Norm Clevenger Files Lawsuit Against Santa Ynez School District
Clevenger, now principal at San Marcos High, demands monetary damages and reinstatement to his Santa Ynez post, although he says he has no intention of returning.
Norm Clevenger, the popular principal hired to lead San Marcos High School in Santa Barbara just months after his controversial firing from Santa Ynez Valley Union High School in February stirred parent outcry, has filed a lawsuit against the Santa Ynez School District.
“It was done prior to my interviewing for the position at San Marcos,” he wrote in an e-mail. “I have no intention in leaving San Marcos or returning to Santa Ynez High.”
The saga over Clevenger’s dismissal began Feb. 8, when Santa Ynez’s outgoing superintendent, Fred Van Leuven, informed Clevenger that he had decided not to renew Clevenger’s contract. Clevenger has said that Van Leuven’s decision amounted to a flip-flop: Earlier in the year, he said, Van Leuven had told him he would allow the new superintendent to make that decision.
Upset that the retiring Van Leuven was making the decision, Clevenger called school board member Joe Dugan to discuss the matter. A few days later, Clevenger — who had led the high school for nine years — was placed on administrative leave and escorted out of the building.
On Feb. 19, in an auditorium overflowing with parents, the school board decided not to renew his contract. The vote triggered an organized campaign to recall the school board, but the campaign, which claims it garnered 13,000 signatures, dropped the effort after Clevenger was hired at San Marcos. The group, Reformation of Santa Ynez High, said Clevenger’s hiring at San Marcos proved the point that the board was wrong.
Clevenger’s attorney, Bob Bartosh, said the late date is because of a back-and-forth negotiating exchange between himself and the school district’s legal counsel.
Clevenger is taking a pay cut to work at San Marcos High, where his annual salary will be $126,550. At Santa Ynez High, he made $132,000.
In the lawsuit, Clevenger alleges that the decision to fire him took place during an illegal secret meeting held by the school board, Bartosh said.
Specifically, Bartosh said that Clevenger tried to exercise his legal right under the California open meetings law — known as the Brown Act — to request a full public hearing, where complaints and charges against him would be aired. The public hearing was held Feb. 19, but, Bartosh said, Van Leuven’s testimony was insufficiently brief, in that he said only that he had lost confidence in Clevenger’s ability to lead.
“That isn’t ‘complaints and charges,’"Bartosh said. “We are fairly certain there were complaints and charges discussed in closed session.”
The Santa Ynez district’s new superintendent, Paul Turnbull, said that neither he nor the district’s legal counsel could discuss the litigation.
Turnbull was a rising star in the Santa Barbara School District until he accepted the top job in Santa Ynez on Feb. 8, the same day Van Leuven told Clevenger his contract would not be renewed.
Meanwhile, Santa Ynez High’s new principal is Suzanne Nicastro, formerly the principal of Vandenberg Middle School. Her April hiring ran counter to speculation in North County media that Turnbull had intended to fill the position with another administrator from the Santa Barbara district: Dos Pueblos High School Principal Mark Swanitz.
Swanitz’s father, Jerry, had served as a teacher, coach and administrator at Santa Ynez Valley Union High for 39 years. After Clevenger’s dismissal, Jerry Swanitz was appointed to serve as the school’s interim leader.
“That was a very unfortunate supposition,” Turnbull said Wednesday. “I think (Mark Swanitz) is an excellent principal and an even better person. … It basically was conspiracy theories, and it’s unfortunate.”
At the time of the speculation, Mark Swanitz was asked by the Santa Maria Times whether he had applied. He responded that it would be inappropriate for him to comment.
Noozhawk staff writer Rob Kuznia can be reached at .
» wrote on 08/20/08 @ 10:12 PM
The Reformation group (ROSY) claims that since Clevenger was hired by San Marcos this proves SYV made a mistake. As Paul Harvey would say...now here’s the rest of the story. Actually only 2 people applied for the SM job! Clevenger and another person that had no experience as a principal. Not much of a reason to do a victory dance. Maybe the SYV board knew what they were doing? I don’t find Clevenger’s response very “clever” ...the last time he saw the writ was in May. Please. As this article clearly points out, the lawsuit was filed a week after he accepted the SM position. So both Clevenger & his attorney missed this big point… Did he sign and date this document? Has he revised the writ over the past 2 months? I wonder if he will sue San Marcos when he leaves? I wonder if we can get Craig Morgan back? Inquiring minds want to know.
