County officials denied Malibu’s request for its own school district on Wednesday during a vote that was as convoluted, delayed, accusatory and frustrating as the petition process itself.
The nailbitingly close 6-5 vote doesn’t actually end the dream for the City of Malibu as the final decision will be made by State regulators at a later date but the County decision will be given to the State alongside the staff reports and studies generated in the years long process.
Wednesday’s decision was the result of a decade-long process that began when the City of Malibu submitted a petition through a 2015 resolution to form its own school district separate from Santa Monica.
If approved, the reorganization would create two independent school districts: Malibu Unified and Santa Monica Unified, replacing the current combined district structure that has existed for decades.
Supporters of the split argue that separation would allow each community to govern its schools according to local needs and priorities. Opposition has centered around financial concerns, with questions about how resources, funding, and assets would be divided between the two proposed districts.
The road to Tuesday's vote has been marked by sporadic negotiations between the city of Malibu and the school district to come to a voluntary agreement splitting the district and its assets. The parties engaged in extensive mediation sessions attempting to forge agreements on revenue sharing, operations, and other critical aspects of the potential separation. While tentative agreements were reached, and in some cases made public, they were never formally signed.
Instead the two sides broke off negotiations, with each blaming the other, and the long-gestating county process was rekindled to rule on Malibu’s petition for independence.
The County had nine criteria on which to base its decision and the staff report released before the meeting said Malibu could not meet eight of those nine. Malibu’s supporters, including five of the 11 individuals on the Committee, rejected that analysis.
They said financial critiques of the deal were faulty because they did not project revenues out far enough, failed to account for steady funding from property tax revenues and improperly classified Santa Monica as being harmed by the loss of Malibu. They also said Malibu was a distinct community that deserved its own schools regardless of the history of a joint district.
Committee Member Charles Davis led the charge in favor of Malibu levying heavy criticism at the County report including the conclusion that a Malibu district would penalize students of color by centralizing them in the remaining Santa Monica district.
He said Santa Monica students would not suffer financially because Malibu would make some kind of payment to maintain services.
“I hate to get into this debate, but we keep talking about ‘underfunded.’ Nobody has really ran those numbers. I ran them and they will not be underfunded. Somebody put that out there. Take it in consideration the $10 or $12 or $15 million that they want to put into, and we're making it a racial issue when it's not a racial issue. And I'm Black, and as you all can see, and I understand racism, okay, fully. Well, this is not a racial issue. It's a power issue about money.”
Committee Member Donald LaPlante was also in favor of a Malibu District.
“There needs to be a Santa Monica district. There needs to be a Malibu district,” he said. “The two entities need to get back together. If I could, I'd lock them in the conference room back here and block the door until they came out with an agreement, apparently, a meeting on April 23, I hope for four votes in the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School district to ratify, approve, whatever that agreement, sort of was six months ago. Everybody can get back on the railroad train and get it moving towards Sacramento, get it on the state board agenda, and to get back to the legislation approved so that there can be a Santa Monica Unified School District and a Malibu Unified School District.”
Estefany Castaneda was among the majority critical of the Malibu plan. She said Malibu had not shown it would be fiscally responsible in the long term and that promises made regarding potential enrollment growth in the future were unrealistic.
“I'd like to say that the petition, of course, fails eight of the nine legal criteria, and there's no binding plan to divide property or revenue, no finalized tax agreement and no clear operational transition, leaves too many critical questions unanswered about who pays for what is responsible for debt, and how continuity for students and staffs will be insured. Santa Monica would lose a substantial portion of its property tax base while continuing to serve the vast majority of low income students, English learners and students with special needs in the district. That's not just bad planning, it's inequitable,” she said.
Santa Monica resident and former SMMUSD member Ralph Mechur, who is also part of the committee alongside current Councilman Barry Snell, made the motion to reject Malibu’s petition.
“The proposals to form Unified School Districts or requested change of boundaries are to only be undertaken based on evidence of compelling reasons to make such changes related to objective barriers to students educational achievement guided by the mandated nine conditions of review,” he said. “I don’t feel that the proposal before us meets those, meets that standard.”
The debate over the issues was itself winding but the final vote itself was emblematic of the chaotic petition process so far.
Mechur’s motion was actually a substitute for an original motion first made by Davis. Davis argued that Mechur’s motion required additional action by the board before it could be heard and while he was overruled on that point, he continued to question the Committee’s handling of the vote.
When the vote was eventually taken, several committee members failed to understand the established voting procedure. While members were cross talking on their microphones and preparing to revote on the issue a second time, a representative of the Office of County Council broke into the meeting to explain the Committee’s rules to them and clarify that their vote to deny the petition was final.
If Malibu appeals the County decision, it will go before the State Board of Education although the timeline for that is uncertain with past proposals taking years to reach their conclusion.
