As the Santa Barbara Unified school board faces a projected $20 million deficit and declining reserves, trustees voted unanimously Thursday night to change who leads the district’s Finance Committee — removing community member Todd Voigt in favor of future boardmember leadership.

The move — approved in Resolution 2024-25-32A — immediately drew criticism from parents, primarily on the Facebook page S.B. Parent Leadership Action Network (S.B. PLAN), who accused the board of consolidating power just as the district’s fiscal outlook grows increasingly precarious.

“This is a power grab,” said Michele Voigt, wife of Todd Voigt and a San Marcos parent who spoke during public comment. “We are at a point of serious financial concern, and the board is reducing independent oversight.”

Voigt urged the board to view the First Interim Budget Report as more than numbers on a slide. “I’m asking you tonight to look at this first interim not as a technical report, but a test of your governance and your duty to the community you represent,” she said. “Your own projections point to reserves falling below the state minimum and trending toward zero within a few years. And no one will be able to say that they didn’t see it coming.”

Despite Voigt’s comments, the district’s interim financial report told a more nuanced story. The district’s chief business official, Conrad Tedeschi, iterated different figures, figures that were part of the long-term financial plan approved by the board. Overall the numbers were not a surprise, emphasizing that the district is not in crisis and remains above the state-mandated 3 percent minimum reserve level.

According to Tedeschi, there are improved revenue projections and a growing deficit. Total revenue for 2024-25 increased to $244 million, up from the adopted budget, driven by higher-than-expected one-time grants, including a major boost to the Expanded Learning Opportunity Program, which rose from a projected $3 million to $5.2 million after the state updated its formula. However, expenditures also climbed, pushing the projected deficit from $15 million to $20 million. Tedeschi said the increase reflects rising labor costs following the district’s recent wage settlement with teachers. Salaries and benefits now account for 81 percent of all district spending. 

Despite the shortfall, Tedeschi emphasized that reserves remain above target: currently at 8.52 percent, compared to the board’s adopted budget of 8.92 percent and well above the state-required 3 percent minimum. Multi-year projections show that with planned reductions, the deficit could shrink to $6.7 million by 2027-28, provided the district makes at least $6 million in cuts over the next two years to maintain a minimum 5 percent reserve. “That’s not a satisfactory level for a basic aid district,” Tedeschi said, “but staying above 5 percent is the minimum needed to keep our budget certified.”

Still, there was ongoing tension over who chairs the Finance Committee — centering on concerns about transparency and legal compliance. The board’s newly passed resolution requires that only elected trustees can serve as committee chair, replacing community member Todd Voigt with a boardmember moving forward.

At the heart of the move is compliance with the Brown Act, California’s open-meeting law that governs transparency in public agencies. Under the law, committees subject to the Brown Act must have properly agendized items for any votes or actions to be legal and binding. Board President William Banning said the Finance Committee had previously taken action on items not properly listed on agendas, potentially violating the law and opening the district to liability. 

“These amendments reinforce that commitment [to compliance] and position the Finance Committee to continue its work in a way that is focused, lawful, collaborative, and ultimately highly valuable to the board and the community we serve,” Banning said.

The amended resolution changes Finance Committee bylaws to require that only a boardmember may serve as chair, ending Voigt’s tenure. It also outlines procedures for member removal and reaffirms the committee’s advisory-only role.

“I am the Chair of the Finance Committee, maybe for 15 more minutes,” said Todd Voigt during public comment. “I agreed to serve because I care deeply about this community and its future. I’m a volunteer with no political ambitions. My sole purpose is to provide sound advice and expertise for the benefit of our schools.”

Voigt called the resolution a “serious mistake” and warned that removing the independent chair would erode the very trust the district had been trying to rebuild. “If the board controls both the committee and its leadership, that independence disappears,” he said.

He also made a pointed recommendation to the board. “Should this passage occur … I strongly urge the board to select Boardmember [Celeste] Kafri as the chairperson. She has consistently demonstrated a commitment to addressing the district’s financial challenges,” Voigt said. “By contrast… Boardmember Banning opposed a committee goal I proposed to reduce the deficit. Leadership that does not prioritize deficit reduction is unacceptable.”

Board President William Banning, who was formally elected to the role earlier in the evening, defended the resolution and its timing.

“This is a normal part of building effective governance structures,” he said. “The resolution … strengthens Brown Act compliance … clarifies the committee’s strictly advisory role … and ensures that meetings are presided over by a trustee trained in Open Meeting Law and accountable to the public.”

Banning said that while the original intent was to demonstrate openness by appointing a community chair, it had created confusion around agenda-setting and governance boundaries. “That pattern typically follows the line of … a community member is chair in an attempt to demonstrate openness and shared leadership … and then in early meeting experiences, there is agenda-setting confusion, there’s boundary drift, and difficulties with Brown Act procedures.”

Boardmember Kafri pushed back on parts of the resolution, questioning why the committee chair needed to be replaced at all. “Why is it that we need to replace the committee head … because of a misunderstanding about the Brown Act when most of the committee members have never been on a Brown Act committee before?” she asked. “Could an orientation and a better understanding … prevent future Brown Act violations?”

That prompted clarification from Banning: “It is not only common, but standard practice throughout the state of California … that the committee chair be one of the appointed board representatives.”

Boardmember Gabe Escobedo supported Kafri’s interest in making the committee more effective, but reminded the board to stay focused. “More of what Ms. Kafri is talking about is like the mechanics, and I trust that Mr. Tedeschi will be responsive to the needs of the group and be able to present the information in a way that is going to be digestible,” he said. “What I would hope is that we can focus more on just the mechanics of what’s in the resolution — the words.”

The resolution passed unanimously, but not without raising questions about trust, power, and what transparency means when community expertise is asked to sit down.

As Escobedo noted: “We have the fiduciary responsibility…. It only makes sense to direct the work of the advisory committee to aid us in making those really difficult decisions.”