» wrote on 08/21/08 @ 11:57 AM
Too many Lawyers in America destroying the country. They need to get real jobs and get thier hands diry from hard work. Americans and Illegal aliens are now all poor victims its never your fault that you lost your job. Government employees are the biggest cry babiies, and they can’t be fired..No work ethic left in the USA, thanks to our number one enemy--- Lawyers.
» wrote on 08/21/08 @ 12:38 PM
Who is Craig Morgan?
[Editor’s note: Craig Morgan retired in June as San Marcos High’s principal.]
» wrote on 08/21/08 @ 04:07 PM
San Marcos Insider is dead wrong, does not have the facts and is spreading untruths, rumors and gossip. There were many more than 2 applicants for the principal job at San Marcos. Some were screened out early but 5 made it to the interview stage. San Marcos Insider has lost credibility and does not speak with authority. Reader beware.
» wrote on 08/21/08 @ 04:30 PM
As a SM parent I’m dumbfounded. Mr. Clevenger is suing his old school district for his job back, but doesn’t want the job. He’s suing because he was fired, but his resignation letter is on the SY board agenda in July (I checked online). He says he wasn’t involved with the lawsuit after May, but didn’t stop it from being filed after he was hired to be our principal. If he’s willing to sue a school district but he doesn’t know what he wants, what kind of damage will he do at SM? I am seriously considering pulling my son out of SM to avoid his obvious personal issues. What a shame for our great school!
» wrote on 08/21/08 @ 06:02 PM
I signed the Recall petition. I’m sorry I did. Clevenger suing the school in these tough times for schools is unthinkable. I don’t understand why he is suing. What are the damages? didn’t he get another job? I didn’t realize he made $132k, and now he is making $126K. Is a principal really that valuable to the school? It will take me about 5-6 years to make what he makes in 2! And he wants more! sounds pretty greedy to me. I hope the 6/11/08 Noozhawk article was a misprint & Clevenger didn’t get his masters degree from United States International University. I googled it. It looks pretty bogus!
» wrote on 08/21/08 @ 06:23 PM
I am sorry to hear that Mr. Clevenger is pursuing a lawsuit. I hope it does not distract him from performing his duties as principal of San Marcos High School. San Marcos is an excellent high school and deserves a principal who is focused on the needs of his students and not the “big” pay cut he had to take or revenge. I think that $126,550 is fair salary for his position. He should feel blessed to work at such a fine school. I don’t think Norm Clevenger is all he is cracked up to be. I know someone who worked for him and what he said to that person was blatantly discriminatory. However, the person did not pursue any actions believing that this type of action would have been detrimental to his/her career.
» wrote on 08/21/08 @ 07:28 PM
As a SMHS alum, my question is why would Dr. Sarvis and board bring problems over the hill to our shores. Mr. Clevenger’s attorney states their were “complaints and charges”. Most people know their own weaknesses so wouldn’t Mr. Clevenger know himself what these are??? Was he asked in the interview process why he thought his contract was not renewed? Was this same question asked to any who maybe in the know in SYV. I see that he is a Berkley grad from 1971, this may explain part of it.... Not sure his interests are the best for our students at SM and he could end up to be a Royal pain.
» wrote on 08/21/08 @ 08:42 PM
(What the ?) and (San Marcos Insider) are on the right trail. San Marcos will find out. Gather all of the reportings on this issue, set them side by side and look at all of the inconsistencies. I read he was fired all over the press and he was not, teacher’s vote 56 to 0 and then all the teachers were not there, to a verbal vote and then a raise of hands. The silents of classified employees should tell us something. They usally know wants want on a campus. Some people would have us beleive that the admin intimidated the classified employee’s and reported it to the DA. The DA found nothing but those same people insist something went on. If a classified employee was intimidated with say the loss of their job and you didn’t report it to the DA you could now loose your job and go to jail. Easy choice tell the DA.
Principal’s are an AT WILL employee. You need no cause at all for not renewing the contract. You do not have to give cause for not renewing your contracted pool service.
