District officials and charter petitioners differ on the interpretation of the law for when the vote must take place.
By Jonathan Friedman / The Malibu Times
A divided Board of Education last Thursday moved the date it will vote on the Point Dume charter school petition from the staff-recommended Dec. 6 to Dec. 2. No adjustment was made to the Nov. 4 public hearing date on the petition.
The petitioners said the adjusted vote date is not good enough. They said the vote must take place no later than Nov. 23 to ensure the new charter school could open smoothly for the 2011-12 academic year.
Charter status for Point Dume Marine Science Elementary School (PDMSS) would give it self-rule on most issues, including finances and academics. The petitioners want the board to vote on the earlier date because they are considering when appeals hearings for the county and possibly the state would take place if the local board were to reject the petition. If the SMMUSD board declines the charter plan, the petitioners say this would set up a county vote in January and a possible final consideration by the state in March. If the local board votes in December, that would bump the state board vote to May, which they said would create a difficult situation.
“As you can imagine, getting started with a school when you don’t know that you exist until May is extremely, extremely difficult,” said Janelle Ruley, an attorney for the petitioners, during the meeting that took place at Malibu City Hall.
The petitioners persuaded Board members Ralph Mechur, Oscar de la Torre and Barry Snell (who also are the three members up for re-election) that an earlier vote would be better. De la Torre said having the vote on Nov. 23 would “show good faith.” But the board majority sided with Superintendent Tim Cuneo, who said SMMUSD staff needed until December to make a “comprehensive report that will put [the board] in a position where [the board] can make an informed decision.” The shift from Dec. 6 to Dec. 2 was considered a compromise.
The petition was submitted to the SMMUSD central office on Sept. 20. The petitioners said that triggered a timeline requiring a Board of Education decision within 60 days. But Cuneo and an SMMUSD legal consultant said the timeline begins once the board is officially presented with the petition, which was last Thursday. The petitioners said an e-mail from Cuneo in September led them to believe he had agreed with them. Had they thought otherwise, they said they would have made sure the board members were officially presented with the petition last month.
Whether the current board or the board including those elected on Nov. 2 will vote on the petition is not certain (see sidebar for more information).
Several charter advocates angrily addressed the board about the timeline conflict.
“I am disappointed in the handling of our paperwork,” said PDMSS parent Karen Farrer. “The timeline has had a wrench thrown into it. It was completely unexpected … it looks to me that it’s been subjectively interpreted, and not in our favor.”
City Councilmember Laura Rosenthal, speaking as a private citizen, compared the situation to 2007 when the SMMUSD board temporarily reduced the amount of reconstruction bond money for Malibu High School and increased the total for Santa Monica High School.
“It feels like something is going on that is not transparent,” she said. “It feels like three years ago … and these communities were fractured for a long time. You do not want to have those bad feelings with these two communities again.”
Cuneo insisted it was impossible to have an adequate staff recommendation by Nov. 23 (which would actually require it to be ready several days prior due to public meeting notification requirements), and pointed out that November includes three holidays and a staff furlough day. He did not explain why the district staff failed to begin the analysis when the petition was submitted or why the district waited until last week Thursday to officially present the petition to the board. Several board members supported Cuneo.
“Evaluating this is not going to take a couple of weeks,” said Board member Jose Escarce. “This is a very dense, thick and comprehensive petition that actually will require a great amount of evaluation. So shortening the timeline considerably has consequences in my opinion.”
He then clarified to say it “could have consequences.”
Board member Ben Allen said when the state board would meet to hear an appeal is not important because he expects the SMMUSD board to approve the petition if it includes a workable plan.
Who gets the vote on the charter petition?
The current members of the Board of Education will consider the PDMSS charter petition at its Dec. 2 meeting. This is because those to be elected on Nov. 2-at least one new member, possibly as many as four people-will be installed on Dec. 7, according to the Santa Monica City Clerk’s Office. But this does not mean the current board will make the final decision.
State law allows extensions on the decision if the petitioners and the district agree to it. Also, as with all governing board decisions, a delay could put off the vote for any number of reasons. An example of this could be if there was an agreement to negotiate some issues of the petition. Any delay would likely mean that the new board would be voting on the petition.