When a marriage breaks down, sometimes independence is worth a hefty alimony payment, and a passionate group of Malibu residents made it clear last week they’re willing to pay to get out of what they feel is a toxic relationship with Santa Monica.
The City of Malibu, both as a community and a municipality, has long sought to break free from Santa Monica and establish its own school district. The effort appeared to be gaining momentum in recent months with several committees studying possible paths to an amicable divorce—but discussions hit a speed bump earlier this month.
In the time between that Oct. 30 meeting and when the school board met again on Nov. 16, Superintendent Dr. Ben Drati met with members of the Malibu community, including members of the city council and the Malibu Schools Leadership Council (MSLC), to discuss increased autonomy for Malibu while remaining part of the district or pursuing true independence with an increased price tag.
The City of Malibu has filed a petition with the Los Angeles County Office of Education asking for the creation of a Malibu school district with no fiscal obligation.
Board members did say a parallel proposal to forcefully split the district was an impediment to their work and asked if that application could be delayed or withdrawn, pending the board’s drafting of its own proposal, adding that if the city’s application remained active, SMMUSD would need to actively oppose it.
“We can’t put ourselves in a position where if the petition is going to go forward, where we’re sitting on our hands and haven’t done the work or haven’t had someone do the work to oppose it,” said Board President Laurie Lieberman. “The petition minus the financial aspect doesn’t work.”
More than 30 individuals took to the podium to comment on the issue, with the vast majority favoring a split. Malibu advocates said they are not represented fairly in a joint district (Malibu voters account for about 16 percent of the total voting pool), receive fewer services at their school sites and are culturally distinct from Santa Monica. Many accused the board of thwarting their efforts for financial gain.
Malibu Council Member Jefferson “Zuma Jay” Wagner read a letter on behalf of city council stating the city’s desire for autonomy is about providing appropriate representation to citizens.
“For Malibu, this separation is a necessity so that the constituents of our district are able to elect the people that decide the education of their children,” he read. “We see this as the only way that Malibu students will receive and have access to the same services and facilities as their counterparts in Santa Monica. We will no longer be deprived and treated unequally due to the fact that we have no say in the decision-making process. This is also about local control and autonomy, as well as the safety of our local schoolchildren. The financial arrangement must be based on the costs of operating Malibu schools with equal services and support, not on equal revenue per child.”
Wagner asked for Malibu to be assigned its own superintendent and support staff while a final proposal is worked out.
The talks followed a contentious meeting centered on how much revenue each district might receive if they were to become independent.
The sticking point for the board was the rate of growth for a joint versus separated districts—since revenues for Santa Monica students will rise more slowly if the district is split compared to the joint system.
Initial recommendations were for Malibu to make payments to Santa Monica for about 12 years—the board asked Drati to see if Malibu is willing to extend payments over 50 years.
Malibu advocates seemed open to the extended time frame but the lone board member from Malibu, Craig Foster, said the board had to make some kind of commitment to Malibu residents. He said the history from the Malibu side is that the “goalposts were not entirely stationary” and that it would cause further strife if the board were to talk about a 50-year plan now only to renege on the idea at a future meeting.
“It would be beyond bad if somehow we came back and that even was off the table,” he said.
A few individuals spoke in favor of remaining a joint district, with a pair of Santa Monica students citing their experience as evidence the system helps low-income families succeed.
“At the end of the day, it is about these kids and that should be our priority,” Erica Leslie said.
The board stopped short of actually approving anything at the meeting but there seemed to be a consensus that a 50-year payment plan would satisfy their fiscal concerns. Additional recommendations in the MUNC report, such as divisions of property and handling bond financing, were left open, pending more analysis by staff.
The board set a tentative date of Feb. 15 for a vote on terms of separation.
Drati said that in addition to working toward a potential separation, he would continue to develop plans that could increase satisfaction in Malibu in case county or state regulators reject a request to split.
“There’s a case that separation may not occur and in that sense, we’ve still got to live together and I hope that people at least hear that here,” he said.
A previous version of this story ran in the Santa Monica Daily Press.
