Cartwright School District adopts FY27 budget amid board dispute over consultant payments and missing voucher

The Cartwright School District governing board voted to adopt the 2026–27 annual expenditure budget and the 2026–27 desegregation budget following a public hearing and a detailed budget presentation by district staff. The motion carried after a roll-call vote during the July meeting; one member abstained.

The budget presentation reviewed how state funding is calculated, emphasizing average daily membership (ADM) and the district’s revenue control limit of roughly $89.4 million. The presenter explained the district’s multiple “buckets” of funding (maintenance and operations, capital, classroom site funds), the expected ADM decline that informed staffing assumptions, and projected carryforward and one-time state add-ons that will be reflected in a later revision. “We use fund accounting. So what that means is that we have different buckets of money used for different purposes,” the presenter said during the overview.

Why it matters: The budget sets district priorities for staffing, classroom resources and capital projects for the coming school year. Board members and members of the public used the hearing to press administrators on budget details and spending transparency.

During board questioning, Member Garcia repeatedly demanded a full list of consultants and exact payment amounts, saying taxpayers deserve to know “where their money is going.” She named two consultants and cited months when she believed payments were unusually large. Garcia said she had requested the detail for more than a year and raised concern about a voucher she said was missing from packet materials, identifying it as voucher 1192. “For almost a year, I’ve been asking for the consultants… who are they, what are they doing, what are they being paid?” Garcia said.

Administration responded that consultant payments are paid from different funds depending on purpose, and that procurement rules set thresholds for quotes and solicitations. District leadership noted timing and processing reasons can make voucher numbers appear out of sequence in printing and described the routine availability of voucher check listings in the executive packet. “We bring every voucher that is printed to the governing board and we’re very transparent on what we pay out on purpose,” a district administrator said.

Board action and votes: After discussion and the public hearing, the board took a roll-call vote to adopt the budgets. Recorded votes included multiple yes votes and one abstention. The motion carried and the budgets were approved for adoption; the administration will return with a budget revision in September to reflect state add-ons and finalized carryforward figures.

Public comment and oversight requests: At the hearing a retired teacher and other commenters raised concerns about staffing levels, class size and costs associated with retreats and administrative separations. The board pledged to deliver more documentation and to discuss how consultant contracts and vouchers will be shared for board review. The district also noted it had undergone procurement and audit reviews during the year and said follow-up items will be addressed in future meetings.

What’s next: The board scheduled a revision for September to incorporate recently passed state funding items and carryforward adjustments; members requested a clear, accessible listing of consultants and voucher details to be provided to the governing board and included in executive materials.