SMMUSD: No Malibu Help on Separation Analysis

If Malibu has any hope of , a harmonious proposal from Santa Monica and Malibu stakeholders must be submitted to the state Board of Education. But at this time, SMMUSD officials are not interested in working cooperatively with Malibu residents on this issue.

Malibu Mayor Laura Zahn Rosenthal told the Board of Education at its meeting Thursday in Santa Monica that Malibu residents only want to split from the school district if it makes sense for both communities. They are willing to put up the money to hire consultants and do an analysis about the possibility of unification, the misleading term used by education officials for the process to separate school districts.

"We will provide the money and we can all come to an agreement about who we want to hire, look at the different things and get the information together and move forward together," Rosenthal said.

No district official was enthused by this offer and several were vocally opposed to it. They said to work together during the initial phase would mean district officials were saying they support unification.

District Chief Financial Officer Jan Maez said the district and Malibu residents involved in the secession movement, led by Advocates for Malibu Public Schools, have different motivations for studying unification.

"I think the district's motivation would be to gather information to figure out what the real impacts would be, and then to make a determination to support or not support," Maez said. "Clearly, AMPS' motivation in this analysis is to come up with an analysis that [shows unification works]."

Maez said she would soon present a proposal to the board on a scope of work for a consultant and how much it would cost.

No board member voiced support for Malibu leaving the district, but only Maria Leon Vazquez said she was opposed.

"I'm not in a position to say I'm ready to break off because that's not a solution … for the 11 years I've been on this board ... we've been able to provide for all students," she said.

Craig Foster, a member of the AMPS executive board, told Malibu Patch after the meeting, "we're waiting for them to decide if they are prepared to explore this with us, and if they are, that's great. If they aren't, we have a number of other choices."

Foster declined to get into specifics about what the "other choices" might be.

He said he was fine with the district joining AMPS at the table after the district did its own analysis, if that is what district officials feel must be done. Foster said he did not believe it was impossible to get the state board to approve a unification petition without the support of the district, but he said it would be "very difficult."

Matt Spies, an official with the Los Angeles County Office of Education, attended last week's board meeting to explain the unification process. He said it could get started by AMPS either submitting a petition to LACOE with signatures from 25 percent of the voters living within the boundaries of the proposed new district or from a majority of the SMMUSD board. AMPS hopes to submit a petition featuring both sets of signatures.

LACOE would then do a feasibility study and hold public hearings. That would be followed by the 11-member Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization making a recommendation to the state board.

The committee's recommendation would be based on nine criteria, which include whether unification would be good for both communities when it comes to finances and quality of education. However, the committee could recommend in favor of the petition even if all nine criteria are not met and it could recommend rejection even if all nine were met.

The state board is under no obligation to put the petition on its agenda.

"If it's controversial, good luck getting it on their agenda anytime soon," Spies said. "If it's something that seems to be rather smooth and agreed upon and non-controversial, in approximately a year to a year and a half from submittal to the state Board of Education, it will be placed on an agenda for consideration."

If the state board were to approve the petition, the next step would be a vote of the people. The state board would decide whether the election would include voters from Malibu or the entire district. Also on the ballot for that election would be candidates for the Malibu district's board. If voters were to approve unification, the new board could begin meeting soon after that, and the district could go into effect when the fiscal year starts the following July 1.

There are county and state loan programs that the new district could use to get its initial funding.

Residents of the new Malibu district would stop receiving money from the existing district bond approved by voters in 2006, but they would also no longer have to pay off the bond even though their schools have benefited from it. Spies said it is possible that state legislation could be passed or a deal between the two parties could be reached that forces the new district to pay the SMMUSD to make up the difference.

Residents of the new Malibu district would no longer be required to pay the annual $346 parcel tax approved by SMMUSD voters in 2008. Rosenthal said there is a model that could be used for transfering the parcel tax to the new district. After two Santa Barbara school districts recently merged, a state Assembly bill was signed into law that kept their separate existing parcel taxes in effect, with residents only having to pay the taxes assigned to them based on the previous district boundaries.

If legislation is not possible, Rosenthal said she believes Malibu voters would approve a parcel tax for their own district.

There are a variety of factors behind the belief by a number of Malibu residents that their city and the surrounding unincorporated areas should leave the district, including the idea that the existing district is less-focused on schools in Malibu than those in Santa Monica.

"We believe that a separation of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District into two new viable districts is in the best interest of all the district's children," Foster told the board last Thursday. "By freeing each community to pursue the education of their children in the manner most compatible with their unique environments, we would honor those children and support their highest potential."