Oakland schools in turmoil over reported board battle to oust superintendent
"Out of the blue, this was a decision to break the superintendent's contract," Mike Hutchinson, an OUSD board member, said, adding that four board members indicated they wanted to oust the superintendent.
"President Brouhard, Vice-President Bachelor, and Director Latta and Director Williams," Hutchinson said, naming the board members he said voted in favor of ousting Johnson-Trammell by July 1st.
Hutchinson said he's upset that the vote was not reported to the public during the open session, and there was no cause given for a loss of faith in Johnson-Trammell, who has led the district since 2017.
She was just approved last August for a contract extension through the 2026-2027 school year, to help with the transition as the board searched for a new superintendent to replace her.
On Thursday, OUSD issued a statement saying, in part, "After each closed session, the legislative body must report in open session certain actions related to public employees taken in closed session, and the vote of each member. This includes: Action to appoint, employ, dismiss, release, accept resignation of, or affect the status of any employee."
Board President Jennifer Brouhard told KTVU Thursday that Kyla Johnson-Trammell is still the district's superintendent.
Dig deeper
Brouhard repeatedly said she was unable to discuss the closed-session due to the Brown Act. She did say that Hutchinson is spreading misinformation. She said there was no final vote on the personnel matter regarding the superintendent that required any public report. Brouhard also said she consulted with outside counsel, not the school district's own general counsel Jenine Lindsey, to confirm that there was no need to report on any action in the closed-door meeting.
"That is a closed-session matter," Brouhard said. "That discussion has not had a vote, and I'm not able to report on that discussion. It is not uncommon for a board to work with a superintendent to decide to give direction to look at the contract again. These are not uncommon things."
KTVU asked Brouhard whether Johnson-Trammell had done anything illegal or in violation of her contract, to which Brouhard said no.
"We all have respect for Dr. Johnson-Trammell," Brouhard said. "She's done a tremendous amount and I want whatever happens to give dignity and respect to her. "
Brouhard also said any calls for budget cuts from the top, or suggestions that Johnson-Trammell was being ousted to coincide with the Oakland Educators Association's contract expiration June 30th, are untrue.
"I've heard people say cut from the top. We wouldn't cut the superintendent to balance the budget," Brouhard said.
Parents say they just want transparency, and assurances that the decision are not ultimately going to hurt students.
"There's nobody that cares about the students," said one parent named Normita, "And I don't know if it's the lack of money, the lack of funding, but students aren't getting cared about."
"I just want them to have a good education...that the classes are managed, so the children learn, so there's not chaos," Claire Quiter, a grandparent of an OUSD student, said.
KTVU reached out directly to Johnson-Trammell, but was told she has no comment at this time.
The next OUSD Board meeting is scheduled for April 23rd.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Business Wire
21 hours ago
- Business Wire
Landmark Federal Court Ruling Favors No Labels Party of Arizona and Opens the Door for Independent Candidates Across the State
PHOENIX--(BUSINESS WIRE)--The No Labels Party of Arizona recently received a favorable ruling in federal court (No Labels Party of AZ v. Fontes), rewriting the state's political playbook by giving independent and unaffiliated voters, and candidates, unprecedented access to run for office without political party gatekeepers standing in the way. 'We're not here to play the old partisan game,' Chairman Paul Johnson added. 'We're here to encourage new ideas and real competition, offer more choices, and provide a platform for those in Arizona who are tired of tribal politics.' Following the groundbreaking decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, the No Labels Party of Arizona became officially a viable option for candidates in every legislative and congressional district. Former Phoenix Mayor Paul Johnson has been appointed Chairman of the group and will work to reenergize the Arizona No Labels Party, including outreach to members about changing its name. Johnson brings decades of bipartisan and independent reform-oriented leadership to a new, energized movement committed to empowering independent-minded candidates and voters. 'For too long, Arizona's political system has shut out independent voices, voters and candidates,' said Johnson. 'Although we are proud of the Party's roots being in the national No Labels Party, and we deeply share their values, independence allows the No Labels Party of Arizona to focus on eliminating the discriminatory practices that have prohibited nonpartisan candidates from participating in elections.' Arizona law requires independent and unaffiliated candidates to collect tens of thousands more signatures to run for office, compared to candidates from the two major political parties, for example. This intentional barrier exponentially increases the cost for Independent candidates or those not aligned with the Republican or Democratic parties. The law was specifically created to prevent non-partisan candidates from running for office. 'That's not democracy—it's a rigged system,' added Johnson. Sarah Smallhouse, also joined the group's State Committee. She agrees with the court affirming that the right to run belongs to voters, not political party leaders. The No Labels Party of Arizona is welcoming all Arizonans who want to run for office, serve their communities, and do so without needing the blessing of, what is now effectively, a two-party monopoly. Arizonans are registering in ever greater numbers as Independents, while membership in the Democratic and Republican parties is in decline. It is the right time to give all those who want to lead a chance to compete on a level playing field in Arizona. 