Teachers and community press Atascadero school board for transparent superintendent search

Members of the Atascadero Unified School District community used the public‑comment period to press the Board of Trustees for a more transparent superintendent selection process and to raise concerns about a rumored internal candidate.

Several speakers said teachers and staff have been asking what stage the board is in the hiring process and urged an open interview process to build trust. “Having an open interview process allows for greater community involvement and transparency in the hiring process, which builds trust,” Mary Dunsmar, speaking for the Atascadero District Teachers Association and identified as a fifth‑grade teacher at San Gabriel Elementary, told the board.

Why it matters: The superintendent directs daily operations, sets districtwide priorities and plays a central role in academic and special‑education program decisions. Community members said they want assurance the person selected will be accountable and experienced in areas the district considers priorities.

Speakers described a pattern of concern about a potential internal candidate. John Mirzayi, a sixth‑grade teacher at Esasquero Middle School, referenced news accounts and questioned whether a candidate with past financial restitution displayed in online reports was appropriate to lead a district that relies on strict internal accounting. “It is extremely hypocritical to tell teachers to account for every last dollar and every last milk carton and then put in charge of multiple schools someone who misplaced $56,000,” Mirzayi said.

Other teachers and residents echoed worries about the candidate’s fit and the absence of visible stakeholder input. Lee Perkins, identifying himself as a district resident whose two children attended AUSD, said the candidate “does not meet the requirements and does not have the knowledge of special education law and issues” as alleged by union leadership. Several current teachers — some of whom declined to speak publicly out of concern for retaliation, according to speakers — told the board they do not support the candidate.

District staff responses recorded during the meeting did not include a formal update on the candidate pool or a vote. Trustees thanked speakers and noted the public comment had been received. Assistant Superintendent Kendall Darnell and others later fielded questions on unrelated agenda items but the board did not take formal action on hiring at this meeting.

What was requested: Speakers asked the board to (1) adopt an open interview process to allow community input and give applicants an opportunity to present directly to stakeholders, (2) disclose the stage of the search and the timeline for decisions, and (3) consider candidates with clear records on special‑education compliance and fiscal stewardship. Speakers cited a union statement opposing the internal candidate and public news reports as part of their evidence.

Next steps: The board did not announce a public timeline during the meeting. Multiple speakers requested the district share candidate counts and resumes and to involve site staff, parents and teachers in the next steps of the hiring process.