« ECR: The Renewal Project Goes off the Rails | Main | Wildfires and Sacramento Grifters Redux »

August 05, 2021



The CTC investigators have the REAL evidence and are punishing the SMUHSD for perpetuating both a hostile and unsafe environment for students and employees.

The CTC follows the due process elements of administrative law procedures.

The CTC Educator Misconduct investigators look into complaints and close cases do not show evidence of wrongdoing..

Those complaints that are valid are then fully investigated and a documented Confidential Report is submitted to the Commission.

After reviewing the report, the Commission then either closes a case, issues an Adverse Action, OR sends the case to Formal Review.

If a case goes to Formal Review, then culpability has been attached.

At Formal Review, "the question of probable cause of Adverse Action against the credential is evaluated."

(Linked Article)
The Formal Review is not a hint, it implies that the Committee is deadlocked or confused about a particular issue. If it is a slam-dunk adverse action or dismissal, you will be notified

The educator is given an opportunity to make a 3-minute opening and closing statement. In between, the Committee members take turns asking specific questions.

Cause for an adverse action must meet legal criterion. Specifically, the CTC cannot take an "adverse action" unless they determine that the credential holder is, unfit to "perform the duties authorized by the credential." The criteria to determine fitness to teach is set forth in Morrison v. State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal. 3d. 214, including (see also 5 CCR § 80302):
1. likelihood of reoccurrence of the questioned conduct;
2. extenuating or aggravating circumstances;
3. effect of notoriety and publicity;
4. impairment of the student-teacher relationship;
5. disruption of the educational process;
6. motive; and
7. proximity or remoteness in time of the conduct.


The Commission CAN decide in Formal Review that the act committed, and culpability attached does not rise to the level of an Adverse Action on the credential. Therefore, no action is taken against the credential, but the record is kept open in case there are more complaints filed against the individual.

The Formal Review is not a courtroom, there is no cross examination.

If these guys were innocent, it would never have made it to Formal Review, the case would have been closed early in the process.

The charging documents for Skelly, Black, and Yim are listed at Citizens for Mr. Nelson and the Truth at BHS


The Petersen v. SMUHSD case was added by the teacher in addition to the CTC Misconduct Charges- The SMUHSD continues to throw taxpayer dollars away as the evidence continues to build against these individual.

In true SMUHSD fashion, the legal team is will attempt to get Petersen to drop her CTC charges as part of the legal settlement.

The CTC confidential investigation report that was presented at Formal Review would be filed in court and presented to a jury. This would also be in addition to the suspended credentials of these school leaders.

Given that the number of charges is now at three (and there are more coming), it would be safe to say that this would not look favorable for the SMUHSD in front of a jury.

All case files and Formal Report charges can also go the Attorney General's office if it chooses to take Skelly and Black's appeal.

The Board does not need to wait for the CTC's actions on these other cases. It should place these "leaders" on leave and hire an independent legal firm to investigate what has transpired over the past few years.

The Board owes that to the public to build back its trust.

As the BV knows, the evidence has been here all along, the Board has just ignored it.


Thanks -- so now we wait to hear what happens at the Oct 20-22 meeting.


According to the appearance letters on the linked site, the Formal Review will take place during next week's September 30 Commission Meeting.


The September 30 meeting may also bring more charges against additional SMUHSD staff as investigations are being completed.

The item to look for will be Skelly and Black's appeal to the Attorney General's Office.

As stated below, Skelly and Black would be cross examined by the Deputy Attorney General regarding the charges and evidence.

Skelly and Black would be destroyed if they are forced to be cross examined and the evidence would then be used against them and the district in a civil case.

A deposition or cross examination would expose in front of the Board and evidence they have stated as fact would be outed as a lie. The embarrassment of the Board is coming as they have backed they guys “hook, line, and sinker.”

The appeal to the AG's office is to buy time in a hope to settle the Petersen case and make everything go away. Skelly and Black did not expect a second and now a third case coming to the CTC.

