June 2, 2023

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Has Appointed A New Superintendent

SANTA MONICA MIRROR | By Staff Writer June 2, 2023

https://smmirror.com/2023/06/santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-has-appointed-a-new-superintendent/

Antonio M. Shelton, Ed.D. Appointment Will Be Effective July 1, 2023

In a late afternoon press release, The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) Board of Education officially announced the appointment of Antonio M. Shelton, Ed.D., as the new superintendent, effective July 1, 2023. The decision was made during the regular meeting on June 1, following an extensive national search that spanned several months. Dr. Shelton brings with him an impressive 23 years of experience in education, including 18 years in various administrative roles.

It goes on the state that Dr. Shelton has been part of the SMMUSD community for the past year, serving as the executive director of secondary schools. Prior to that, he held the position of lead principal at Santa Monica High School for six years. In addition to his administrative responsibilities, Dr. Shelton has also been involved in teaching instructional improvement for the doctorate program in educational leadership at the University of Southern California (USC).

Additionally, it states that Dr. Shelton is known for his intelligence and innovative leadership style and is dedicated to improving educational outcomes for students. He possesses a deep understanding of the challenges facing TK-12 public education and is committed to finding creative solutions that consider diverse perspectives while prioritizing the needs of all students. Dr. Shelton’s leadership approach emphasizes care, compassion, and fostering a collaborative learning environment where students and staff can reach their full potential.

During his tenure as executive director, Dr. Shelton has provided consistent support, mentoring, and coaching to principals as they work towards realizing the district’s vision and goals. He has also demonstrated expertise in overseeing comprehensive budgets and is committed to sound fiscal stewardship and transparency. Dr. Shelton has been actively involved in working with educational partners and has contributed to negotiations regarding certificated and classified bargaining units.

Before joining SMMUSD, Dr. Shelton served as the principal of Indian Hill High School in Cincinnati, Ohio, a top-ranked school, according to US News, from 2011 to 2016. He also held administrative positions at William Mason High School and Sycamore High School, both in Ohio. Dr. Shelton began his teaching career in 1998, teaching honors courses in history and government. He has also worked as an adjunct teacher and facilitator for graduate-level courses in educational leadership and curriculum development.

“I am truly excited and humbled to serve as superintendent of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District,” said Dr. Shelton. “I want to thank the school board for trusting me to lead this wonderful district. It is an honor to have been chosen to lead a district that is on the move in a positive direction. I envision a journey ahead with collaboration and community built on trust between myself and the educational partners of SMMUSD. I look forward to leading the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District community, its faculty, staff, and students to greater heights.”  

Dr. Shelton holds a Bachelor of Arts in History from Hampton University, a Master of Arts in Social Studies from Ohio State University, a Master of Arts in Educational Administration from the University of Cincinnati, and a Doctorate in Educational Leadership from the University of Kentucky.

Board President Maria Leon-Vazquez expressed satisfaction with the outcome of the search, saying, “Following an arduous national search with the assistance of our consulting firm, Leadership Associates, we reviewed 35 applications and held in-person interviews with top candidates. Dr. Antonio Shelton rose to the top and was selected by the Board. Our communities demand the best, and so does the Board. We welcome Dr. Shelton into his new role as the superintendent for SMMUSD. We are looking forward to him hitting the ground running, leading SMMUSD through the 21st century while planning for the 22nd century.”

In the press release, SMMUSD announced that Dr. Shelton is eager to engage and collaborate with various community supporters and partners, including the Santa Monica-Malibu PTA Council and units, Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers Association, Service Employees International Union, Santa Monica Education Foundation, Malibu fundraising entities, Santa Monica and Malibu Chambers of Commerce, City of Santa Monica, City of Malibu, law enforcement agencies, and nonprofit organizations serving youth and families.

For more information about Dr. Shelton’s appointment and his vision for SMMUSD, watch his video message at: https://bit.ly/SheltonSuptIntro060123

Issues for the District:

• Achievement Gap

• Funding

• Equality

Profile/background: Ben Drati

LinkedIN Professional Profile | Ben Drati

Education: 

Completed his undegraduate BS in biochemistry (on football scholarship) and his doctoral program in Educational Leadership at Fresno State

Official Description of Drati's doctoral program (Ed.D)

 [link]  CSU Ed.D. Program Descriptions & Contacts

Fresno State’s doctoral program in educational leadership supports the CSU system-wide effort to offer professional practice doctoral programs in Educational Leadership. Fresno State’s program is designed to support working professionals poised for leadership in P12 schools and districts or community colleges. The 60-unit program of study can be completed in three years of full-time study and leads candidates to earn a Doctor of Education (Ed.D.) degree. Our cohort-based doctoral program offers two delivery format options for students: Face-to-Face and Online. Both delivery format option enables students to focus on either P12 Educational Leadership or Community College/Higher Education Leadership.

