SMMUSD Superintendent Discusses Details of Fundraising Reform by Kristina Kell

March 29, 2012

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s Superintendent’s Advisory Committee met Monday night in Malibu at Webster Elementary School to discuss details of a districtwide fundraising campaign. The anticipated issue on the agenda was the revelation of what Sandra Lyon and her staff consider “quality programs” of educational need, which she intends to equalize among SMMUSD schools.

The superintendent allowed members to view a preliminary breakdown of “quality programs” currently funded by all PTAs. Under this model, distributed to the members of the advisory committee, school programs are put into tiered categories and the top tiered programs will be funded first. Top tiered programs in Santa Monica, which are slated to receive the money from Title 1 Funding (Federal Government funds distributed public schools in need), include instructional aids, Spanish reading support, English reading support, and bilingual community liaisons. At this point, no Title 1 money funds any of the above programs in Malibu.

To date, the Malibu PTAs have funded their own instructional aids and reading assistants, as well as computer labs and computer leases, art history instruction, science labs equipment and maintenance, P.E. assistants, homework clubs, field trips, gardening programs, dance, music and more. Under the new fundraising model, all of these programs will be theoretically funded by the SMMUSD Education Foundation’s collective fundraising effort.

Opponents of the new fundraising model claim that the burden of raising enough money to continue to support the same programs in the two cities falls directly on the shoulders of Malibu residents and their donations to the PTA, because the Malibu PTA raises substantially more money than the Santa Monica PTA. They contend that Malibu residents can expect to receive between 27 cents and 45 cents on every dollar they donate to the PTA under the superintendent’s model, while the remaining assets are funneled into Santa Monica to fund programs at schools where fundraising is low. If there are not enough funds to pay for all the existing programs in Malibu and equal ones in Santa Monica, the programs the district determines are less important will be dropped. These opponents also say…

To read more go here (article on p. 17 of the 3-29-12 issue).

RE: Resignation of Joan Chu Reese from the FOC: A Letter from Ann Hoover

March 23, 2012

To:  Members of the SMMUSD Board of Education & Superintendent Sandra Lyon:

You may have thought I’d shelved my purple pen, but the resignation of Joan Chu Reese from the FOC and the surrounding circumstances have forced me to pull that pen out of retirement.  As did Ms. Reese in her letter of resignation, I also wish to exempt from the following comments Nimish Patel, Laurie Lieberman, and Ben Allen.

It is a very sad day for SMMUSD public education when a highly-intelligent, highly-qualified, articulate, fair, objective, and devoted individual like Ms. Chu Reese is effectively forced out of a critical SMMUSD volunteer position. Ms. Chu Reese is that rare sort of individual – one with a point of view, but not an agenda – that we have too few of in this district.  Adding insult to injury – the attack on independent points of view through intimidation, behind the scenes maneuvering, silencing of non-Board-centric points of view, and divisive politics evidenced in this situation demonstrates what has become the prevailing M.O. of a particular faction of the Board, one which is intent on shutting down representation on the FOC – and in many other SMMUSD activities as well – of all but a select portion of Board-“friendly” SMMUSD residents.

Do we still live in a Democracy, where all points of view can freely be aired and respected, regardless of ultimate outcome?  It doesn’t seem so anymore, certainly not in SMMUSD.

The departure of Ms. Chu Reese, together with departures from the FOC of other highly qualified and objective individuals that may follow, is a tremendous loss for SMMUSD.  It diminishes all of us, whether you choose to realize that or not.

Ms. Lyon – At this point, you may be realizing that you are but a pawn in a political power game.  With one faction of the Board intent upon drawing so many harsh lines in the sand of the playing field, you might want to give some thought to whose team you really want to be on.