The fourth case and charges are expected to be announced after the September 30 Meeting.

The substantial evidence currently held by the CTC Investigators shows that the 2015-2016 incidents at BHS were 100% retaliation against Nelson by Black and Yim. The CTC holds email communications and related evidence showing that the allegations were “created” and that select BHS teachers are also implicated in the lies.

These facts were all withheld from the Board during 2016

A cross examination of these administrators or teachers will result in the loss of a teaching credential and termination from employment

"These hearings are just like a court trial. A deputy attorney general from the California Department of Justice represents the Commission on Teacher Credentialing. A court reporter makes a stenographic record of the event. Exhibits are introduced, witnesses are questioned (including the teacher) and legal arguments are made."


The removal of Skelly and Black would be met with a gigantic sigh of relief by many site level administrators who fear crossing a line or falling out of step. Loyalty is mandatory to remain or be promoted. Loyalty mandates silence and allegiance.


Superintendent Skelly Charged Again (#3)

The Board must open an independent investigation, put these items on a public agenda and take comments from the public regarding the highly inappropriate and embarrassing actions of its leadership.

Since the Board is paying for the legal defense of these individuals, this is now a public issue and needs full disclosure!

Superintendent Kevin Skelly has been hit with a THIRD charge by the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing Education Misconduct.

The CTC Investigators have now sent Superintendent Skelly to Formal Review in a third case, unrelated to the prior two.
Superintendent Skelly and Deputy Superintendent Black are already appealing their convictions to the CA Attorney General's Office and these new charges on separate issues are going to review.

Superintendent Kevin Skelly (three cases)
Deputy Superintendent Kirk Black (two cases)
Former BHS Principal Di Yim (One cases )
Mills Principal Pam Duszynski (One case)
BHS Teachers (cases under investigation)

These leaders have violated district, state, and federal law. They have also used their positions to lie to, mislead, and withhold information from the Board. No other employee would have this position or advantage in an internal legal proceeding.

Why this situation is worse than it looks?

The SMUHSD is currently paying for the high priced lawyer to defend Deputy Superintendent Kirk Black and Superintendent Kevin Skelly. The SMUHSD’s well paid law firm Lozano-Smith’s has elevated partner-specialist Mark Waterman, out of Los Angeles to handle not only the first level of charges, but the second and third waves as well.

“Mr. Waterman has had a high success rate in assisting his employer clients to obtain summary judgment while defending against numerous employment claims, including discrimination, harassment, and retaliation.”


What makes this interesting is that former BHS Principal Di Yim and Mills High School Principal Pam Duszynski ARE NOT represented by Mr. Waterman.

Why the difference? Internal communications show that the Board is “exceptionally ignorant” of what is transpiring before their eyes and are “just writing blank checks” to the law firm.

Since this is NOT an internal action under the Human Resources Department, these expenditures are a “personal gift” to Skelly and Black.

The SMUHSD as an organization is not under peril of disciplinary action.

The SMUHSD Board states that IT is represented by SM County Counsel.

Why is the district’s legal advisor telling it to pay the private legal fees of its negligent leaders?

Who is defending the taxpayers?

The Superintendents and Principals are employees of the Board and the people. Individual teachers or parents would be required to pay for their own lawyers!

In fact, the Board should be defending those who have been victims of negligence and retaliation!

Board President "Bedtime Bob Griffin” (he complains constantly about having to stay up for meetings and limits public speaking time so he can go to bed) and the SMUHSD Board have too close a relationship with the current administration and fail to represent the people or its tax dollars. This very cozy and symbiotic relationship is providing substantial benefits to each party at the expense of the taxpayers.

The Board must put this item on a public agenda, begin an independent investigation, and take comments from the public regarding the highly inappropriate and embarrassing actions of its leadership. The Board also need to produce the financial expenditures paid for the investigation and legal defense of these charges which are estimated to be between $200k and $500k just to start!

