Burbank Resident Challenges School Board Over Paramo Benefits

A Burbank resident is calling on the Board of Education to block what he describes as an unauthorized retroactive benefit for former Superintendent John Paramo, raising questions about fiscal oversight and board transparency at Burbank Unified School District.

In a letter submitted to a local publication, resident Les Cohen argues that the board is preparing to reclassify Paramo’s June 2025 resignation as a retirement, a move that would make the former superintendent eligible for district-paid health coverage until age 65. That benefit, Cohen writes, is not available to employees who resign.

“Resignations and retirements are not interchangeable administrative labels,” Cohen wrote. “They carry different eligibility consequences under district policy.”

The sequence of events Cohen outlines is specific. On June 5, 2025, the board publicly accepted Paramo’s resignation and stated no settlement package was involved. A personnel report memorializing the resignation followed roughly a month later. Now, approximately nine months after that formal action, Cohen says the board is moving to undo it.

Cohen is careful to distinguish between Paramo’s CalSTRS pension, which he acknowledges Paramo is entitled to regardless of how the separation is classified, and the district-specific health benefit that would only apply under a retirement designation. The pension is not the issue. The benefit reclassification is.

The financial questions Cohen raises go beyond the cost of health coverage for one former administrator. He suggests district funds may have already been spent on benefits retroactively, before the board formally approved any change in status. If true, that would mean public money was expended without prior governing board authorization, a serious procedural problem under California school district governance rules.

“To date, the public has not heard when or how this board authorized a change of benefit status for Dr. Paramo from resignation to retirement,” Cohen wrote.

BUSD did not respond to a request for comment prior to publication.

The letter closes with a pointed reference to the Charlene Tabet scandal, an ongoing source of public frustration with BUSD leadership that has already eroded trust in the district’s financial stewardship. Cohen invokes it not as a gratuitous comparison but as context: the community is already watching how the board handles money and accountability, and it has reason to be skeptical.

His ask to the board is straightforward: vote no, and stand by the action it took in June 2025.

Whether the board proceeds with the reclassification at a forthcoming meeting is the next question. BUSD board meetings are held at the district office at 1900 W. Olive Avenue. Residents can check the district’s website for the next scheduled meeting and agenda postings.

The underlying governance concern Cohen raises is worth tracking regardless of where one stands on the specifics. School boards operate under California Education Code and their own governance policies, and retroactive changes to personnel records, particularly those that create new financial obligations, require clear documentation of board authorization. The public record, at least as Cohen describes it, does not appear to show that authorization existed before any benefits may have been extended.

For Burbank taxpayers, the dollar amount attached to extended health coverage for a single former employee may be modest relative to the district’s overall budget. But the procedural principle is not modest. If a board can quietly reverse a formal personnel action without public deliberation or a recorded vote, it sets a troubling precedent for how other personnel decisions might be handled.

Cohen’s letter reflects a kind of civic attention that tends to surface in Burbank: specific, documented, and rooted in policy rather than personal grievance. He is not asking for anything unusual. He is asking the board to honor what it already did.