And Mr. Mechur – I have nothing whatsoever against either you or your partner Linda Gross personally – you are both good and well-intentioned people.  However, your personal relationship with Linda has rendered your Board position almost completely impotent, as you must recuse yourself from so many issues of financial import.  Given that the attempted move to centralized fundraising will be at the forefront of Board efforts for the foreseeable future, either you or Linda need to resign your position. If you both remain, you seriously diminish the healthy and dynamic functioning of the Board, which is a disservice to the entire district, and most particularly to the students you are supposed to serve.

In closing, I ask you all to ponder this quote from the preamble to the Brown Act:  “…..Public agencies in [California] exist to aid in the conduct of the people’s business.  It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly. The people ……. do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.  The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know.  The people insist on remaining informed, so that they may retain control of the instruments they have created.”

Joan Chu Reese and many of her colleagues on the FOC used their significant talents and skills to advance the people’s business in effectively carrying out their independent oversight function of Board financial activities.  Her departure, effective March 20th, is a deeply felt and significant loss for the people.

Ann Hoover

By Craig Foster Posted in Letters

A Letter on the Malibu City Council Elections from Laura Rosenthal and Lou La Monte

AMPS is not endorsing candidates in the 2012 Malibu City Council elections. However, our City Council Liaison Committee members, current Malibu Mayor Laura Rosenthal and Mayor Pro Tem Lou La Monte, asked if we would publish this letter from them and we agreed.

Several AMPS members have asked us who we are supporting in the coming election. Laura and I are both supporting John Sibert and Joan House for City Council because they are the only two candidates who have spent their lives in education and public service. Their qualifications and experience are unequaled. John has served as a member of many academic faculties including Yale, Caltech and the CSU system and has been a supporter of PDMSS and our local schools. Joan served as a teacher in the Peace Corps in Africa, Native American reservations and public schools and was a parent, teachers aide and PTA board member in Point Dume. Both have a long history of supporting public education and fighting for local control. We are confident that they will help us in achieving what we all want, a world-class education for our kids.

IMPORTANT: This year the election comes during Spring Break and for most parents this is a very busy time. So, absentee ballots are extremely important, they should be filled out and sent in promptly. You first need to fill out an application for a Vote By Mail Ballot which can be found on your sample ballot or the city website at http://www.malibucity.org.

Please call either one of us for more information.

Thanks,

Lou La Monte & Laura Zahn Rosenthal

By Craig Foster Posted in Letters

Joan Chu Reese’s Letter of Resignation from the SMMUSD Financial Operating Committee

Dear Members of the Financial Oversight Committee, Jan Maez, Kim Nguyen, Board Liaisons, Board President Ben Allen, and Superintendent Sandra Lyon:

I am resigning my position as Vice Chairman and member of the SMMUSD Financial Oversight Committee (FOC), effective as of 9 PM, March 20th, 2012.

Since there may be speculation over the rationale behind my actions, I would like provide clarification.  First I would like to state that I have a great deal of affection of this school district, having been a SMMUSD parent from 2004-2011. My closest friends’ children are in the district, my son spends all his free time with his buddies from the district, I am a property owner in the district, I gladly pay taxes to fund school measures in the district, and I remain a steadfast fan of the schools, teachers, and district staff of SMMUSD.  I am deeply grateful for the many people on the FOC and in the school community who have offered support to me over the last 3 years of my term and particularly during the last month of the renomination process when my suitability for a second term on the FOC has been called into question, led by a member of the school board along with a member of the FOC.  I am also grateful to Board President Ben Allen, Board Vice President Laurie Lieberman, and Nimish Patel, who have forecefully argued that the attempt to replace the FOC’s nominees, put forwards by the FOC itself, is wrongheaded, and to Ralph Mechur who had the integrity to recuse himself from the debate, given his conflict of interest.

