Howard Hills was elected to serve LBUSD, not punish it
- Published:
- 2026-06-05
- Retrieved:
- 2026-06-05
Signed letter to the editor (opinion/advocacy, board-minority-aligned). Erika Rule's framing; Hills's intent is characterized in hedged terms ('in my view,' 'seemingly'). Notable for conceding the audit substance — Rule grants the healthcare-contribution issue was real and the correction necessary — and arguing trustee Howard Hills weaponized it rather than focusing on controls and prevention. This is Rule in Stu News LTE format, distinct from her May 28 Substack piece 'Howard Hill's Campaign Against LBUSD.' Byline location: Aliso Viejo.
Key points
- Concedes the healthcare-contribution issue 'required review, correction, legal analysis and improved internal controls' and that the correction was necessary.
- States the issue was district-administered: staff 'did not set the rates, design the contribution structure, or secretly drain money from classrooms.'
- Notes the district 'identified the issue, reviewed it, made it public and pursued a corrective path that did not claw back money from employees who did not create the problem.'
- Argues Hills treated the issue 'like an opening' and as 'a vehicle for revenge' rather than focusing on 'controls, processes and prevention.'
- Thesis: 'He was elected to serve the district, not to punish it.'
Cited by 2 events
-
Howard Hills did not approach this as a problem to be resolved; he treated it like an opening. ... He was elected to serve the district, not to punish it.
Erika Hennon Rule, letter to the editor, Stu News Laguna, June 5, 2026. Rule's framing of Hills's handling of the healthcare-audit issue.
-
The district identified the issue, reviewed it, made it public and pursued a corrective path that did not claw back money from employees who did not create the problem.
Erika Hennon Rule, letter to the editor, Stu News Laguna, June 5, 2026. Rule's characterization of the benefits-correction path; she frames the issue as real and the correction necessary.