The Ed.D. (Doctor of Education) is a professional degree that focuses on the application of theory and research to problems of practice in education and is designed for working professionals and educational leaders. The Ph.D. (Doctor of Philosophy) tends to be more research-oriented and is often designed for individuals who wish to become faculty or want to pursue research as a main element of their career. CPED provides a video explanation of the Ed.D. vs the Ph.D.

Contact: Fresno State
Dr. Ignacio Hernandez ihernandez@csufresno.edu
P-12 and Community College Specialization Director
(559) 278-0427

November 8, 2016

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District board has officially hired Dr. Ben Drati as the district’s new Superintendent.

Santa Monica Daily News [article link] by Matthew Hall November 8, 2016

The district announced plans to hire Drati in October and the board made the decision official at their Nov. 3 meeting.

Drati has worked for the Santa Barbara Unified School District since 2012 and said he would begin the meet and greet phase of his new job as soon as possible.

“I can’t wait to get started,” he said in a statement. “My first task is to go out and meet people at our schools and in the community. I am committed to keeping the interest of children as my highest priority. I will work collaboratively with the board, teachers, classified staff and parents, and commit to serving as a worthy ambassador of SMMUSD to the world.”

Former Superintendent Sandra Lyon left at the end of the 2015-16 school year and the Board hired two temporary replacements, Dr. Sylvia Rousseau and Dr. Christopher King.

While the two shared duties running the district, the district searched for a new full-time leader. The process included community meetings that gathered input from staff, employees and residents.

Stakeholders said they wanted someone with a track record of leadership, experience working diverse interest groups and a focus on students. The Board specifically wanted someone that would follow-through on the ongoing work to close achievement gaps headlined by consultant Pedro Noguera.

In announcing Drati’s hire, the board cited his experience working on issues of equality and local funding. They said he has crated programs that emphasize diversity within school culture and helped create classroom environments that support youth.

“Dr. Drati is known as a strong, confident and collaborative leader who is deeply committed to improving the lives of all students,” said the release announcing his hire. “A board member from his current district described Dr. Drati as a person of great integrity, as well as a genuine and warm person. He went on to say that Dr. Drati accomplishes his job with careful thought, transparency and motivation. Another high-ranking district official commented Dr. Drati’s strong skills in creating positive working relationships with businesses and community organizations to support and improve the learning environment of the district.”

Drati attended high school in Los Angeles, earned an undergraduate degree in biochemistry and then doctorate in education from Fresno State.

King and Rousseau will serve through the end of the calendar year and Drati will assume the role on Jan. 1 of 2017.

BY MATTHEW HALL

editor@www.smdp.com

Matthew Hall has a Masters Degree in International Journalism from City University in London and has been Editor-in-Chief of SMDP since 2014. Prior to working at SMDP he managed a chain of weekly papers... More by Matthew Hall

https://smdp.com/2016/11/08/new-superintendent-officially-named-by-smmusd-board/

August 09, 2012 

The School District’s Fresh Slate of New Administrators

Introducing Margaret Christensen, Ben Drati, Emilio Handall, and Todd Ryckman

The Independent-Santa Barbara [article link] By Brandon Fastman

Thu Aug 09, 2012 | 

[excerpt from article - profile on Ben Drati] 

The Refugee

If Christensen’s route to Santa Barbara was circuitous, new Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education Ben Drati’s may have been even more so. Born in Uganda, Drati and his seven siblings fled to Los Angeles after civil war broke out in 1978. Drati’s father was studying at the Fuller Theological Seminary and would later become the Anglican bishop of the West Nile Diocese in eastern Africa.

Because he came to the United States speaking no English at all and without the luxury of anybody who could translate his native Lugbara, Drati has a soft spot for English-language learners (ELL). “Teachers saw me as a human,” he said, “someone who has an opportunity, not an at-risk student. Any time I see an ELL student, I say the American Dream is possible. Institutions can make it possible.”

Drati credits the institutions of Los Angeles High School and Fresno State, where he studied biochemistry on a football scholarship. Still built like the linebacker he was on the 1992 squad that rolled a ranked USC team in the Freedom Bowl, Drati likes to razz USC alum and über-fan Dave Cash about that game. He worked for Cash at the Clovis district in Fresno where he last served as a high school principal.