I am resigning because:

1)             After years of service to SMMUSD, including hundreds of hours spent in PTA officer roles at two District schools, over a year’s work as the FOC representative to the SMMUSD Strategic Plan, a leadership position within the FOC, active participation in Board budget workshops, extensive FOC subcommittee work for the past three years, hours spent on precinct walking and other legislative work in support of school parcel tax and school sales tax measures, and sustained major donorship to the District (via PTA and the SMMEF) of thousands of dollars annually for the past seven years, I now find my motives and my loyalty to the District being questioned by this same board member in the last Board meeting, because I (as of 2011) no longer have a child attending SMMUSD schools. Never mind that the financial oversight work I have done for the district has been of high quality. Never mind that I have consistently spoken for fiscal sustainability and the need for highly successful revenue enhancement. Never mind that I have actually carried out the job to which I was appointed. This new criteria was advocated cloaked in the need for “having members who are part of the ‘District Team’” which in my opinion is cynicism in the purest sense and criticism at its most insidious, as it is directed at my personal integrity and intentions which have always been to work to ensure the district has the financial wherewithal to continue to provide the high quality education all Santa Monica and Malibu children deserve.

2)             I see a part of the Board increasingly taking alarming steps to control members of the FOC whom they deem to be too active, outspoken, or independent relative to the Board’s own point of view.  Liberties are being taken to pressure individual FOC members to take Board-friendly positions, including singling out new members and calling them individually, outside of public debate, to ask if certain candidates were selected when the nomination process was still underway and to sway same members to a Board-member centric opinion on their perceived failings of members such as myself.  I see attempts to add criteria that would gradually eliminate large swaths of the tax-paying population of the city from membership in a group that by design of the City Council is supposed to remain independent and open to all citizens of the cities of Malibu and Santa Monica. This is very dangerous.  The generous citizens of the two cities will quickly close their pocketbooks if they feel their investments in the community via property and sales taxes will be spent without independent oversight, which would be a terrible outcome for all.  I see major steps being taken to directly hand-pick members who can be easily swayed or are perceived to be more Board-friendly rather than a process based solely on merit for the position. I have email correspondence sent by such an applicant to the Board and Superintendent without copying the FOC regarding her concerns with the FOC nominating process written in such as style as to raise major questions about whether the applicant were coached by the Board in the actual writing to make the FOC nominating committee look bad.  When I raised this as a concern to a current Board member, I was told it was “just politics” from a candidate that had been directly recruited by the Board and it was to be expected.  When “politics as usual” has devolved to using members of the public as political pawns to remove members of the FOC it has decayed to the point where I feel I cannot in good conscience continue to serve. As a member of a group charged with independent financial oversight, I feel these have and will continue to lead to an environment where it is impossible to offer an independent perspective, much less responsible fiscal oversight.

3)    Most of all, I am sickened by the massive amount of time that is now absorbed by many FOC members, the FOC nominating committee, and members of the Board in pointless political maneuvering to remove qualified and deserving members of the FOC, rather than getting to the real issues of maintaining a premium education in the face of debilitating state budget cuts.  I know the personal attacks have had a similar effect on others in the FOC who feel the rules have been changed and the process unilaterally hijacked.  This has led me to the sad but inevitable conclusion that I can work to support the cause of public school education from outside more effectively rather than from within the SMMUSD system.  The students deserve at least this much from me and I refuse to be yet another reason the Board fails to engage on the real topics of importance.

I sincerely hope the Board can come to some resolution with the FOC that is consistent with the core purpose of the FOC as independent financial oversight before permanent damage is done both to the FOC and to the reputation of the Board itself.

Joan Chu Reese

SMMUSD’s financial watchdog quits in protest by Ashley Archibald

March 23, 2012
CITY HALL

 

The vice chair of the school district’s Financial Oversight Committee resigned from her post Tuesday over concerns that the Board of Education subverted the nomination process to quell dissent on a sometimes vocal committee.

In her letter of resignation, Joan Chu Reese expressed her anger and frustration that the board decided to look for candidates to replace three incumbents on the board for what she believed to be politically motivated reasons.

“I see a part of the board increasingly taking alarming steps to control members of the FOC whom they deem to be too active, outspoken or independent relative to the board’s own point of view,” Reese wrote.

To read more, go here.

