In reading Julia Reis' article, "Pleasanton schools superintendent Rubino placed on administrative leave" in your Dec. 23, 2016 edition, I was struck by two troubling points.
First, if the undisclosed "personnel matter" was serious enough to warrant Mr. Rubino being placed on administrative leave and to require the district to hire an investigator, why is he being paid while on administrative leave?
Secondly, as taxpayers -- and therefore Mr. Rubino's employers -- do we not have the right to transparency with regard to this matter? Why is Mr. Rubino being placed on leave (paid or otherwise) in the first place?
Absent the facts, taxpayers are left to speculate on the truth of the matter.
It's troubling that the PUSD chooses to continue to pay Mr. Rubino and not disclose the reasons for its actions in this matter.
In the private sector, any publicly traded company would be obliged to disclose the exact details of any similar situation involving a senior executive.
I think the taxpayers of Pleasanton deserve similar transparency.
-- Harry W. Edwards
This story contains 181 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 subscriber, please log in so you can continue to enjoy unlimited access to stories and archives. Subscriptions start at $5 per month and may be cancelled at any time.