On his desk in his barely broken-in office sits a stack of books called The Culturally Proficient School, which Drati plans on giving to all the secondary principals in the district. It stresses the need to teach material that draws from the experience of students in the classroom. When a former staff member of his said that she teaches Romeo and Juliet because it is a classic that everybody needs to read before graduating high school, that wasn’t enough of a sell for him. Teachers must be able to articulate what a student is learning from a text.

https://www.independent.com/2012/08/09/school-districts-fresh-slate-new-administrators/

November 21 2022

SMMUSD Superintendent Leaving Post

Dr. Ben Drati to become Superintendent of the Bellflower Unified School District

Santa Monica Mirror [article link] By Sam Catanzaro | November 21, 2022

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) Superintendent Dr. Ben Drati is leaving his post to helm the Bellflower Unified School District. 

Drati, who has been the SMMUSD Superintendent for six years, announced his departure on November 18. 

“I wanted you to hear from me that I was appointed Superintendent of Schools for the Bellflower Unified School District, effective January 2023. The BUSD Board of Education approved my appointment at their November 17 board meeting. I realize this is unexpected. I want to let you know that I have thoroughly enjoyed and appreciated serving as the Superintendent of SMMUSD and will always cherish my time here,” Drati said in a press release. “Together, we have accomplished many goals and laid the groundwork for continued success. I believe the district is poised to accomplish the mission of ensuring that all students are able to reach their full potential by providing an extraordinary educational experience for all while simultaneously closing the achievement gap.” 

According to Drati, his specific January start date at Bellflower USD still has to be worked out between SMMUSD and BUSD. 

“I will continue to root for and support the journey you have embarked on, and my family and I thank you for six great years of educating our students and preparing them for college and career,” Drati said. 

Drati’s departure could leave the district without a superintendent in January as no interim or permanent successor had yet been named. The SMMUSD Board will discuss options at its November 29 meeting.

December 2, 2022

Dr. Ben Drati Accepts the Position as Superintendent of Bellflower School District

HYA Associates [link to article], December 2, 2022

"I’ve said to people over and over that what I think one of the best decisions I’ve made as a board member was to hire Dr. Drati, and I stand by that." --- RICHARD TAHVILDARAN-JESSWEIN, SCHOOL BOARD MEMBER FOR SSMUSD*

Dr. Ben Drati has accepted the position as Superintendent of Bellflower School District beginning in January 2023. Bellflower, California is located southeast of Los Angeles and serves just over 10,000 students in the unit district. Dr. Drati has served as Superintendent of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) for the past six years. “Thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve as steward over the most important job in the U.S., aside from parenting, and that is the education of our children,” stated Drati in a statement addressing his move to Bellflower. *

As Dr. Drati prepares for his departure from SSMUSD many supporters have spoken about the impact he made in the district. “I’ve said to people over and over that what I think one of the best decisions I’ve made as a board member was to hire Dr. Drati, and I stand by that,” said Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein, school board member for SSMUSD. In his tenure with Santa Monica-Malibu School District, the superintendent has received acknowledgement for modernizing the curriculum and learning environment, and developing a strong home and school partnership, while maintaining a “positive fiscal outlook”. *

HYA would like to thank the Bellflower School Board for their commitment to the search process with associates Valerie Pitts and Micah Ali. 

*https://www.presstelegram.com/2022/11/25/bellflower-unified-appoints-new-superintendent-amid-turmoil/

*https://smdp.com/2022/11/18/drati-to-depart-santa-monica-after-six-years-at-the-helm-of-smmusd/

November 25, 2022

Bellflower Unified appoints new superintendent amid turmoil  

Ben Drati will replace Tracy McSparren — who was put on leave shortly before a state audit revealed the district had misconstrued its finances for years.

LONG BEACH PRESS-TELEGRAM [ARTICLE LINK] By Kristy LHutchings | khutchings@scng.com

PUBLISHED: November 25, 2022 at 6:45 a.m. | UPDATED: November 25, 2022 at 6:45 a.m.

The Bellflower Unified School District will soon have a new superintendent, who will take charge during a turbulent time — with BUSD facing questions over its finances and the Board of Education failing to take the appropriate steps to fire its most-recent leader.

Ben Drati — who will end his six-year tenure as the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District’s superintendent — will succeed Bellflower Superintendent Tracy McSparren, who has been on leave since June, beginning on Jan. 1. Drati will make $295,000 per year through 2026.