Administrative Regulations

AR 1312.3
Individuals who knowingly give false statements in an investigation shall be subject to discipline up to and including suspension, expulsion, and or dismissal, as shall any individual who is found to have retaliated against another in violation of this policy.


Is it part of Skelly's and Black's contracts that they are receiving legal representation?


How do we find out what the third charge is?


The Board SHOULD be able to respond to all of questions truthfully and ethically regarding these issues, but the refuse to do so. At this time, the Board is not properly informed of any of these issues as the administration has continued to block the flow of all essential and legal information from the Board.

The Board has substantial information of the lack of ethics of these two leaders as well as their failure to properly communicate with the Board. Specifically, there is significant evidence that the administration has lied to, misled, and withheld information from the Board, causing the Board to take actions that have caused damage and placed the district in peril of being sued… again.

The Board is represented by the San Mateo County Counsel. Skelly and Black are being represented by Lozano Smith’s Mark Waterman. (There is a significant conflict of interest as Lozano provides substantial legal work for the SMUHSD at the direction of Skelly and Black). How can Lozano represent the interests of the SMUHSD on one day and the interests of Skelly and Black the next?

The charges against Skelly and Black place their employment in jeopardy. The district has a legal right to know the actions of its executive staff.

A transparent Board would require its counsel properly evaluate the present and unfolding situation to review any legal or ethical liability.

The charges are not stated in the Formal Review notification, but are included in the confidential investigation report sent with each charging letter.

If the SMUHSD is paying for the legal defense of these individuals, then the Board has a legal right to review the confidential investigation reports sent to Skelly, Black, Yim, and Dusynski. If this is an SMUHSD defense, then the Board MUST review the charges so that they can properly and effectively decide how to proceed or if they need to remove or place on leave an administrator who may continue to damage the SMUHSD.

It would be expected that the San Mateo County Counsel representing the Board would inform them to demand the production of these charges for review, otherwise, the Board cannot carry out it duty to protect the students and the district.

At this point, the Board remains ignorant (by choice) of all of the facts which mandated the CTC Education Misconduct Committee to issue charges.

The Board makes public comments such as, "These are good people" or "The investigation was not well done" but the charges keep coming down from the state.

It's time the Board start actually demanding to see the evidence rather than listening to the sales pitch.

The related documents can be found at the following:



Why did the San Mateo Union High School District lie to the SMDJ stating that the Superintendents do not need teaching credentials to carry out their duties?

Superintendent Skelly and the Board are fully aware of the requirement, it is placed in Skelly's contract. Deputy Superintendent Black is a lawyer and knows this fact as well.

Since these facts are true, why would anyone in the SMUHSD District office intentionally mislead a reporter regarding the requirements to hold office?

These public statements are misleading the media and the Board in order to deflect the inevitable... the SMUHSD leaders are going to suffer an "adverse action" as a result of misconduct and retaliation, and they may/should be fired.

Skelly and Black's Appeal to the California Attorney General (paid for by the taxpayers) is to simply to buy time. If the suspensions are not implemented, Black and Skelly each continue to be paid.

Public documents shows that Skelly, Black and Former BHS Principal Di Yim have all been charged in a second round (third for Skelly) of CTC Educator Misconduct investigation which most likely will bring more discipline and suspensions.

It is reported that Black, Skelly or Yim chose to skip their appearance for the September 30, 2021 CTC Formal Review to listen to the evidence, charges or respond to questions. The skipped appearance is a forfeiture to respond to these charges as it looks like they desire to once again move to the Attorney General’s office for appeal.

The CTC Investigator has been provided with a "Tidal Wave" of evidence illustrating a clear pattern of "lying to, misleading, and withholding evidence" from the Board.

These employment actions were taken in retaliation against a parent in response to the legal filing of Civil Rights complaints with resulted in a full-blown investigation by the United States Office of Civil Rights against Deputy Superintendent Black and BHS Principal Yim.

