Decision affects Malibu’s voting for SMMUSD board members
In an overwhelming decision the Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization voted 9-1 to deny a petition requesting trustee area voting to elect members to the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Board of Education.
Adoption of the petition would have changed the way board members are elected from the current district-wide election process to what’s known as trustee area voting which would have divided the district into seven areas with each selecting one representative to serve on the board.
The petition was brought by Malibu voting rights attorney Kevin Shenkman on behalf of residents who claim SMMUSD’s at-large voting system is unfair to minority voters and Malibu residents who generally can only elect one representative if any to the board. Malibu’s lack of representation on the board is just one of the reasons for the ongoing process of Malibu breaking away from the district to form a Malibu Unified School District. It appears now that the timeline for Malibu unification would be 2026 at the earliest. The decades-long effort is still being hammered out as Malibu and Santa Monica untangle long-term tax ramifications in the financial portion of the divorce.
It appears the committee that shot down the trustee voting petition disapproved of voting maps submitted by Shenkman that would have split Malibu into two districts, possibly giving Malibu two chances to vote for a seat at the table.
Some members of the deciding committee expressed shock over proposed maps carving the district into three different scenarios. Complaints were heard that neighborhoods were split or that the maps included non-contiguous districts. Shenkman had argued that the district itself is non-contiguous, an anomaly in California.
Committee member Estefany Castaneda cited the proposal of increased Malibu influence in her rejection. “To give them (Malibu) more than one area and break up and split up the community, I think would be inconsiderate to the folks that are most vulnerable within the district boundaries,” she said.
Other arguments included that under the California Voting Rights Act, Malibu did not meet the definition of being a protected class because nearly 80 percent of the population is white.
Stacy Rouse, Malibu’s lone representative on the Board of Education said it was her understanding that during the hearing it was expressed that some trustees voiced desire for SMMUSD to become a trustee area voting district.
“For Malibu, this decision means that at this time we remain an at-large voting district for elections,” Rouse texted to The Malibu Times. “This decision doesn’t impact the ongoing negotiation process of the ultimate unification of Malibu as an independent school district. If there is to be future action prior to unification for having SMMUSD trustee area voting with a designated trustee for Malibu, it’s my understanding there would need to be some action by the school district, or the County Committee, or legal action to initiate a new process.”
Shenkman responded, “It is true that a majority of the Committee followed their staff’s recommendation to find the trustee-area map accompanying the petition does not comply with Elections Code 21130 — a law enacted two years after that map was created — and thus the petition cannot proceed in its current form.
“However, and in my view more importantly, a majority of the committee members also expressed their view that SMMUSD should have trustee-area elections. One committee member, then seized upon a suggestion I made, and asked the committee staff if the committee has the power to initiate its own petition for trustee-area elections, with a map more to the committee’s liking. Staff confirmed that the committee does in fact have that power. After the meeting adjourned, several of the committee members began to discuss amongst themselves and draw rough ideas of what the map might look like.
“We have several options for our next steps, both with the committee and the courts. We have reached out to several stakeholders in Malibu and Santa Monica for their thoughts and preferences; some have responded already; and we will make decisions once we hear from everyone.”
In the meantime, negotiations continue March 14 as Malibu and SMMUSD representatives are scheduled to meet to hammer out more fiscal complications in the school separation agreement. Community meetings on the settlement could happen as early as April.