“I am delighted to join the Bellflower community as your next superintendent,” Drati said in a statement this week. “Thank you for giving me the opportunity to serve as steward over the most important job in the U.S., aside from parenting, and that is the education of our children.

“Where our children go is where we will go as a country and nation,” Drati said, “so I take this responsibility with great care and I can’t wait to get started and to meet everyone.”

Drati’s relatively swift appointment — the search lasted just about five months — comes amid some controversy at Bellflower Unified.

The Board of Education, for example, voted in June not to renew McSparren’s contract, just one week before the California State Auditor released an 81-page report that accused BUSD of falsifying the true picture of its financial situation for years and failing to provide students with proper resources during the coronavirus pandemic — despite having extra money, partly because of COVID-19 relief funding.

Long before the board’s vote, however, concerned parents and community members had called for McSparren’s firing or resignation, citing concerns about how the district and its students were faring under her leadership.

“I have been here multiple times all the way back to November asking the same thing, that she either resign or be removed,” community member Steve Lopez said during public comment on June 16. “When someone has this low of an approval rating throughout the community, it’s reprehensible.”

McSparren couldn’t be reached for comment on the board seeking to replace her, but did respond previously to the state’s audit, in writing, disagreeing with many of the findings — but vowing to do better.

“While respectfully disagreeing with the State Auditor on a number of statements and findings,” McSparren said in responding to the audit, “the District embraces the opportunity to consider them in good faith consistent with the District’s commitment to challenge itself to do more, and to do better, placing a priority on the needs of its students and serving the community.”

Bellflower Unified’s financial issues have apparently been a concern for years: Prior to the state’s audit, the district had a series of run-ins with the Los Angeles County Office of Education and the State Superintendent’s Office.

“In June 2019,” the state’s audit said, “the LACOE recommended that the state superintendent revoke Bellflower’s fiscal independence.”

The state superintendent did just that, effective July 2019 — but BUSD refused to comply. LACOE filed a lawsuit in early 2020, citing the district’s non-compliance, and BUSD filed a countersuit, the audit said. Both lawsuits have been consolidated into one and are awaiting trial.

BUSD Families Better Together — a Facebook group with about 1,800 members — circulated a petition around March calling for McSparren to be replaced; it garnered more than 1,100 signatures. Members of that group hailed the board’s decision to terminate the superintendent’s contract.

But shortly after, BUSD’s attorney called the board’s June decision to not renew McSparren’s contract “unlawful,” and the panel ultimately reneged on its decision and instead opted to place McSparren on paid administrative leave while they searched for her permanent replacement.

California state law requires employers to give at least 45 days’ notice prior to terminating an employment contract. McSparren, who’s contract was set to expire at the end of June, was only given about 14 days notice with the board’s vote.

That misstep forced the board to go back on its vote and instead place McSparren on paid leave. Along with that decision, the board also began the search for McSparren’s permanent replacement via an executive management firm.

It’s unclear whether McSparren’s contract and administrative leave from that position are still in place. Devon Blaine, a BUSD spokesperson, said in a Wednesday, Nov. 23, email that McSparren is currently working as a teacher within the district — but did not answer whether McSparren’s employment contract as superintendent still stands.

BUSD has not appointed an acting superintendent to serve as the district’s leader in McSparren’s absence.

The board, though, approved Drati’s employment contract during its regular session on Nov. 17, a vote that had some controversy of its own.

Student school board member Christopher Mendoza, during that meeting, raised concerns about student involvement in the superintendent search, arguing that he — and BUSD students generally — had been intentionally left out of the process.

Related links

• State audit finds Bellflower Unified misrepresented finances, didn’t provide proper services to students 

• Bellflower Unified superintendent on the way out, school board set to appoint acting leader

• Bellflower Unified board puts superintendent on leave after attorney calls vote not to renew contract ‘unlawful’

• Election 2022: Rex Richardson declares victory in Long Beach mayoral race

• Long Beach opens application for guaranteed-income pilot program

“I’m just now learning the name of who we’re voting to hire,” Mendoza said. “We can’t make the change our community needs by practicing more of the same decision-making strategies that are the reason we’re even voting on this today.

“I can’t vote on a contract I just received,” the student representative added, “and because this whole process has been such an exclusive affair, our community can’t definitively say that we got the best person for the job.”

The other board members, though, assured Mendoza that they were unable to allow him into the closed session candidate interviews legally — and that the search had to be confidential to ensure the interviewees’ current employers didn’t find out they were in talks for a new job.