People are being taken for a ride. READERS BEWARE
» wrote on 08/21/08 @ 09:04 PM
What is this story all about? Where is the truth in the article or the responses. Each response offers concerns that parents should feel. I for one, am concerned about the future of SM high while in the hands of someone who is distracted be revenge. Maybe Dr Sarvis should review his choice of principal. A principal without principles is a terrible concern for the kids. What kind of leadership can he possible offer? I appears from the letters that Clevenger was concurrently employed by two school districts at the same time. I also muddies the accusations of the ROSY group and it’s spokespersons, two of whom I see running for the Santa Ynez High school board, about all the accusations that they made against the school district. In reviewing past SY news acticles and SM Times articles, I appears that perhaps Clevenger was NOT really Fired after all, hence the resignation letter. Othe accusations about employees meddling in favor of the school board were shown to be false a noted by the DA’s research and findings - ROSy still denies that the DA cleared the district of any wrongdoing. Does SY High really want these two community activists on the school board leading their students? I should doubt it. What other mistruths are being spoken by Clevenger and his cohards in ROSY- Obviously vengence is what he seeks. No return to the SY High school and a total overthrow of the board. Now he belongs to us here at SM High - I close a very concerned parent
» wrote on 08/21/08 @ 11:39 PM
Shame on us for allowing Clevenger to be our new principal. Reading all the news over these past several months one must question how much that was printed and said was truthful. Now we are perhaps seeing the “real” Clevenger. His apparent hatred for the students, staff, and administration is now obvious as is the real reasons for the formation of ROSY. See the comments, CLevenger was employed on the payrolls of both San Marcos and Santa Ynez at overlapping times. How real were the crowds of people at the SY board meetings - were they present to see their kids receive awards as the SY board minutes indicate or were they present to support Mr. Clevenger. We will probably never know but is it worth the chance for the San Marcos High School to be lead by a man who so hates his prior district that he wants to “punish” them by filing a lawsuit for “damages” when he is already employed by another school. This act shows much malice against the school, students, and parents in the Santa Ynez district to take away resources for no real cause. Shame on us for hiring him.
» wrote on 08/22/08 @ 10:17 AM
All of these comments are exactly why Mr Clevenger should exercise his right to sue. He has clearly been defamed and is in the middle of a huge effort to clear his name. Leave it to
the attorneys and perhaps a mediator to decide and move on. This type of commentary just generates more interest where we as alums/residents in Santa Barbara should just sit back and let the talking heads take care of it. There is no reason to believe it will not be done professionally.
» wrote on 08/22/08 @ 11:26 AM
we should give the principle a chance. sounds like he a figther knowin da system. maybe this whats sb shcools need. everything ive read says his gr8. I beleive rosy.
» wrote on 08/22/08 @ 12:11 PM
If Mr. Clevenger is about kids, by suing the SY district wouldn’t that be taking money from them? Maybe he has an agreement with the teacher’s that backed him at SY that they would take a paycut to cover his suit or forgo their raises in the future. Hopefully, we at SM have more sence than those in the valley and can protect our district and kids from any financial loss, we all know state and school budgets are beyond tight! Not a time to be frivolous or careless.
» wrote on 08/22/08 @ 02:51 PM
I want to know the backstory… bloggers sometimes like to fill in the blanks with their own versions. I’d rather have you find out for us what’s really going on.
» wrote on 08/22/08 @ 03:40 PM
Another Reader - sure Mr. Clevenger has the right to sue. But according to him he doesn’t even know what he’s doing. He’s suing to be reinstated to the job he resigned from, but he says he wouldn’t take it anyway. This isn’t the kind of person I want teaching my son about character.
» wrote on 08/22/08 @ 06:20 PM
San Marcos kids deserve a principal who is kid centered, kid focused. Mr. Clevenger is neither. This is a very selfish and self centered man who has a huge ego and has manipulated many people. Look up the positive qualities of a strong high school principal on the net. He is not the man. SM will rergret this hire. Glad my kids are gone. I have observed this man in meeting at the county level, he is the wrong person for San Marcos.How did he get hired? Who pushed this through? What was the role of County Office of Education and its Superintendent in this hire? This is very, very wrong and the kids and staff will suffer for it.
» wrote on 08/22/08 @ 06:41 PM
Too much is now being said about past events and other lives. We should all look at the current picture and realize that Mr. Clevengers past is no longer in question nor does he need vindication. His current actions are now in question and it is our responsibility to determine the current facts about his actions and respond accordingly. A new job should bring with it a new beginning in relationships which I believe Mr. Clevenger has already strained with his actions. Our shool is too good to be lead off course by personal revenge. It is time for our chief administrator to step forward to defend his choice in leadership. My daughter’s school life is sure to be affected by all these distractions...lawsuits, media coverage, etc.
