Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Critique topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Union representative publicly accuses Carpinteria Unified of legal spending and questions LCAP and administration hires
Summary
Employee representative Jay Hotchner accused the district of repeated unlawful actions, alleged $4–$5 million in taxpayer losses, criticized the superintendent’s LCAP and use of the consent agenda, and requested multiple future agenda items including an attendance analysis of board members.
At the June 16 Carpinteria Unified board meeting, Jay Hotchner — who identified himself as the primary elected employee representative in CUSD — used the public comment period to sharply criticize district leadership and budget and personnel choices.
Hotchner told the board he believes the district has repeatedly taken unlawful actions against employee leaders and has lost multiple court and administrative proceedings. "The district officials have ... misappropriated 4 to $5,000,000 of our taxpayers' money," Hotchner said, attributing the cost to repeated legal fights and consulting fees. He said the district appealed a recent state Public Employment Relations Board ruling and warned the board that further appeals would cost roughly another half‑million dollars.
Hotchner also criticized the use of the consent agenda to approve, he said, a 10‑day contract for a Board Certified Behavior Analyst (BCBA) for 2026–27 without adequate prior public notice and argued the newly hired special education director lacks the BCBA credentials previously provided by earlier directors. He framed that approval as symptomatic of a broader governance problem: "The superintendent's recommendation for SPED director did not include the very routine BCBA services ... instead, the superintendent's SPED director selection ensured that the SPED director would owe her rapid administrative assent to the superintendent," Hotchner said.
During the meeting Hotchner raised several other critiques: that budget slides mischaracterized "services and other operating expenses," that many part‑time employees do not receive district health care and that administrative payroll has grown while compensation to teachers and support staff lagged. He alleged the district’s recent audit showed the district failed to invest the required minimum in teacher and support compensation under the Education Code.
Hotchner asked the board to place several items on the July agenda, including an analysis of changes to public speaking opportunities and an examination of board member attendance records; he cited missed‑meeting percentages for named board members in the meeting record. The board did not take formal action in response to his requests during the meeting.
The district and board did not provide on‑the‑record factual rebuttals to Hotchner’s claims during the meeting. Several of Hotchner’s assertions reference prior board actions, court rulings and audit findings; those claims were presented as public comment and were not adjudicated at the meeting.
The meeting continued after public comment with scheduled votes and presentations.