The executive management firm, which undertook the search, met with community stakeholders to help inform how the candidates would be narrowed down, board members said.

“We were catapulted into this circumstance in which we had no choice but to begin a raw search of a superintendent,” said board President Renita Armstrong, “and we stepped up to the plate, we did our due diligence and we did our homework. And it was a very serious matter of confidentiality.”

Armstrong, Vice President Richard Downing and board member Thomas Ivens all ran for additional terms during the Nov. 8 statewide election — and the results show anything but a strong show of support from voters.

Armstrong is currently the only one of the three on pace for reelection, sitting in third behind Brad Crihfield and Amie Stewart. Ivens, in fourth place, was about 1,400 votes back of Armstrong. Downing, in last place, was even further back — nearly 5,000 votes out of the third and final board spot, as of Tuesday, Nov. 22.

The current board opted to vote on Drati’s contract now — rather than leave the decision to the new members — to avoid losing the candidate as an option, Blaine said.

“The decision on a new superintendent went before the board this month because they had been in a search and found a candidate suitably capable of meeting their goals,” Blaine said. “They did not want to lose him.”

Still, board clerk Mayra Garza offered her personal apologies to Mendoza and other BUSD students for the board’s apparent failure to include student input in the decision. A total of five students — including Mendoza — were asked to complete surveys about the district’s next leader, the student board member said.

“In reflecting, I think that we should have given more detailed execution to our firm to make sure to connect with these students appropriately,” Garza said. “I do fully extend that apology to you, myself — but (there are) a lot of things that we can we can reflect on and do better for whatever process we may undertake in the future.”

BUSD announced Drati’s appointment on Monday, Nov. 2

March 1, 2023

An Interview With New Superintendent Ben Drati

The Windjammer, Mayfair High School [article link] by Michael Morales Smith

Feb 10, 2023  Updated: Mar 1, 2023

During the interview with Dr. Drati, we were able to really get to know someone crucial to Mayfair. Drati is originally from Uganda, but he and his family had to flee from Uganda to avoid the genocide of his tribe under the reign of Idi Amin. His Christian name is Benjamin, but his family chose Drati as a surname upon coming to the United States because that was his father's name. Due to different naming customs between Uganda and the United states, ¨Drati¨ became the family name. During school, he excelled at math and chemistry. He played football in college at Fresno State University and played the positions of Tight End and Offensive Line. He also studied chemistry because he had been fascinated by it, and soon science persuaded him to study chemistry for some time so he could pursue work in the pharmaceutical field. 

While studying he decided to start substitute teaching at the request of a friend. After a while of subbing, he seemed to have made such an impact that he rightfully became a teacher, which eventually led to administrative work as a Vice Principal. He soon got promoted from Vice Principal to Principal to eventually becoming superintendent of Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, and then from there to here in Bellflower. There are 5 people on the School Board, and Dr. Drati is the superintendent of it. This means that he is the person to facilitate the meetings and organize them, among many other responsibilities. That being said, Dr. Drati isn't just about work. The morning of the interview, he got up at 4:00 to do his daily cycle for about 70 miles and get back right in time to go to work. 

By coming to The Bellflower Unified School District, he wants to see people come together but issues always abound no matter the circumstance. He wants to strengthen democracy and increase transparency in the district. He has 6 years of knowledge of working as a superintendent. Drati helps people with stress and frustration that the students carry on their shoulders. Drati says, “You can never plan a day out,¨ but his most frequently busy day is Tuesday because of meetings. If Drati never had become a Superintendent, he would have gone to pharmaceutical school. Drati came to The Bellflower Unified School district partially because of all the politics at his previous work, and so he could work with students like those of the Bellflower Unified School District. Finally, he wants the students to know this bit of wisdom: ¨Don't ever let doubt creep in your mind, you've got to talk positive.¨ 

Adviser: Austin Cross

austincross@ busd.k12.ca.us

Mayfair High School

6000 Woodruff Ave.

Lakewood, CA 90713

​https://www.mhswindjammer.com/post/an-interview-with-board-member-ben-drati

Caulking used for repairs discovered to be loaded with toxic PCBs

2013

Panic in paradise: Malibu high school community shaken by cancer fears

This article is more than 10 years old

Classes moved after teachers say contaminated buildings on campus caused migraines, breathing problems – and cancer

Rory Carroll in Malibu

Wed 9 Oct 2013 18.00 EDT

It seemed as if poison and panic had seeped into paradise. “My children are terrified,” Beth Lucas told a hushed auditorium of about 300 parents. “Raise your hands if your kids have had migraines.”

