Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Labor Bargaining topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union president tells Carpinteria Unified board bargaining remains in impasse; legal action possible
Summary
Jay Hotchner, president of the district employees’ union, told the Oct. 22 board meeting that contract talks remain at impasse, criticized district leaders for avoiding in‑person bargaining, and urged the state mediator to schedule a follow‑up session; he also raised Brown Act and transparency concerns about consent‑agenda items and public‑records responses.
Jay Hotchner, president of the Carpinteria Unified employees’ union, told the school board on Oct. 22 that contract negotiations remain at impasse and said a state‑appointed mediator began meeting with the parties on Oct. 9. Speaking during public comment, Hotchner said the union and district were scheduled to meet in person but did not, and he criticized district leaders for refusing in‑person bargaining.
"Although confidentiality requirements prohibit Union leadership from discussing any actual proposals discussed during the mediation, we are permitted to share details pertaining to the process itself," Hotchner said. He added that "the first mediation session was far less efficient than it could have been," and said he was “hoping we're looking at November 12th" for the next session.
Hotchner also urged board members to heed employee proposals on safety, leave, compensation and special education and said the union has submitted more than 100 employee proposals, many of which the union contends the district rejected. He criticized the district for declining to meet face‑to‑face and warned that, if collaboration does not resume, the union may pursue legal remedies to protect employees’ rights.
Public commenters during the same period also accused the district of using the consent agenda to approve items without prior public review and said they had submitted a California Public Records Act request related to potential conflicts of interest that had not yet been acknowledged or answered.
The union speaker specifically questioned two consent‑agenda items (one involving community partnerships and another related to disclosure requirements), and flagged a $180,000 grant that, while supported by employees in principle, contains a 43‑page set of requirements the speaker said the board should have reviewed before approval.
Board procedure during the meeting moved forward: after public comment the board approved the minutes and then the evening’s agenda and consent agenda. Hotchner’s remarks and the union’s call for expedited mediation put a near‑term spotlight on labor relations; the union indicated it had invited the mediator to set a new session as soon as possible.
Next steps: the board continued with the evening’s agenda and later took votes on warrants and personnel; the union and district are expected to continue mediated bargaining and the union sought a follow‑up session in November.
