At the March meeting of the Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization, a 9-1 vote denied the trustee area voting petition, with committee members specifically voting on the legality of the map submitted by Malibu attorney Kevin Shenkman in 2022 on behalf of residents. The petition initially claimed that the Santa Monica and Malibu Unified School District’s (SMMUSD) current at-large voting system was unfair to minority voters and that the Malibu portion of the district deserved more representation in district matters.
The petition was the subject of two committee hearings earlier this year, with both Shenkman and attorneys representing SMMUSD arguing their points on the voting map which would have created two non-contiguous districts merging parts of Santa Monica and Malibu. Notably, the map would have merged the eastern half of Malibu with Santa Monica’s Sunset Park neighborhood and fused the western half of Malibu with Santa Monica’s North of Montana and Wilmont neighborhoods.
During the meeting, Dr. Allison Deegan read a precursor to the decision, a feasibility study report prepared for the committee by the Los Angeles County Office of Education Business Advisory Services staff. The staff recommended that the committee disapprove the petition to implement trustee areas and trustee area voting within SMMUSD, pointing to the non-contiguity of trustee areas and the petitioners’ intent to increase Malibu influence in the district despite the city’s population not being a protected class under the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) as reasons for dissent.
Before committee discussion, Shenkman and attorney representing SMMUSD Fredric Woocher made final arguments in the matter, with Shenkman believing that the map was “fine” while also asserting that the committee could choose a different map than the one the petition focused on.
“If you have a problem with any particular map, you can select a different map, like you did with Compton USD and other county committees across the state have done in other similar petitions,” Shenkman said. “You could even approve the petition with one map and immediately rearrange the boundaries of the trustee areas on your own … I think that at least the majority of this committee knows what the right thing to do here is on this petition, I hope that you have the courage to do it.”
To that point, committee member John Nunez concurred, later stating that he doesn’t want the committee to lose sight of the fact they can shift maps at any time, and they should not lose “the power to do that” when seen fit.
Woocher stated that he wholeheartedly agreed with the Business Advisory Services staff report, and several committee members echoed the report’s points during the discussion period. Committee member Charles Davis said he was “shocked” when he first saw the petition’s map, believing it was “defective” because of the non-contiguity. Another member, Estefany Castaneda, focused on the CVRA implications and the proposal of increased Malibu influence as her dissension.
“To give [Malibu more than one area] and break up and split up the community, I think would be inconsiderate to the folks that are the most vulnerable within [the district] boundaries,” Castaneda said, adding that a subsequent petition considering an alternate map is “the last thing our committee should do.”
With the petition vote over, Shenkman and the proponents of district based voting are open to potentially move forward with the SMMUSD legal battle, this time focused on compliance with the CVRA. On Dec. 25, 2023, Shenkman wrote a letter to the district on behalf of clients Maria Loya, Jennifer deNicola, Southwest Voter Registration Education Project, Pico Neighborhood Association and their respective members residing in the district; urging the district to “voluntarily change its at-large system” or else they “will be forced to seek judicial relief.”
Before discussion and vote on the petition, in which John Quintanilla was the lone vote in favor of, the committee heard an update on a separate petition to form a Malibu Unified School District via a unification (legal term for separation) process. Christine Wood, legal representative for the City of Malibu, told the committee that negotiations with SMMUSD will continue after the trustee area voting petition decision, and that Malibu and the district have concluded discussions surrounding a financial agreement, waiting for an opportunity to share that agreement with local stakeholders. With the tax revenue sharing agreement ironed out, negotiations will now center on an operational agreement and a joint powers agreement.
To complete unification, the committee would have to review nine conditions (the majority of which being fiscal) and agree that they are “substantially met.” Wood added that they can provide a copy of the financial agreement to the committee, but do not want the committee to consider the nine criteria points “without understanding the financial terms.”
“We can share that agreement with the committee and explain it to staff, we could definitely do that, we’re at that place,” Wood said. “But, we do not want to have any situation where we lose all of that time and all of that good work by going back and reviewing the nine criteria, that is not where we are, and that would have been a complete waste of the last couple of years.”
When asked by Nunez about a negotiation schedule, Wood replied that Malibu and district representatives are scheduled to meet on March 14, and should be able to have community meetings potentially as soon as this month or in April.