Inglewood Ex-Principal’s Fate To Be Determined in New Vote

Inglewood school board members reversed themselves this week and voted to demote rather than fire a former high school principal accused of embezzling school funds.

But that 2-1 vote was illegal because two of the five board members had left Monday’s school board meeting and three votes are required to approve an action, officials said Wednesday. At the recommendation of lawyers for the Los Angeles County Counsel, a special meeting has been scheduled for this afternoon to consider once again Supt. George McKenna’s recommendation to demote rather than fire Leonard Matthews, the former principal of Hillcrest High School.

Matthews diverted at least $4,000 from employee paychecks, a school store and private donations to his personal use while he was principal of Hillcrest High School, according to a sworn statement by police investigators. A yearlong investigation found that Matthews used school money for personal expenses, including clothes, cosmetics and an outdoor Nativity set, according to the affidavit. The case has been turned over to the district attorney’s office.

In October, the school board voted to initiate dismissal proceedings against Matthews, who had been reassigned to work as a central office administrator when investigations by police and the district began late in 1987.

Demotion Instead

This week, however, board members voted to rescind the dismissal action. Instead, they voted to demote Matthews from his $55,000-a-year administrative post to an unspecified teaching position paying $42,000 a year.

Board members Larry Aubry and Joseph Rouzan voted in favor of rescinding the decision to dismiss Matthews. Board members Caroline Coleman and Lois Hill-Hale left the meeting early but expressed support for demoting rather than firing Matthews.

Zyra McCloud, the only board member who opposed the decision to drop dismissal proceedings, complained that other board members were being lenient with Matthews because he had worked on their political campaigns.

The district has evidence that about $10,000 was misspent and Matthews has agreed to pay that amount in restitution, board members said.

Matthews had no comment Monday evening, when his attorney met with school district attorneys before the board meeting. His attorney, Carl Douglas, also had no comment.

Consulted by a reporter on the legality of the 2-1 vote, County Atty. Edward Pozorski said Wednesday that the state Education Code states that school board actions must be approved by a majority of the membership--or three members of the five-member Inglewood board--not just a majority of those present.

“If you have a five-member board, you need three votes to do anything,” Pozorski said. “It’s immaterial how many board members are present.”

A district spokeswoman said Wednesday that county lawyers told district officials a new meeting would be necessary.

McCloud, district employees and others said Matthews was treated leniently because he has worked on the political campaigns of Aubry, Coleman, Hill-Hale and Rouzan. McCloud said the dismissal action should proceed to a hearing before the state Commission on Professional Competence.

“My vote would be not to rescind this decision, because of the controversy and the political ramifications,” McCloud said Monday. “We need to send it on to the state.”

A district administrator who asked for anonymity said that an employee without Matthews’ connections would have been fired, not demoted, for a similar offense.

Former board member William (Tony) Draper said McKenna’s recommendation indicates that the new superintendent has caved in to political pressure from Aubry, Coleman, Hill-Hale and Rouzan, the city’s former police chief who was elected to the board in November.

McKenna, a former Los Angeles high school principal with a national reputation for toughness and independence, was hired in October and hailed as the man who would clean up a district crippled by politics. One of McKenna’s first actions as superintendent was to recommend the dismissal of Matthews on administrative charges of “dishonesty and immoral conduct.”

“It’s totally crazy,” Draper said. “I’m really disappointed in George McKenna.”

McKenna and the four board members have denied that their treatment of the Matthews case has anything to do with politics. McKenna said Tuesday that the reversal of his recommendation resulted from “new information”--board members said it was Matthews’ offer to pay restitution--and a new willingness on the board to deal with the matter internally. McKenna said the district would receive “100% restitution” and Matthews could still face dismissal if he is convicted of a felony.

“My motivation was not political,” McKenna said. “I think it was a laudable act to take. We did not diminish our authority at all. The board has exercised its decision-making authority in a very forthright way. It has shown it is not unwilling to make a decision internally. . . . This is very fair to both sides.”

Rouzan, who is up for re-election in April along with Aubry and Coleman, said he did not feel Matthews had committed a “dismissable offense.”

‘Some Very Foolish Things’

“I think you have to take into account a lot of considerations,” Rouzan said. “I think some very foolish things were done. I think the punishment is adequate. It was kind of a nickel-and-dime offense that accumulated to a substantial amount.”

Asked if his position conflicts with his law-and-order image, Rouzan said: “If you look at my track record carefully, it would show that I’ve always been very lenient on the first offense. I’ve always felt that severe punishment should occur once you step over that line again.”

Matthews was previously disciplined by the board in 1987 for using school district equipment to prepare political flyers for candidates, according to Coleman and Draper. Rouzan said he was unaware of that.

Aubry said he does not think the Matthews decision will be an election issue. While he said his vote was not politically motivated, he acknowledged that it may be perceived that way. He also said that Matthews’ adversaries may have political motivations in pushing for his dismissal.

Unauthorized Account

The police affidavit, which was filed in Inglewood Municipal Court to obtain a search warrant, says Matthews spent at least $4,000 in school funds on clothes, groceries, beauty supplies and an elaborate Christmas Nativity scene for his east Inglewood home. Much of that money came from an unauthorized bank account, police said, to which Matthews diverted donations that had been made to the school: profits from a student store, and money from employee paychecks that had been padded with extra hours.

In December, Inglewood detectives searched Matthews’ home and his four cars--two Mercedes-Benzes, a Cadillac and a Mercury, according to the affidavit. They seized numerous personal and school financial records, as well as parts of the Nativity scene.

The police investigation involved an exhaustive review of school and bank records and interviews with current and former school employees. It began in late 1987 when school district officials discovered Matthews’ unauthorized bank account and reported it to police.