The Election Results Are In (Part II):
by Brian Campbell
The Election Deniers Were Right
Apparently abusing authority over children now comes with balloons and a hero’s welcome
Well, It’s Official
Washington Elementary Principal Arielle Curry admitted she led deliberations that overrode a student election, rejected the students who actually received the most votes, and selected runners-up instead. In the presidential race, that meant denying the actual winner the office he won and installing Curry’s own child, who lost the election, as student body president.
74 to 51. Not even close.
Curry said she “led deliberations.” That means other adults were involved. A group of adults looked at the results, knew who won, and decided the vote would not determine the outcome.
Lose the Election, Install Your Child
The district’s assistant superintendent for Human Resources, John Becchio, stated, “The district expects that for student/ASB elections, the candidate with the most votes wins.”
Yet according to a concerned Washington parent, an Independent reporter told her that cheating had been going on for years.
If cheating has been going on for years, that is not a defense; it makes the story bigger.
A parent who raised two children at Washington remembers three principals in roughly the past 15 years who had children there: Arielle Curry, Ann Hubbard, and Damien. Damien’s children were too young to run for office, and the parent does not recall whether Hubbard’s children ran nearly a decade ago.
A parent also alleges Curry manipulated the previous year’s student election. If true, perhaps somebody should examine those older elections instead of using history to excuse the present.
When Breaking the Rules Becomes the Culture
First, somebody breaks a rule. Then somebody explains why it is not really a big deal. Eventually the exception becomes the norm, and the people questioning it become the problem.
People keep saying politics has become divisive. Maybe politics is only the symptom. Maybe our culture has forgotten what character looks like.
Barna identified the Santa Barbara–Santa Maria–San Luis Obispo region among America’s ten most post-Christian metropolitan areas, while Santa Barbara County has ranked fourth highest in California for juvenile arrests. Santa Barbara Unified has also fought with supporters of the Good News Club over access and inclusion in school programs.
Then we wonder why distrust and disorder grow. Character matters most when doing the right thing costs you something, and here that meant accepting that your own child lost.
Speak Up and Become the Problem
Parents say the ugliness did not end with the vote. When the winning student’s mother challenged what happened, Curry reportedly made a serious accusation against the 11-year-old winner involving her daughter.
Parents also allege the retaliation continues, with school staff harassing parents who spoke up about the cheating.
If those allegations are substantiated, the lesson becomes: lose the election, change the result, install your own child, attack the winner, harass the parents who speak up.
Is this elementary school or a federal political campaign? All we need now is a Super PAC.
Does Race Suddenly Not Matter?
Curry is a Black woman. The child who won the election and was denied the office is Hispanic.
That does not establish racial motive. But reverse the identities. If a white principal overrode an election, denied a Hispanic 11-year-old the office he won, installed her own child instead, and then attacked the winner’s character after his family objected, would race suddenly become part of the story?
It is worth asking, because our culture increasingly appears willing to tolerate unequal treatment while outrage often depends more on the identities involved than on the conduct itself.
A Hero’s Welcome
After administrative leave, Curry returned to the same principal job and received a hero’s welcome, complete with a huge WELCOME BACK balloon display and the school mascot beside her.
No demotion, reassignment, termination, suspension without pay, or other formal discipline has been publicly disclosed.
And Curry did not apologize for cheating, overturning the election, denying the winner the office, or speak directly to the child who won. She apologized “for allowing this practice to persist” and said the process lacked “transparency and fairness.”
She led the deliberations, her child benefited, and she returned to the same leadership position beneath balloons.
From Schoolhouse Rules to the Rule of Law
This selective morality does not stop at the schoolhouse door. Nationally, politicians preach that “Nobody is above the law,” while fighting over which laws and institutions deserve respect.
DHS accused Congressman Salud Carbajal of doxxing an ICE employee during the 2025 Carpinteria raid; Carbajal disputes that characterization.
Fine. Then apply the principle consistently.
Elections cannot matter only when our preferred side wins, and accountability cannot depend on politics, race, power or popularity.
Maybe Voters Should Look Upstream
If this behavior troubles voters, perhaps the question should not stop with one principal. Who oversees the district? Who establishes the culture? Who decides what conduct earns discipline and what conduct ends with the same job and a hero’s welcome?
