The "First Amended Employment Agreement for Chancellor Emeritus" (see the link above "accused Galatolo"), had a number of unusual stipulations:

1. The former Board entered a contract to employ Galatolo as "Chancellor Emeritus." Board policy 2.17, however, specifies that the title is only an honorific for RETIRED employees. Yet, the Board hired him as an administrator for another 32 months. Can the Board violate its own policy when it suits their fancy?
2. The only duty was to develop & administer the CSU Silicon Valley 2+2 program; yet, no such program existed. At the time, CSU had yet to conduct its feasibility study for a new campus; in the end, CSU determined that Canada College was not a feasible site. So, what was Galatolo to develop & administer? Also, he was not allowed on campus. Peculiar if you are developing & administering a new program
3. Reporting relationship - Galatolo reported solely to the new Chancellor, his former subordinate & mentee Michael Claire. Nepotism?
4. Salary - To do a job that was undefined, had no job description, lacked specific responsibilities, & allowed Galatolo to engage in outside employment, he was paid $38,975 a month + benefits, or approximately $1.6 million for the contract. Nice work if you can get it

I have always wondered why the Board would spend so much taxpayer dollars for an ill-defined project that might never come to fruition. To me, it always seemed like a quid pro quo. I know the Board & Galatolo were in conflict; he reported that to Skyline's presidential cabinet in the Spring of 2019 of which I was a member. At that meeting, Galatolo claimed to have won the battle; he eventually lost the war

But, why did the Board buy his silence with a lucrative exit package? The only reason ever stated, in the preceding Separation Agreement, was that there were difficulties in their employment relationship.

Three current Board members were "in the room where it happened." Taxpayers need truth & transparency