A pause, then dozens of hands went up. Everyone looked at each other. Eyes widened. “Oh my God,” murmured a voice. An alleged contamination appeared to have claimed more victims than anyone had imagined.

Until this week, Malibu high school, home to 60 teachers and 1,120 students, was a blessed patch of California: sunshine, ocean vistas and privilege, close to the aptly named Paradise Cove.

When not learning in bright, spacious classrooms named after sharks, students filled afternoons with water polo, horse riding, soccer, basketball and theatre. The public school maintains consistently high SAT scores.

On Tuesday, however, parents and students packed the auditorium with anxiety verging on dread. They were afraid that contaminated soil and buildings had triggered respiratory illness, migraines – and cancer. “I've played on that quad, rolled around in the grass, for years,” said freshman Jason Daniels. “Why wasn't I warned?”

Several classes were moved on Wednesday to other parts of the campus and a nearby elementary school, while inspectors tested for contamination.

Twenty faculty members sounded the alarm last week in a letter which said three teachers had been recently diagnosed with stage 1 thyroid cancer, another three had thyroid problems, and seven suffered migraines. The letter also cited incidents of hair loss, rashes and bladder cancer.

"These teachers believe their health has been adversely affected as a result of working in our particular buildings at Malibu high school," Katy Lapajne, a language arts teacher, wrote in the letter. 

The teachers pointed the finger at the removal in 2011 of 1,017 cubic yards of soil allegedly contaminated with toxic chemicals, notably polychlorinated biphenyls (PCB), which had been used decades ago to tackle termites. They also suspected mould in several buildings.

A day earlier, Sandra Lyon, the superintendent of the Santa Monica-Malibu unified school district, addressed the auditorium audience while media trucks waited outside. “You have heard serious and alarming allegations. These reports have mushroomed in our community.”

The school had begun testing for air and soil contamination last month, said Lyon. She apologised for not communicating that before the teachers' letter forced the issue into the open, but said there was no evidence students were at risk. "We know they are safe, just as much as you know that your house is safe."

Few seemed reassured. Questions rained down. Would inspectors test for radioactivity? Where was the mould? Was the water safe? Did inspectors have PhDs? How advanced were the cancer cases?

Several parents cited having children with cancer and other ailments, prompting Lucas, the mother of two students, to ask how many suffered migraines. The show of hands seemed to convince many of an epidemic.

One emotional freshman, Tristan Peterson, accused Lyon and other officials of lying. “I am not a liar,” she replied.

Parents did not go that far. “Cover-up, I think, is too strong. It was more putting their head in the sand and hoping for the best,” said Michael Campolo, a labour lawyer. “This is a fantastic school,” he added. “Really high rankings, great staff.”

Wealthy and well connected parents said they had launched their own investigations, consulting friends in the Environmental Protection Agency, oncologists in Beverly Hills, and toxicology specialists in Santa Monica.

“My doctor told me to pull my kids right out of there,” said one mother, who declined to be named. The evidence of a cancer cluster, she added, was overwhelming.

John Froines, a chemical toxicology expert at the University of California, Los Angeles, said it was too soon to draw any conclusions. “The information is inadequate at present. It should be a high priority to investigate this further, which is what they are doing.”

He cautioned against directly linking PCBs, or any other chemical, to thyroid illnesses. “Lots of chemicals are associated with thyroid issues. It would be completely speculative to even list them.”

PCBs have been shown to cause cancer in animals and studies in humans provide supportive evidence for potential carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic effects, according to the EPA.

A 2010 study found that PFOA (perfluorooctanoic acid), a common household chemical found in everything from sofas and carpets to pots and pans, has been linked to an increased risk of thyroid disease.

Explore more on these topics

From <https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/09/malibu-high-school-teachers-cancer-fears>

2016

Health Scare at Malibu School Sets Off Media War

By Ian Lovett nytimes.com

April 4, 2016

From <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/05/us/an-exclusivity-malibu-could-do-without-pcbs.html>

Images: Juan Cabrillo Elementary, one of the schools on a campus where levels of PCB contamination have been detected.Credit...Monica Almeida/The New York Times

MALIBU, Calif. — The high school here is ranked among the best in the country, with students each year moving on to Ivy League colleges. The location, on a hill down the block from the beach where “Baywatch” was filmed, offers a multimillion-dollar view of the Pacific Ocean.