This is Whistleblower retaliation by local school officials.

This case is both embarrassing and mind boggling due to the degree of individual negligence involved.

The SMUHSD Board is now culpable enablers as they refuse to open their own investigation but instead continue to hemorrhage money for Skelly and Black’s legal fees.

This lies of these leaders is spreading the damage. BHS teachers are now also under investigation and may also be charged by the CTC Education Misconduct Committee where they too will lose their teaching credentials.

SM Daily Journal

Commentary: SDUHSD superintendent search must be thoughtful


The following will take place on October 22, 2021, 9:00 am

The BHS Prosecution

The California Commission of Teacher Credentialing Education Misconduct will conduct its Formal Review of the following for their actions regarding the incidents that took place at Burlingame High School.

Superintendent Kevin Skelly
Deputy Superintendent Kirk Black
Former BHS Principal Di Yim

This is the second Formal Review session for Superintendent Skelly and Deputy Superintendent Black in only a few months. Skelly and Black (along with Mills Principal Duszynski) are currently appealing the pending suspensions of their teaching credentials from their FIRST Formal Review.

Prior to the advancement to Formal Review, an intensive fact-based investigation was conducted by CTC Investigators. The abundance of evidence, witness statements and signed court documents left a “hefty” trail of the evidence of negligence and retaliation surrounding the incidents at Burlingame High School. Investigators were able to pinpoint evidence and statements that were in “extreme contradiction” to statements made to the SMUHSD Board, the United States Office of Civil Rights, the Department of Fair Employment and Housing, as well as investigations of Uniform Complaints (civil rights complaints. According to district, state, and federal policy, retaliation against a Whistleblower-complainant is forbidden by law.

In addition, individuals who are participating or involved in an investigation are prohibited from withholding information and/or evidence as well as lying to or misleading an investigator.

Credible evidence of these actions was produced during the investigation. The SMUHSD Board has past knowledge of all of these facts but chose to ignore them. The Board abdicated its supervisory role of the administration and its responsibility to protect the students, parents, community, and tax dollars of the public.

The Board continued comments of “these are good people” and they did nothing wrong are void of facts or evidence and are based on “magical thinking”. The Board has been lied to, misled, and deceived to the point that they have extended legal contracts to the end of the year despite these credible investigations.

This SECOND Formal Review (of Skelly and Black) will add facts and evidence to the expanding cases against these SMUHSD leaders. The portfolio of evidence can be moved to their intended appeal with the California Attorney General’s office who has the power to EXPAND the scope of the investigation based on the evidence.

The CTC cannot take an "adverse action" unless they determine that the credential holder is, unfit to "perform the duties authorized by the credential." The criteria to determine fitness to teach is set forth in Morrison v. State Board of Education (1969) 1 Cal. 3d. 214, including (see also 5 CCR § 80302): The Skelly, Black, and Yim actions meet the standards of the following marked with an *

• *likelihood of reoccurrence of the questioned conduct;
• *extenuating or aggravating circumstances;
• effect of notoriety and publicity;
• impairment of the student-teacher relationship;
• disruption of the educational process;
• *motive; and
• *proximity or remoteness in time of the conduct


The suspension or revocation of the teaching credentials of Skelly, Black, or Yim are not the issue.

The fact that these leaders lied to, misled, and withheld information from the Board and the public for a series of years is what is critical. These “leaders” placed blame on others to deflect guilt and continue to collect their lucrative paychecks and retirements.

If the Board has any ethics left, it will take action against Skelly and Black, regardless of the outcome of the CTC Education Misconduct Committee Formal Review. At least, the Board members from Burlingame should do something… anything.

What message does this send to our students when education leaders are the ones who are cheating the system?

Public Record Evidence and charging documents can be viewed at the following:



It is very surprising that these "Defendants" have not yet resigned.
There must be a reason.
Losing a "teaching credential" results in what? Please explain.
Obviously these "defendants" have been proven in multiple events to be guilty as charged.
Why are they still employed?
Can these "Defendants" be charged with Criminal Perjury?