'Our group—many of whom led the statewide Fair Elections initiative to open Arizona's primaries—has always believed that more competition produces better candidates and ultimately better policy solutions,' Smallhouse added. 'This ruling, combined with our commitment to open elections, where all candidates and voters have the same rights and requirements, finally gives us the vehicle to do just that.' An Invitation to Arizona ' s Brightest Minds This political movement opens the door to a new kind of politics, post partisan, calling on Arizona's brightest minds to lead it, regardless of party label. Those who are registered with the Republican or Democratic party may also compete as candidates in the new party. 'We stand for inclusion. Smart, principled leaders in every district—business owners, educators, engineers, veterans, healthcare professionals, students, and more—are invited to step forward and consider running for office under this fresh banner of political independence,' stated Johnson.'We're not here to play the old partisan game,' Johnson added. 'We're here to encourage new ideas and real competition, offer more choices, and provide a platform for those in Arizona who are tired of tribal politics.' Johnson emphasized that this effort will be led from the ground up. 'We're asking anyone who shares our vision to get involved early and be part of building something new—a new political era has begun,' he said. 'Email me at paul@ —start by suggesting a new name for the party. Those who reach out will be foundational in shaping the direction and decisions of this movement.' Engagement Efforts Registered independent voters, frustrated moderates, and those who believe in solutions over slogans now have a place where their voice and vote counts, and where they can run for office and lead. The No Labels Party of Arizona will have candidates running in the 2026 elections. Arizona residents can register or update their party affiliation today at: with the No Labels Party of Arizona and become part of the statewide movement to bring more sanity, integrity, and competition back to public decision-making in Arizona. Polling is set to begin in the coming weeks to No Labels Party of Arizona members to obtain input on major statewide issues, which will ensure the group represents the people, not just the political class.
NBC News
a day ago
- NBC News
Trump gives drugmakers 60 days to slash prescription drug prices
President Donald Trump sent letters to more than a dozen major drugmakers Thursday demanding that they lower the cost of prescription drugs in the U.S. within 60 days. In the letters — which Trump published on his social media platform Truth Social — the drugmakers were told to offer the 'full portfolio' of their existing medications to Medicaid patients at the same prices paid abroad, also known as the 'most favored nation' rule. He also told drugmakers to 'guarantee' that patients on Medicare, Medicaid and private insurance get the same lower prices that are paid abroad for all newly approved drugs 'both upon launch and moving forward.' He also demanded that drugmakers return any additional revenues earned abroad to U.S. taxpayers, and create a 'direct to consumer' option for certain medications that would also be offered at lower prices. 'Make no mistake: a collaborative effort towards achieving global pricing parity would be the most effective path for companies, the government, and American patients,' Trump wrote in the letters. 'But if you refuse to step up, we will deploy every tool in our arsenal to protect American families from continued abusive drug pricing practices.' It's unclear, experts say, whether Trump has the authority to force drugmakers to lower the cost of their prescription drugs without the help of Congress. What's more, any attempt to do so is likely to be met with fierce pushback from the drug industry. 'It may take more than a tough letter from the President to motivate the pharmaceutical industry to drop their prices,' said Tricia Neuman, executive director of the program on Medicare policy at KFF, a nonpartisan health policy research group. 'The voluntary approach hasn't worked so far to drive down drug prices,' she added. 'Drug prices tend to go down when compelled by law or in response to competition.' Trump has repeatedly complained — during both terms — that people in the U.S. pay far more for prescription drugs than people in other countries. Indeed, prescription drug prices in the United States are notoriously high — up to 10 times more than in other nations of similar size and wealth, according to the Rand Corp., a public policy think tank. More than 3 in 4 adults in the U.S. say the cost of medications is unaffordable, according to a poll from KFF. In May, Trump signed an executive order instructing federal health officials to renew an effort to implement the 'most favored nation' rule — a strategy he pursued unsuccessfully during his first term. The 17 letters were sent Thursday to major drugmakers such as Eli Lilly, GSK, Pfizer, Merck, Johnson & Johnson, Amgen, Novo Nordisk and Novartis. NBC News has reached out to all 17 companies for comment. A spokesperson for Novo Nordisk said the company 'remains focused on improving patient access and affordability, and we will continue to work to find solutions that help people access the medication they need.' A spokesperson for Johnson & Johnson said the company was still reviewing the letter, and referred NBC News to the pharmaceutical industry's top lobbying group, PhRMA, for comment. PhRMA did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration does have another tool at its disposal to lower the cost of prescription drugs: Medicare drug pricing negotiations. Signed into law by President Joe Biden through the Inflation Reduction Act, the provision allows Medicare to negotiate prices on the costliest medications. The first round of negotiations is estimated to save Medicare $6 billion in 2026, when the prices are expected to go into effect.