Yet parents here have been yanking their children out of Malibu High School, concerned about PCBs, the highly toxic chemical compounds, that have been found in caulking of the school’s windows.

THREE YEAR BATTLE

A battle over how to handle the PCBs, which were first discovered three years ago, is now convulsing this famously wealthy beach community, with parents, television stars and a supermodel pitted against one of the most elite public school districts in the country.

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District insists that its classrooms are safe; the Environmental Protection Agency agrees.

But not all parents and teachers are convinced: They blame PCBs for an array of maladies, including migraines, thyroid cancer and common colds, and they have sued to compel the district to remove all contaminated caulking. A judge ruled last week that the lawsuit could move forward.

In the meantime, school board meetings have turned chaotic, with parents shouting down district officials and calling them liars.

“The school district is telling us our kids are safe, but that’s what they were telling parents in Flint, Mich.,” said Jennifer deNicola, a mother of an eighth grader and a 10th grader who has spearheaded the push to remove PCBs. “We know there’s a problem, and they refuse to acknowledge it.”

But school and health officials insist that simply because PCBs are in the building materials does not mean the students are at risk of exposure. The school district tests the air in classrooms — the primary medium through which children could be exposed — and cleans regularly to reduce dust from the caulking, school officials said.

“Just because something is present doesn’t mean it can cause harm,” said Doug Daugherty, a managing principal at Ramboll Environ, the environmental consulting firm the district has hired.

The district has already spent millions of dollars on lawyers, environmental consultants and a public-relations campaign.

But, this being Malibu, parents have waged their own media campaign, complete with environmental experts and celebrity advocates. Cindy Crawford, the supermodel, has gone on national television to explain why she pulled her two children from Malibu High, and offered to pay to test caulking for PCBs throughout the campus, which also includes an elementary school and a middle school. (Her offer was declined.)

PCBs, or polychlorinated biphenyls, were widely used in building materials and electronics until they were banned in the late 1970s, and they remain in many older buildings. Research from the Harvard School of Public Health estimated that the substances could be present in upward of 20,000 schools nationwide. The compounds have been linked to cancer, immune problems and lower I.Q.s among children.

Federal law requires that any building materials found to contain PCBs be removed. But to the chagrin of parents here, there was no requirement to test the caulking in the first place.

Image: Jennifer deNicola, a mother of two who has spearheaded the push to have PCBs removed, with her daughter Sami, 13, whom she is now home-schooling.Credit...Monica Almeida/The New York Times

The E.P.A. has endorsed the district’s approach to handling the PCBs in its buildings. And scientists who studied PCBs in New York City schools said this method — of testing air quality and cleaning assiduously — was very effective.

Laurie Lieberman, the president of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified school board, said the administration had confidence in the safety of its facilities and has been doing its best to reassure parents.

“We have tremendous empathy for people who are fearful and scared,” Ms. Lieberman said. “We’ve really tried to explain why the schools are safe now.”

VAX SKEPTICS IN 2014 MALIBU

Malibu parents have a history of skepticism about official health advice, including routine childhood vaccinations: At some local elementary schools in 2014, fewer than 60 percent of kindergarten students had received the full lineup of recommended vaccines, far below the state average.

In this case, the distrust on both sides became plain last fall, when supporters of caulking removal secretly took their own samples from classrooms and had them independently tested. Ms. deNicola announced that the results showed extraordinarily high levels of PCBs. The school district asked the sheriff’s office to investigate her for trespassing and vandalism.

The battle now threatens to tear apart the school district: Concern over PCBs has fueled an existing effort here to break away from Santa Monica so that Malibu can be in control of its own schools.

Beth Lucas, a parent, pulled her son, Christian, out of Malibu High after their endocrinologist said it was especially dangerous for him to remain there. Christian, now 17, had a malignant brain tumor at age 6, and the radiation used to treat it left him with a diminished immune system and thus more vulnerable to the effects of PCBs, the doctor told the family.

“We moved to Malibu for the schools, so it has been a big slap in the face to have the school district treat the parents and teachers and children so poorly,” Ms. Lucas said. She is also considering removing her daughter, who is in middle school, at the end of the year, but worried about the cost of private school.

“Yes, we live in this nice house,” she said, sitting on a hilltop porch that overlooked a wide expanse of ocean. “I don’t want to have to sell my house and leave Malibu. The district has put us in a horrible position.”

Currently, only one of the seven school board members represents Malibu. He supports replacing the caulking, but has been voted down by board members who live in Santa Monica.

