Residents and union leaders accuse district leadership of a 'culture of violation' as superintendent's contract is extended
Loading...
Summary
Public commenters at the Jan. 13 Carpinteria school board meeting accused superintendent Rigby and trustees of fostering a 'culture of violation,' raised concerns about enrollment declines and legal spending, and asked the board to agendize investigations; the board reported a closed-session approval of a three‑year contract extension for the superintendent.
Speakers at Carpinteria Unified School District’s Jan. 13 board meeting delivered sustained criticism of district leadership, alleging a "culture of violation" and calling for greater transparency on budgeting, personnel decisions and investigatory practices.
A public commenter said the district has lost roughly 275 students in three years and accused leadership of prioritizing administrative pay and legal defenses over classroom investments. The same speaker and other union representatives asked the board why administrative salary and benefit costs are not transparently separated from classified and certificated totals on consent materials.
Members of the public also pressed the board about personnel transparency. One speaker said the personnel report omitted the resignation of the girls’ water-polo coach, Miss DeWitt, and alleged the resignation followed unaddressed misconduct and a flawed investigation process.
During the meeting the board chair reported formal closed-session actions: the board voted unanimously to deny a tort claim and unanimously approved a three‑year contract extension for the superintendent that includes a 3% salary increase effective July 1. The chair announced those closed-session outcomes early in the meeting.
Public commenters requested the board add several items to a future agenda, including: an examination of the board’s investigatory practices and compliance with the Brown Act, a review of legal expenditures tied to recent litigation, and a formal review of conduct and personnel handling. The board approved several personnel and consent items later in the meeting, including the personnel summary after the public comment period concluded.
What’s next: speakers asked the board to schedule formal reviews and procedural training; the board did not schedule those items during the Jan. 13 meeting.
