City Council votes to move ahead with county petition for separation after Santa Monica misses an important deadline
It was just two months ago, after a breakdown in negotiations between the City of Malibu and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District over separating into two districts, when the attorney representing SMMUSD, David Soldanisaid, “we pushed through” and “we’re back at the table.” Soldani made those comments to frustrated Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) members who grilled the two sides on why there was no finalization of agreements.
In August, Soldani asked LACOE to give the SMMUSD Board until November. Malibu’s attorney in the process commented about the “lack of urgency” the district was placing on the process. Now that Santa Monica has failed to approve the separation agreement recommended by their school separation subcommittee within the deadlines they established, the City of Malibu is once again moving forward with its school separation petition originally filed in 2017 with LACOE. The city is submitting a new feasibility study that no longer includes several financial concessions previously offered by Malibu in an effort to work collaboratively with SMMUSD.
A press release from Malibu stated, “Malibu’s alternative feasibility incorporates much of the financial and operational groundwork developed over the last several years, upholding the guiding principles that (1) the formation of an independent MUSD is in the best interest of all students; and (2) both MUSD and SMUSD will receive sufficient funding to provide a similar level of service that existed before separation.”
It looks now though that Santa Monica negotiators are questioning their city’s projected property tax revenues and are waiting for the latest numbers to be released by the county. However, the Malibu statement suggested both parties willbe fiscally solvent at the time of separation.
There has been speculation by some critics of Santa Monica claiming delay tactics on its part right before an election for new board members Nov. 5. Two years ago, right before the last election, SMMUSD Board Member Jon Kean wrote a letter to the editor of the The Malibu Times criticizing the paper’s coverage of the separation process. In the letter, Kean wrote that the revenue sharing formula “is fully expressed in the agreement and ‘is completed.’” He also asserted that the terms of the operational transfer agreement and joint powers agreement were not “stumbling blocks but technical mechanisms.” Kean also stated the term sheet “put forth an equitable financial model for both sides.” Finally, Kean urged Malibu residents “just accept victory.”
When asked for a statement, Kean replied: “While we had hoped to complete this process by the end of October, and we are very close to accomplishing that, it is far more important that we get things right. We are continuing this process and path toward creating an independent Malibu Unified School District. This means we must allow for ample time in order to hear the concerns and incorporate valid suggestions from our 1,500 employees who provide education and services for our students, address the comments of 8,500 students and their families, including historically marginalized subgroups and students with special needs, and provide in-depth details of the legal and practical ramifications to both communities of this historic process. SMMUSD will not place artificial obstacles or random dates as deterrents in finalizing these agreements in a rigorous manner. What some might see as a short delay, others will see as due diligence, proper governance, and a thorough attention to details. We are at the doorstep of completing this arduous process, which was once thought to be impossible. The district will continue to place the needs of all students as our timeline.”
Advocates for Malibu Public Schools (AMPS) President Wade Major spoke last week at a SMMUSD board meeting expressing his disappointment in the postponement of ratification of the unification agreements that were agendized.
“You [SM negotiators] focused on a litany of superfluous minutiae, none substantial enough to tank the agreements or justify delay,” Major said. “You negotiated an extraordinary set of agreements which have set statewide precedent … Any retreat from that achievement undermines this district and hurts children … It is, however, public record that all three subcommittee members oppose the reelection to City Council of your former colleague Oscar de la Torre in favor of another former colleague — Barry Snell — who also happens to sit on the County Committee.
“By insisting on pushing ratification beyond Election Day and tying it to concerns over future city funding, you’vemade it look as though you’re holding the process hostage in hopes of swaying Santa Monica voters to elect a man tasked with approving it at the county level. A man who previously and publicly sought to quash Malibu’s unification petition without deliberation.
“The optics cannot be walked back. You have put Barry Snell in the unenviable position of having no choice but to recuse himself from any future votes or discussion related to unification or trustee districts.”
Malibu’s only representative on the SMMUSD board, Stacy Rouse, recognized the frustration, adding, “This is not where we had all envisioned or hoped we would be at this point. Nevertheless, from my vantage point, I see that boththe district and the city continue to be committed to finding a way to separate. While each have stated they are proceeding alone, each are currently and actively working toward the reality of that eventual separation.
“As it stands today they have unfortunately diverged timelines. But this is not an end to the process itself or even an end to eventuality that they may both work together again in this endeavor,” Rouse continued. “The issue is no longer what to do — separation is publicly agreed to be best for both communities. The issue is no longer the big picture of how. There is a viable revenue sharing agreement, operations agreement, and joint powers agreement that both entities have said publicly are at 95 percent or more completed.
“The issue is the smaller how of these last few steps to get from 95 percent to 100 percent. The present disagreements, concerns, and challenges between the two entities are important, but solvable. These can be more easily overcome than the concerns and issues that have already been achieved by their joint work together. In this stage where it is possible they may go to the committee separately, their proposals are still based on the guiding principles, already developed agreements, and tested mathematical formulas that contain provisions and contingencies for the ever-present unknown.Best case scenario for both entities, both communities and, most importantly, all the kids in the entire district, remains that the district and the city go together before the community and the county to present a shared plan. Absent that joint possibility, each entity going together unilaterally but on shared past work, is still a path forward the goal both entities share – to have a whole and viable SMUSD and an MUSD.”
The County Committee will consider Malibu’s petition at two upcoming public hearings:
• Friday, Nov. 8, 6 p.m. at SMMUSD District Office Board Room, 1717 4th St., Santa Monica
• Wednesday, Nov. 13, 6 p.m. at Malibu High School, 30215 Morning View Drive, Malibu