» wrote on 08/23/08 @ 10:11 AM
Shame on Mr. Clevenger - not a great way to begin the School Year now is it? After reading the majority of these posts, parents should be concerned with the upcoming year. I agree with ‘What The?! ... and what a shame for our great school.
» wrote on 08/23/08 @ 04:48 PM
Ask Bruce Porter, the Head Rose, to SEE the 13,000+ recall signatures. Nobody, except for he, has ever seen them! I’ve heard it numerous times in the Valley they just don’t exist. So now it’s time for the old game of Put Up or Shut Up.
Porter had no way out except to run for one of the two Board seats himself this November. All this to save face after such a miserable showing with his signature drive! What will complete this ugly chapter for the high school is his complete defeat in the upcoming election.
S.Y.V.U.H.S. is a class-act high school that is on the cutting edge of academics & technology and they need this nagging issue to disappear!
» wrote on 08/24/08 @ 02:28 PM
Some of you folks have way too much time on your hands. If you were fired without due process what would you do? Sit back and take it like some spineless jellyfish. He is doing what he should, end of story. If the superintendent and board don’t play by the rules than they deserve whatever is coming. I’m sure Clevenger is doing this to clear his name and recover lost wages, makes perfect sense.
As far as his leadership at SMHS, shoot give some credit to the hiring committee, are some of you implying that due diligence wasn’t done on him? Losers. Get a life. I would love to see how you would react faced with the same undocumented, factless prejudgements thrown out here.
» wrote on 08/25/08 @ 04:23 PM
Please learn of the facts before you make your comments
» wrote on 08/26/08 @ 11:55 AM
Ditto - on Majordegan needing to get his facts straight. I believe the article above states his contract was not renewed(not fired)and lost wages??? Is he not employed now and was he not continuosly paid?
» wrote on 08/26/08 @ 05:47 PM
‘Readers Beware’ is correct and this is VERY crucial for complete understanding of this issue. UNLIKE TEACHERS, principals and other administrators have NO TENURE; they work on a stipulated contract which is typically a year-to-year contract. In other words, an employment contract is signed for a one year period and then renewed for another year, renewed for another year, etc. A superintendant/school board can decide that they do not want to renew a contract and they do not have to give or state any reason whatsoever for this decision. There can, in fact, be any number of reasons - small to large. This can include just wanting a different approach, a fresh outlook, someone with expertise in a particular problem area or it can be based on a misunderstanding or the fact that the given principal stepped on the wrong toes. Non-renewal of a contract is NOT the same as “being fired.” If the administrator is paid his/her stipulated salary for the given contract year, all is legal. School Boards NEVER state a reason in these cases. Their attorneys advise that stating a reason would likely trigger more litigation than not, so they are usually not allowed to state a reason. It is simply their perogative.
It is almost akin to being a “contract” employee, except you have benefits during your contract year. With that kind of job insecurity, a lot of principals do not like to make waves. You cannot expect most to stick out their necks to fight for what they really think.
Norm Clevenger is not the first principal this has happened to nor will he be the last. Many very good school principals have not had contracts renewed. They simply move on. This happens all the time in districts all over the state of California. Sometimes this might happen for very petty reasons that are not in the best interest of the students or District. However, the practice is not illegal. In fact, many principals get shuffled around to surrounding districts, as has happened in this case. It just does not get publicity because the parties normally move on without making waves as they know the publicity is not in anyone’s long term interest.
Teachers should appreciate their tenure as once they have it their jobs are pretty safe barring misconduct. Perhaps that is why principals are paid higher salaries; principals have greater job insecurity and have to deal with lots of politics and stress and in-fighting from all factions on the school site and beyond. For the most part they earn their money. Would you want that level of stress?
Now that I have clarified this issue, I would like to point out that only one other reader below got to the heart of the matter, as I see it. Why did Brian Sarvis and the SB School Board hire someone who was so publicly mired in this incident? It cannot be in the best interest of San Marcos High and the San Marcos student body.
Mr. Sarvis, what has happened to high school leadership in the Santa Barbara community? You and the SB School Board are accountable.
“Putting it all Together”
Santa Barbara
» wrote on 08/28/08 @ 08:49 AM
What does his hiring say about the SBSD board’s and Superintendent’s due diligence?
