Some board members argue that the district cannot afford such a position, especially with looming layoffs and class size increases.
By Jonathan Friedman / Special to The Malibu Times
A Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District proposal for a six-figure-salaried position “to facilitate communication and public relations for the District” failed to garner any immediate support from Board of Education members at last Thursday’s meeting. However, several board members said it would be a position worth supporting in a better financial climate and if the exact features of what such a position would be used for could be established.
Board member Jose Escarce said it would be “a very bad idea politically” to support funding such a position at a time when the district is facing a multimillion dollar deficit and is considering layoffs.
“I couldn’t defend this because we are currently in a position where we should be defending our resources … as much as possible,” said Escarce about the position that would cost the district $107,000 per year.
Escarce’s comments followed a heated commentary by teachers’ union head Harry Keiley, who said he was “appalled” the item was even up for discussion.
“The reality is you’ve increased class sizes,” Keiley said. “We’re in a so-called economic crisis. And we’re talking about spending more money, not less, on a position that may be needed in good times.”
Superintendent Tim Cuneo said the district needs a director of communications because the school district does not currently “have the bandwidth nor the experience here to do” proper communications.
“We are truly lacking in our sophisticated communication internally for our employees as well as externally with the community,” Cuneo said.
The heads of the SMMUSD Council of PTAs and the Financial Oversight Committee supported Cuneo’s position. They said a director of communications would be helpful to get the district’s message out, especially since the voters could soon be voting on a parcel tax and a bond measure.
“We need to tell the district’s story effectively to our community, to our voters in our two cities,” said Cynthia Torres, who chairs the Financial Oversight Committee.
Torres said “this could be a revenue producing person,” predicting that better communications would lead to increased revenue for the district. Escarce said he disagreed that would be the case.
Torres’ concept received agreement from several board members, including Ben Allen, who asked that the president and vice president meet with the superintendent to discuss specific details of what should be included in the job description.
Board member Barry Snell said he could possibly support such a position at this time if the details of how it would be funded could be worked out. The district has proposed that it be partially paid for through money from the 2006 voter-approved Measure BB capital improvement project fund. But district officials said the legality of doing that needs to be explored.
Board votes to use Equity Fund money to support two programs
Also at the meeting, the board voted 5-2 to use Equity Fund money to support two district programs designed to help struggling students. The measure had failed to garner enough votes for passage at a previous meeting due to a concern by some board members that only Santa Monica students use the programs and this money is supposed to go toward “district-wide” programs.
Created in 2004, the Equity Fund program requires 15 percent of all money from donations raised by schools and the district as a whole be placed into the fund. Some kinds of donations are exempt. Most of the fund money is distributed to the various SMMUSD schools based on a formula to allow those with more struggling students to receive a larger share. A small percentage of the fund is supposed to be designated for districtwide programs.
All board members said they supported the two programs-Young Collegians, which assists potential first generation collegians, and Connect for Success, which helps rising ninth-graders who have struggled in middle school. But the opponents of this measure said these programs did not qualify as being districtwide.
Board member Maria Leon-Vazquez said these are districtwide programs because they help to “create more of an equal playing field.”
“We keep saying it [that the district wants to create an equal playing field],” Leon-Vazquez said. “But, really, when you look down on it, this is all we have. We only really have these two particular programs.”
The measure’s opponents favored using district General Fund money for the programs. Board President Ralph Mechur put up an alternative proposal to do this, but his request did not get enough support from the board for passage.
Escarce did not support using Equity Fund money for the programs, although he voted to do it because he did not want to be voting against the programs themselves. He feared the board’s action could “undermine support” for the Equity Fund.
“It actually goes against, I think, both the letter and spirit of our current policy, which I think we need to try to honor with as much integrity and consistency as I think we can,” Escarce said. “Because I think it’s important to the future of this policy moving forward.”
Board member Oscar de la Torre said those opposed to using Equity Fund money for the programs were using “fear” to guide them. Although he later in the meeting said these programs qualify as districtwide programs, de la Torre initially said he did not support the idea of districtwide programs as a tool for creating equity.
“I disagree with my colleagues who say we can achieve equity through districtwide initiatives … the whole premise of creating the Equity Fund was because there is more need at certain school sites,” de la Torre said. “So we want to concentrate those services where the need is greatest. I think using funds in this way was exactly what we intended.”