Local law enforcement has reviewed the evidence and wanted to investigate but the statute of limitations has passed.

The Board allowed the administration to bury the facts for a period of time.

It’s like a bad doctor or lawyer, the locals cover up and deflect the negligence until the state licensing agency steps in to clean house BECAUSE the locals governing boards refused to take proper ethical action.

Trustee Friedman said it best in 2016, “If we are ever investigated by the Grand Jury for these incitements, it’s going to be a real embarrassment.” Well… here we are- embarrassment is coming and there is plenty to go around.

The Board is the agency that should investigate and fire these individuals. The Board was intentionally lied to, misled, and had information withheld from them so that these individuals would not be discovered. Skelly’s base salary is now $330k. Deputy Superintendent Black’s is around $300k. Given age and years worked, they could each are an additional $250K+ per year in retirement payouts-

Do you see the incentives to lie to the Board?

As a Deputy Superintendent, Black is paid more than most Superintendents in other districts. He has no incentive to move as he has no chance of employment in another district. Skelly was lucky to land in the SMUHSD after the debacle in Palo Alto and through experience, knows that he only needs to keep the Board members happy to stay employed.

This is also about power. Management does not want to take the fall for a bad hire. (Yim) Skelly has stated multiple times that “people won’t want to work for us” if we don’t protect our own. Now they don’t want to work in the SMUHSD as we are known for our anti-sematic, racist, and criminal leaders if the past few years mean anything.

The actions under review are pure negligence and retaliation.

The Board’s statements to the media:
“They are good people”
“They did not do anything wrong”
“The CTC Investigation was bad”

The Board has been deceived and now they too will be publicly embarrassed.

The Board is spending a large amount of our public-school tax dollars defending the administrators Skelly and Black (not the principals) with a big-time law partner from Lozano Smith.

The Board is footing the bill to appeal this to the CA Attorney General’s Office will expand the investigation exposing even more embarrassment.

This is a conflict of interest as the Board should be investigating Skelly and Black. The Board is represented by SM County Counsel who should be defending the public and its tax dollars.

This item should be on a public agenda so that the people can have transparency regarding the leadership of their schools.

Trustees Land and Lees Dwyer stated that they did not even take the investigations into consideration when granting Skelly a new contract. That statement alone is abdication of duty.

As the public school principal (Land) and lawyer (Lees Dwyer) on the Board, these two should be the FIRST board members to call for an investigation to ensure ethics, transparency, and a positive model for the students.

The legal fees paid out by the district as well as settlements are expanding, yet secret. The district refuses to publish public record requests for its actions as it knows that it will be heavily scrutinized in the public. The legal expenses for Skelly and Black should be itemized and disclosed.

According to the public agendas of the SMUHSD, on only two listed settlements, the SMUHSD paid out settlements of $448,000 and another of $340,000. These are just two of many settlements that do not end up in the “regular” court system.

Principal Yim was a train wreck from the start. The BHS Parents Group urged the Board to fire her at the end of the first year. Instead, she partnered with Black (upon Superintendent Laurence's departure)and was allowed to stay for three years, destroying the history and traditions of BHS and dragging the district and its legal expenses down with it.

At first Skelly and the Board were deceived. They were lied to, misled, and had information withheld from them. Skelly became a useful pawn in the game. Once Skelly and the Board realized the truth, they should have taken a stand, changed course and fired those who were negligent.

In the end, it's the taxpayers, the students and the parents who will end up paying the price.

We know that the accounting is 100% accurate, Liz McManus ensured the district was safe and solvent. How the money was spent came from another office.

Trustee Marc Friedman was right, it’s time for another Grand Jury Investigation of the SMUHSD and how its money has been spent.


I don't get "The district refuses to publish public record requests for its actions as it knows that it will be heavily scrutinized in the public." How does that happen?