» wrote on 08/28/08 @ 12:42 PM
I agree, people should get the facts. Fortunately, I’m retired and I have done my homework. Unfortunately, I signed the recall petition prior to doing my homework and trying to get to the truth of this matter. It’s to bad the Valley newspapers have not done their job of investigative reporting, or letting their readers make comments like Noozhawk. They seem to print gossip and their version of the “truth”. I’ve even had my letters to the editor “edited”, or not printed at all. Interestingly, none of the SY Valley papers broke this story. It seems they want to make Clevenger a victim and ROSY heroes.
Fact, Clevenger was not fired. Clevenger’s contract was not renewed. He was an “at will” employee. I attended all of the board meetings between April & June. At the April Board meeting – during public comments even Clevenger said it was his idea to have the 1 year contract. He also told others he was going to retire after 07-08 school year. Clevenger reapplied for the SYVHS principal job, but did not get to the final 4. The old Super & the board were not part of the selection process. Clevenger had the opportunity to continue working at the school in a teaching capacity for the 08-09 year, therefore he did not do anything illegal. Interestingly, if one attended the board meetings and followed the comments in the paper, the board & the super did not say anything to ruin Clevenger’s reputation. Interestingly, the one’s that have cast a shadow of a doubt on Clevenger’s reputation are his “so-called” supporters. In the Feb board meeting my notes reflect Jeff Reck (SYVHS english teacher) was the one to first mentioned that Clevenger must have done something illegal - porn on a computer or sexual harassment...-if he was not going to work through his 6/30 contract. This point was reiterated by a mass email I received from english teachers/teacher representatives Tory Babcock and Jeff McKinnon. The only thing the board & super said was “they lost confidence” in Clevenger. Anyone who knows anything about law knows this is a safe harbor statement. Who can blame them. Who wants to be sued and Clevenger is entitled to his privacy.
» wrote on 08/28/08 @ 12:43 PM
MajorDegan is incorrect on 2 other points. One, Clevenger did not lose wages. He was paid through his contract June 30, 2008. Two, his accusation that the board and the super “did not play by the rules” is baseless.
As my name states, I regretfully signed the recall petition in the heat of the moment when the group formed in the schools theatre during the March board meeting. I believe the recall group has made serious mistakes, and the media has been very kind to them by not exposing these mistakes. First, they accused the board of not listening to the public that supported Clevenger. The board spent a lot of time listening at the board meetings, but they didn’t agree with the opponents. Didn’t ROSY make the mistake of not listening? They said they collected 13k-14k signatures, but they over-ruled the desire of over 20% of the voters by deciding not to turn in the signatures to the county. Who made this decision? Their press release says “the group has pondered its options”, and “a spokesman for the ad hoc committee” but no names. Even their website doesn’t list names of the “group”. The only names that appear are Bruce Porter and Colleen Hefley. If this is such a grass roots effort (not!) why only two people making these big decisions, or are the others afraid to be named.
I don’t believe they have all of the signatures. I guess we will never know since the only one that can make that decision is the county. I base my decision on two things: track record and the Aug 6 press release. Virtually all of the issues ROSY has raised from Mark Swanitz being the next principal to bringing in the DA have been wrong. For me Porter and Hefley have lost all credibility. Their press release had way too much anger in it for them to just drop it. There were many quotes that could be used to illustrate this point. “The members of the school board have effectively lost the moral authority to govern” was one of them. With that much anger still remaining, I believe if they had the signatures they would have taken them to the county and we would have a special election in Nov for less than $10k. How can the media just take ROSY’s word for it? I also find it interesting that Porter has accused the Board of being a like a “good ol boy club” being self appointed - which is untrue. No one ran against them, but is that their fault? The recall could have resolved this issue also, all 5 would have to be “re-elected.” ROSY actually states their first goal “was actually exceeded, as Norm has been selected to lead and even larger high school.” I believe this statement reflects that ROSY is the true “good ol’ boy” network. So, their goals was not to get Norm back to SYVHS or getting a great principal to replace him. It was to get him a job! These opinions were not allowed to be published in the Valley papers.
» wrote on 09/02/08 @ 06:50 PM
Where do we go from here? No responses from any new media nor school administrators. Not even a word from the County Superintendent of Schools where Clevenger’s wife is an Assistant Superintendent. It appears that Clevenger will be in place and any lawsuits will take away from the taqxpayere monies intended for kids. Despite Clevenger’s leave with pay he is still seeking more - look out Santa Barbara, your pockets are pretty deep and may be picked next.