Yahoo
a day ago
- Yahoo
Editorial: Mayor Johnson offers multiple ideas to scare businesses out of Chicago
We wrote a few days ago that we'd wait to see what Mayor Brandon Johnson had in mind when he said he would pursue 'progressive revenue' options rather than a property tax hike to help plug Chicago's $1 billion-plus deficit for next year before passing judgment. It didn't take long for Johnson to put some meat on the bones. In outlining his ideas for reporters on Tuesday, the mayor opted not to wait for his mayorally appointed working group striving to meet an Aug. 31 deadline to report on initial ideas for making city government more efficient, as well as considering options to raise revenue. Among the possibilities the mayor said 'have to be on the table': reviving the corporate head tax; imposing a thinly disguised corporate income tax; and 'asking' universities, endowments and other large-scale nonprofits to pay substantial sums in lieu of the property taxes from which they are shielded. Before we get to the substance of these extraordinarily counterproductive ideas, let's address Johnson's foolishness in front-running the report his working group of business figures, labor leaders, nonprofit representatives and others are slated to produce in a month. The whole idea of creating that ad hoc group back in the spring was to try to forge some kind of rough consensus on how to dig the city out from its structurally imbalanced budgets year after year. The impetus was to avoid the sort of top-down budget dictates that got Johnson into so much political trouble when he broke his campaign promise not to raise property taxes and proposed a $300 million increase — which aldermen then unanimously rejected. So much for that approach. By saying he's on board with several highly controversial tax proposals before his group even weighs in, Johnson now has confirmed, at least in the minds of his numerous skeptics, that the exercise always was little more than window dressing for an administration bent on doing what it has wanted to do from the start — soak the 'rich' in order to bankroll an ever-growing government apparatus. We sought reactions to the mayor's remarks from several participants on that working group and were told they're operating under nondisclosure agreements. Of course such pacts don't apply to the mayor himself, who's free to undermine this effort before it produces anything while forcing those who've risked their reputations on behalf of the city to keep their mouths shut. We wouldn't want to be part of a group that wasn't given the freedom to reach its own conclusions before the boss had laid out his agenda. Of the various 'progressive' tax ideas available to Johnson and the dwindling number of aldermen who support him, the one with the fewest roadblocks is the corporate head tax, the per-job levy that Mayor Rahm Emanuel rightly killed in 2014. The obvious reason for ending the head tax back then is just as valid today: Taxing businesses based on the number of people they employ is a disincentive to hire people. As a matter of public policy, the city ought to be in the business of encouraging the private sector to employ more people, not giving businesses more reasons to reduce their head count. In 2025, the issue is starker than it was more than a decade ago. With the rise in artificial intelligence, companies nationwide already are laying off workers who are performing functions corporate leaders believe AI can do instead. If Johnson truly wants to jump-start AI-induced white-collar employment losses in Chicago, there are few more effective ways than bringing back the head tax. Will the City Council have any appetite to send such a terrible message to job creators at a time when Chicago's economy is flatlined (the mayor's Donald Trump-like claims that growth is surging here notwithstanding)? We doubt it. That leaves a more pernicious proposal pushed by the nonprofit Institute for the Public Good, which has a representative on the mayor's working group. Based on a tax Seattle approved several years ago, that group has floated an 'excise tax' on payrolls for those making $200,000 or more (including stock options and various forms of noncash compensation) — meant to substitute for a corporate income tax that Chicago doesn't have the legal authority to impose. The organization estimates a 5% payroll tax along those lines would generate $1.5 billion annually. Ald. Maria Hadden, 49th, who co-chairs the City Council's Progressive Caucus, told Crain's she'd consider such an approach if nonprofits like hospitals and universities were exempted. That still would generate more than $1.1 billion, she said. That proposal isn't likely to trip up on the AI issue outlined above, but also could be easily evaded by companies moving their operations outside the city and basing their more highly compensated employees in, say, Evanston, Oak Park or any other suburb. Especially given the ease of remote work these days, such moves wouldn't be difficult. The city already is seeing substantial reductions in its white-collar workforce, statistics show, a trend that surely exacerbates municipal revenue challenges and too much of the time keeps downtown Chicago something close to a dead zone. Any kind of excise payroll tax is a truly terrible idea. Johnson told reporters repeatedly that business people with whom he's interacted tell him they mainly care about violent crime and that the cost of doing business doesn't come up. 'Not that I know a bunch of millionaires,' he said. 'But you know what they talk about when they engage with me? They talk about community safety. They don't talk about taxes.' This is a mayor with no experience in the private sector, and it shows over and over again. To suggest businesses (or the 'ultra-rich,' as the mayor likes to call the wealthier among us) care not a whit about a key cost input like taxes is laughable. If aldermen out of desperation decide to try this gambit, the city will be sued and the matter will be tied up in the courts. At the very least, the 2026 budget hole won't be plugged this way. True to form, the mayor expounds at length on various and sundry ways to part people and businesses from their money and does little but nod briefly and generally to reducing the cost of government. The budget process hasn't even started, and Johnson already has ruled out any concessions from unionized city workers like layoffs or furloughs to balance next year's books. By once again focusing only on economically destructive taxes that we're guessing won't get far with skittish aldermen afraid to tie their political futures to a deeply unpopular mayor, Johnson risks a reprise of last year's eleventh-hour budget crisis. We're wasting time. Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@ Solve the daily Crossword