Mom's comment is why these guys are getting their teaching credential's removed.

Don't forget that Mr. Nelson has been issued multiple "retaliatory employment directives and reprimands" with threats of termination for "daring" to continue to request the production of facts....

The SMUHSD will not do anything to identify or correct its negligence unless there is a lawsuit to force it to perform.

The SMUHSD Administration has the power, authority, and the (your) money to do as it pleases. It also pays a law firm to bully students, parents, and community members as needed.

On the other hand, Parents and employees are at the mercy of their own finances to battle the deep pockets and lawyers of the district.

The Board does not listen to anyone or anything except what it is fed by the administration. The Board has been lied to, misled, and had strategic information withheld from it by the administration.

After Yim-Gate, a series of public record requests for documents and emails was filed by a parent/employee. The specific requests were exceptionally damning as Deputy Superintendent Kirk Black’s emails were at the heart of the request along with a series of BHS teachers who had been engaged in extreme negligence.

The parent/employee was requested to attend a “meeting” with Superintendent Kevin Skelly, Deputy Superintendent Kirk Black, and the head of the Lozano Smith Law Firm, Lou Lozano himself. (Skelly and Black just refer to him as our friend “Lou.”). The parent/employee was advised to “bring representation” to the meeting… to discuss the reduction of the public recorded act (PRA) request.

The objective of a meeting with two superintendents and the head of a law firm was NOT to discuss a public records request. The meeting was clearly intended to send a chilling effect to BACK OFF and get the PRA request dropped.

The parent/employee did not attend the meeting and conceded to the reduction in scope of the PRA. Ironically, Deputy Superintendent Black personally cancelled the PRA’s a few months later when HE was personally implicated in tampering with an investigation.

The following PRA was sent to the SMUHSD
“I am requesting the name of the SMUHSD Administrator listed on line 14 of page 12 of the Robert Happ to Chris Reynolds. Chris Reynolds was the Special Investigator hired by the SMUHSD to investigate the complaint by Kevin Nelson.
The name of the administrator should not have been redacted as they were performing their job in this interview."

"I am seeking the name of the SMUHSD Administrator because of the vast and distinct differences in the statements of Melissa Murphy to the SMUHSD on April 11, 2013 and on August 28, 2013. There is no logical reason for the inconsistencies in her testimony except that she gave completely different statements.”

Once Deputy Superintendent Black was caught, he was required to “unmask HIS name” and then he personally cancelled ALL PRA’s which had been approved and not a single Board member did anything about it!

Dear Kevin,
I am the administrator referenced on page 12, line 14 of the Robert Happ interview.
As you are aware, the District has already responded to your February 2016, March 2016, and April 2016 CPRA requests. In terms of your subsequent CPRA requests, those requests are unduly burdensome as they are overly broad, unfocused, duplicative, and the information sought has no reasonable value. Per Government Code section 6255, the public interest served by not disclosing the records clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Accordingly, the District does not intend to respond to those requests.
Thank you, Kirk

First Amendment Lawyers reviewed this response and many other PRA rejections by the SMUHSD using the “catch all” exclusion. The action by the SMUHSD is illegal, they are just blocking the facts from reaching the public.

The original documents listed above can be found athttps://www.facebook.com/CitizensforMr.NelsonandtheTRUTHatBHS

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

About the Voice

  • The Burlingame Voice is dedicated to informing and empowering the Burlingame community. Our blog is a public forum for the discussion of issues that relate to Burlingame, California. On it you can read and comment on important city issues.

    Note: Opinions posted on the Burlingame Voice Blog are those of the poster and not necessarily the opinion of the editorial board of the Burlingame Voice. See Terms of Use

Contributing to the Voice

  • If you would like more information on the Burlingame Voice, send an email to editor@burlingamevoice.com with your request or question. We appreciate your interest.

    Authors may login here.

    For help posting to the Voice, see our tutorial.