and Ladomirak said she wasn't at the meeting because she was on vacation and suggested reaching out to a different board member.
Dharap — an attorney, himself, who supported hiring an in-house counsel during his 2018 campaign for the board — said he couldn't speak to personnel issues but added that "I continue to believe that the position of general counsel is critical for the protection (of) the district, its employees and students. Termination of employment does not mean elimination of a position."
The only item on the Aug. 4 special board meeting was a closed session to discuss "employee discipline/dismissal/release." The meeting agenda was emailed to media at 4 p.m. on Wednesday. The state's public meetings law requires that agendas for regularly scheduled meetings be posted 72 hours ahead of time, but only 24 hours notice is required for special meetings. There was no Zoom access or YouTube livestream provided for the Aug. 4 meeting.
This story contains 732 words.
Stories older than 90 days are available only to subscribing members. Please help sustain quality local journalism by becoming a subscribing member today.
If you are already a member, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Membership start at $12 per month and may be cancelled at any time.