People talk endlessly about the school-to-prison pipeline. Perhaps we should examine what happens at the beginning of it.
Bad behavior does not become culture overnight. It becomes culture when institutions tolerate it, media excuse it, leaders rationalize it, and the public eventually stops being surprised by it.
Children learn far more from what adults do than from posters about integrity hanging on school walls. They notice who gets punished, who gets protected, who gets harassed for speaking up, and who gets welcomed back with balloons.
If you are only moral when morality benefits you, you are not moral. You are strategic.
Scripture says:
“The integrity of the upright shall guide them: but the perverseness of transgressors shall destroy them.” — Proverbs 11:3
The results are in.
74 beat 51.
The election deniers were right.
And apparently abusing authority still gets you balloons.
••••••••••••••••••
Institutionalizing Cheating and the Problem of Accountability
By Mark Mandrell
The student election scandal at Washington Elementary School has exposed a profound breach of integrity within our public education system. However, the central issue extends beyond the actions of Principal Arielle Curry. It concerns what takes place when an institution permits questionable practices to become routine, thereby compromising its own capacity to discipline those who engage in them.
Curry admitted to overturning student election results, including one instance where her own child was declared the winner despite another student receiving more votes. Children invested effort in campaigning, preparing speeches, and voting, operating under the assumption of a fair and respected electoral process. Instead, they learned that school officials could unilaterally disregard their votes and impose a preferred outcome. This constitutes a profoundly damaging lesson in democracy, honesty, and personal responsibility.
When Misconduct Becomes Standard Practice
Perhaps the most revealing aspect of Curry’s statement was her apology for allowing the practice of overriding election outcomes to persist. Consider the implications: this was not merely a spontaneous individual decision. Her acknowledgment indicates the existence of an established process for altering election results. This shifts the focus from individual culpability to institutional responsibility.
If school officials had previously accepted or tacitly tolerated this practice, the district may have undermined its own authority to enforce meaningful discipline. An employee facing serious repercussions could reasonably argue that the institution had historically permitted the same conduct. When an organization condones misconduct long enough for it to become customary, it creates a self-inflicted accountability crisis.
This dynamic may help explain Curry’s relatively brief administrative leave and subsequent reinstatement. While not conclusive proof of the district’s reasoning, it is a plausible scenario warranting thorough examination. An institution cannot credibly demand integrity from its employees while simultaneously permitting practices that erode the very principles it professes to uphold.
California Law, District Policy, and Enforcement Challenges
California law and the Santa Barbara Unified School District’s own regulations establish frameworks for addressing employee misconduct. California Education Code §44932 and the district’s Administrative Regulation 4118 list dishonesty and unprofessional conduct as potential grounds for disciplinary action against permanent certificated employees.
These provisions do not mandate automatic dismissal. Employees possess legal rights, and a principal’s specific employment classification is a relevant factor. Nevertheless, the core issue persists: the district has codified professional standards, and the public is entitled to assurance that these standards are applied consistently.
If overriding election results had evolved into an accepted practice, the district may have created the precise conditions that complicate disciplinary action. The institution’s historical tolerance could become a central element of an employee’s defense. This is the inherent danger of institutionalized misconduct: ultimately, the organization forfeits its moral authority—and potentially weakens its legal standing—to hold individuals accountable.
Teachers’ Unions and Institutional Protection Dynamics
California’s influential teachers’ unions introduce another layer to this accountability dilemma. Organizations like the California Teachers Association and United Teachers Los Angeles wield significant influence through collective bargaining, political advocacy, and employee representation.
Employees are entitled to due process and protection from arbitrary discipline. However, these protections must not morph into a shield against legitimate accountability. If an employer seeks to discipline an employee for conduct that management previously tolerated, the employee’s union has a compelling argument that the employer failed to establish or consistently enforce the standard in question.
This constitutes a powerful defense in any workplace, particularly within a system governed by extensive employment protections and procedural safeguards.
No evidence suggests a teachers’ union intervened directly in Curry’s case, and principals typically occupy management roles outside teachers’ bargaining units. However, the broader lesson resonates across California’s public education system. A school district that condones misconduct furnishes employee representatives with substantial grounds to challenge disciplinary measures when accountability is finally pursued. The responsibility for preventing this scenario rests squarely with district leadership.