Superintendent’s Advisory Group Meeting at Webster School, March 26th

The next SAG meeting will be on Monday, March 26 from 5:30pm – 7:30pm. The location of the meeting will be:
Webster Elementary School, 3602 Winter Canyon Road, Malibu, CA 90265

The SAG will be discussing questions related to the implementation plan of SMMUSD’s controversial Districtwide Fundraising plan. This would be an excellent meeting to attend to observe the implementation process and to comment, if you wish. Districtwide Fundraising continues to roll forward to a start date in the 2013 or 2014 school year. All of need to remain involved and vigilant because the issues with this policy are far from resolved.

AMPS General Meeting – This Thursday March 22, 10 am, Zuma Room

There will be an AMPS meeting this Thursday, March 22nd, in the Zuma Room of Malibu City Hall. The meeting will take place between 10:00 am and 12:00 pm. On the agenda will be discussions of events and initiatives related to Malibu educational autonomy.

Please join us!

Also, if you haven’t already, please “follow” this blog and/or “like” Malibu Schools United and Advocates for Malibu Public Schools on Facebook! Please click the appropriate buttons at the top of the right hand column on this page.

Cooperation, transparency key to school fundraising by Ashley Archibald

 

 

March 12, 2012
ROOSEVELT ELEMENTARY — As almost any advice columnist will tell you, communication and transparency are critical to a functional relationship, particularly when one or both partners has control of the family purse strings.

The same, apparently, is true of Parent Teacher Associations, Education Foundations and the school districts they serve.

Approximately 80 members of the Santa Monica-Malibu school community gathered at Roosevelt Elementary School to hear exactly that from representatives of four school districts in different stages of the tumultuous transition in fundraising that fundamentally changes the rules on how school programs and supplies are funded.

The forum was meant to give local parents and school officials access to real, live district-wide fundraising survivors, said Rochelle Fanali, part of the team that put the event together.

“We asked these folks to come and share their experiences and let people take from those experiences what they may, and what they felt was valuable,” Fanali said.

To read more, go here.

SMMUSD: No Malibu Help on Separation Analysis by Jonathan Friedman

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District wants to do its own analysis on whether it would be good for both communities if Malibu left the district.

If Malibu has any hope of separating from the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, a harmonious proposal from Santa Monica and Malibu stakeholders must be submitted to the state Board of Education. But at this time, SMMUSD officials are not interested in working cooperatively with Malibu residents on this issue.

Malibu Mayor Laura Zahn Rosenthal told the Board of Education at its meeting Thursday in Santa Monica that Malibu residents only want to split from the school district if it makes sense for both communities. They are willing to put up the money to hire consultants and do an analysis about the possibility of unification, the misleading term used by education officials for the process to separate school districts.

“We will provide the money and we can all come to an agreement about who we want to hire, look at the different things and get the information together and move forward together,” Rosenthal said.

No district official was enthused by this offer and several were vocally opposed to it. They said to work together during the initial phase would mean district officials were saying they support unification.

To read more, go here.

Malibu Faces Lengthy Process to Break from Santa Monica by Jason Islas

 

 

March 6, 2012 — Malibu’s secession from the School District will take a lengthy process that ultimately will hinge on finances and a decision by state officials on whether to bring the plan before the voters of Santa Monica and Malibu, the School Board learned last week.

But Malibu officials told the board during last Thursday’s information session that despite the complicated process that will take more than a year, Malibu residents seem ready to move forward.

The process, which is called unification, “is a lengthy legal process with a lot of checks and balances along the way,” said Matthew Spies, a spokesman with the Los Angeles County Board of Education.

A territory wishing to secede from another district would need to submit a petition to the 11-person County Committee on Reorganization for review, Spies said. After that, public hearings in both Santa Monica and Malibu would be held.

Then, the Committee would conduct a feasibility study to answer questions about the effect the break up would have on each territory, including the financial impacts.

However, the final decision would lie with the State Board of Education, Spies said. Even if everything were to go smoothly, it could take at least a year before the State would consider the split.

To read more, go here.