Town Hall forum discussion focuses on what’s being cut, but doesn’t come up with concrete solutions. Tax increases suggested by assembly member and superintendent.
By Jonathan Friedman/Special to The Malibu Times
Approximately 85 people gathered at St. Aidan’s Episcopal Church on Sunday for a Town Hall forum titled “Crises in Public Education.”
Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) Superintendent John Deasy, Santa Monica College President Piedad Robertson and state Assemblyperson Fran Pavley spoke to the gathering about the state’s budget dilemma, and its effect on local education.
At the meeting, Deasy said he thinks perhaps an additional $1 million should have been cut from the district’s budget for next fiscal year. He said this would have made him feel more comfortable, as many more financial hurdles remain in the way.
Last month, the SMMUSD cut $13.8 million from next fiscal year’s budget. Included in that total are the layoffs of more than 200 district employees, an increase in teacher-to-student classroom ratio and the elimination of many programs such as elementary instrumental music and physical education. But Deasy said people should expect the cuts to continue, including another $3 million for the 2004/05 fiscal year. And the full extent of how much the district will financially be affected cannot be known until the state makes it decision on how to deal with its $34 billion deficit.
“I have the feeling what I have presented is an optimistic picture, and that is my darkest concern,” he said.
One parent said he was worried that others who hear this news will move their children into private schools. If that were to happen, it would mean even more of a revenue loss for the district, since most of the money the state distributes is based on the district’s population. The parent asked what he could do to offset the financial problem.
“I can tell you what I am going to do as a citizen of this community,” Deasy responded. “I am going to support the school funding measure. I’m going to support my council members to consider every option possible to provide increased support over time.”
If district voters approve the $225 parcel tax in June, it will generate $6.2 million in additional revenue. The district currently receives $35,000 annually from Malibu and $3.5 million from Santa Monica, which has a significantly larger city budget. District representatives have publicly lobbied the Santa Monica City Council twice this year to seek additional funding, and have spoken about a desire for more from Malibu.
Pavley, who was a middle school history and government teacher for 25 years, assured the people in attendance that education is her number one priority. But she stressed the difficulties state legislators face, as they must decide where cuts will be made in the budget.
“You haven’t been to a hearing until you see 200 people in wheelchairs talking about cuts and not being able to get colostomy bags and everything,” she said. “And then you move on to the next hearing, and it’s the education community. We get hit from every end of it.”
Pavley said it was not a good idea for people to lobby for one thing at the expense of another. She said too much of that is going on, and it is not helping anybody.
Pavley said California has an especially difficult task to pass a budget, since it is one of only four states that requires a two-thirds majority support for passage.
“We are going to have to come to the table with our Republican colleagues, and that’s a real philosophical problem,” she said.
Deasy and Pavley also spoke about ways of increasing revenue for the state, so that budget cuts would not have to be so great. Deasy said this is an opportunity to look at all the options, including increased taxes on cigarettes and surcharges on movie and concert tickets.
Pavley said this might also be a time to reexamine the state’s dependency on personal income tax, which accounts for its highest amount of revenue. She added that a state initiative would be a better method to try to get a tax increase, since voters would be more likely to approve one than legislators.