Town Square

Post a New Topic

San Mateo County Community College District vice chancellor pleads not guilty to misusing public funds

Original post made on Dec 28, 2021

Jose Nuñez, the latest district official ensnared in a criminal investigation into the San Mateo Community College District, pleaded not guilty last week to more than a dozen felony charges alleging that he misused public funds.

Read the full story here Web Link posted Monday, December 27, 2021, 12:19 PM

Comments (1)

Posted by Michael B. Reiner, PhD
a resident of another community
on Dec 28, 2021 at 10:21 am

Michael B. Reiner, PhD is a registered user.

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

Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.


Post a comment

Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Stay informed.

Get the day's top headlines from Almanac Online sent to your inbox in the Express newsletter.

What to do if you get a noisy Rheem/Ruud heat pump water heater
By Sherry Listgarten | 15 comments | 4,749 views

Do Palo Alto city officials ever, ever have enough money?
By Diana Diamond | 48 comments | 3,508 views

Beverly Hills' hit restaurant Mírame completes the lineup at Menlo Park’s Springline
By The Peninsula Foodist | 3 comments | 2,900 views

Travelin’ Solo: Salvation Mountain and East Jesus
By Laura Stec | 0 comments | 1,726 views

Need vs Needy
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 979 views