The Enduring Importance of Personal Integrity
None of the foregoing excuses Curry’s individual actions. A principal bears a fundamental responsibility to exercise independent ethical judgment, especially when personal interests are involved. Furthermore, a meaningful distinction exists between voluntarily admitting a wrong and acknowledging it only after being confronted.
If Curry independently recognized her error, proactively came forward, and sought to rectify the election results, such action would merit acknowledgment. Conversely, if her admission followed external complaints or exposure, the context is markedly different. Regardless, the district’s investigation must scrutinize the systemic practice itself, not merely the individual actor.
The Core Failure is Institutional
The public is now aware that student election results were overturned and that the principal acknowledged permitting the practice to continue. What remains obscured is the practice’s origin, its duration, the scope of awareness among staff, and the rationale for its tolerance. These are quintessential questions of institutional accountability.
An independent review should: establish a complete history of the election process; determine whether other administrators participated in or approved of the practice; examine the application of the district’s disciplinary standards; and identify necessary corrective measures to prevent recurrence. The district must also ensure that students who legitimately won their elections receive appropriate recognition.
This incident does not prove pervasive corruption throughout the Santa Barbara Unified School District. It does, however, provide concrete evidence of a compromised electoral process at one school and sufficient justification to rigorously examine the supervisory failures that allowed it to persist. When cheating becomes standard practice, the institution itself becomes complicit in the problem. Consequently, the institution may find its own history impedes its ability to hold anyone accountable.
Our children deserve better than a system where authority figures can arbitrarily override election results. They deserve educators who embody the integrity they teach, administrators who enforce rules consistently, and a school district willing to confront its own failings. Integrity cannot be optional. Accountability cannot commence only upon discovery. An institution cannot expect its employees to respect standards that its own leadership has allowed to deteriorate.
******
Mark Mandrell is a longtime Santa Barbara resident, retired financial executive and former CFO, devoted husband, and father of three sons who values family, integrity, and community.
******
Ballots are out.
If you plan to vote early, start with California Current’s proposition guide—written from the only point of view that actually pays the bill: the overworked, under-appreciated California taxpayer.
We don’t hand you a cheat sheet and walk away. Every recommendation is backed by clear headed research. Click the link, read the case, then mark your ballot with your eyes open.
Please consider sharing this easy-to-use guide with your neighbors.
NO on 1. The Con Job
NO on 2. Supersizing California’s Slush Fund
NO on 3. The Forever Tax
NO on 4. Your Money, Their Campaigns
NO on 5. Recall Revenge
NO on 37. Robin Hood in Reverse
NO on 38. Pork Barrel Science
YES on 39. Trust, but Verify
NO on 40. Tax Billionaires Today, Tax Everybody Tomorrow
YES on 41. Sergey’s Silver Bullets
YES on 42. Sergey’s Silver Bullets
YES on 43. Stop Getting Steamrolled by Special Taxes
NO on 44. Unions to Draw More Blood
YES on 45. Pondering Prop 45
Note: Props 41 and 42 share one article. The Prop 44 article publication pending.
According to transparent California, Arielle Curry receives total compensation of $221,361.00 annually including pension and other benefits. Every time I look at transparent California I want to puke over the obscene salary paid to public employees. Every time I have to interact with a public employee I want to barf over their utter incompetence. Ms Curry is a fine example of an incompetent, dishonest, unqualified boob overcompensated for doing a lousy job. She should be fired and replaced with another incompetent boob. There is one positive note to this and it is that students got a lesson not in how the world should work but in how it does work today. It is a shame but election cheating and promotions based in skin color, sex or ideology are all too common.
And now for the rest of the story .........................Campbell writes:
......."Parents say the ugliness did not end with the vote. When the winning student’s mother challenged what happened, Curry reportedly made a serious accusation against the 11-year-old winner involving her daughter.
Parents also allege the retaliation continues, with school staff harassing parents who spoke up about the cheating.
If those allegations are substantiated, the lesson becomes: lose the election, change the result, install your own child, attack the winner, harass the parents who speak up."......