“I think the board members have convinced themselves that the science is right and the parents are overreacting,” said Craig Foster, Malibu’s representative on the school board, and the father of a seventh grader at the middle school here. “But what if in five years it turns out testing the air and dust wasn’t enough? How do you sleep?”

Some other school districts across the country have acted more aggressively, often at the E.P.A.’s behest, to remove the source of PCBs. Parents here point to Clark Elementary School in Hartford as an example of a school district that handled matters responsibly: In that case, an entire school building was closed — and may be abandoned — because of PCB contamination.

But testing at Clark Elementary indicated elevated levels of PCBs in the air, whereas testing at Malibu High has not, E.P.A. officials said.

Jim Jones, an assistant administrator at the E.P.A., said the agency worked with schools to “get below the risk threshold using the best management practices.”

“We’re always trying to find what’s a cheaper way,” Mr. Jones said, adding that the caulking at Malibu High would all be replaced within several years as part of planned renovations. For now, he said, cleaning and ventilation are “far less costly than removal.”

A version of this article appears in print on April 5, 2016, Section A, Page 10 of the New York edition with the headline: Fearing Health Risk, Malibu Parents Wage a Media War . Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

Letter

PCBs in Malibu Schools

April 8, 2016

To the Editor:

“Fearing Health Risk, Malibu Parents Wage a Media War” (news article, April 5), with its references to the TV show “Baywatch” and “media campaigns,” trivialized a deadly serious health issue.

An estimated 25,000 American schools contain PCBs, one of a very few chemicals banned here and by international treaty because of their extreme toxicity. In 1979, the Environmental Protection Agency prohibited use of materials containing PCBs above 50 parts per million because they posed an “unreasonable risk to injury of health.”

Malibu public schools have PCB levels up to 570,000 parts per million. Fifty cases of thyroid cancer, thyroid disease and melanoma — all known effects of PCB exposure — have been reported among teachers and alumni. Nothing in the law allows these materials to be “managed” in place because it is cheaper than removal, regardless of what some E.P.A. officials claim.

And the agency’s advice to schools to avoid PCB testing, which would identify violations, is shocking. That is why we and America Unites for Kids filed a citizen suit as a test case to protect students and teachers not just in Malibu but nationwide.

PAULA DINERSTEIN

Senior Counsel, Public Employees

for Environmental Responsibility

A version of this article appears in print on April 9, 2016, Section A, Page 18 of the New York edition with the headline: PCBs in Malibu Schools. Order Reprints | Today’s Paper | Subscribe

From <https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/09/opinion/pcbs-in-malibu-schools.html>

2021

SMMUSD settles attorney fees for PCB lawsuit

byGuest AuthorAugust 9, 2021

From <https://smdp.com/2021/08/09/smmusd-settles-attorney-fees-for-pcb-lawsuit/>

The SMMUSD Board of Education has approved the final settlement amount with America Unites for Kids ending a six-year legal battle with Malibu activists concerning the removal of toxic Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) from Malibu High School (MHS) and Juan Cabrillo Elementary School (JCES).

PARENTS WIN $1m in Attorney Fees

President of the Board of Education, Jon Kean said in the July 15 Board meeting that “the parties have reached a settlement in the amount of $950,000,” for recoverable attorney fees and costs and is to be issued to the Plaintiff, American Unites for Kids.

The settlement is a win for Malibu activists who originally discovered the PCBs in 2013 when activist and future plaintiff, Jennifer deNicola took samples of window caulking from structures built pre-1979. The caulking was tested, and PCBS — a highly toxic industrial compound known to cause cancer with prolonged exposure — were found to be over 50 ppm (Parts Per Million) which is considered toxic by the Environmental Protections Agency.

A lawsuit was filed in 2015 by the activists and America Unites for Kids, an advocacy group seeking to ensure “a healthy school environment for all children, in all schools and the teachers who educate them, according to their website. The organization was seeking remediation for the levels of PCBs found in various school buildings at MHS and JCES.

After a bench trial in 2016, the district court’s judgment favored America Unites and set an injunction on the district, imposing a December 2019 deadline for the removal of the PCBs from window and door caulking in buildings constructed pre-1979. The deadline was modified in 2018, due to the passage of Measure M — a school facilities bond allocating $195 million for Malibu Schools specifically. The Facilities Bond will cover the costs of the demolition and remodel of MHS, with the plan to build state-of-the-art school, unveiled at the April 29 Board meeting.

At trial, U.S. District Court Judge Percy Anderson found that America Unites’ request for attorney fees and costs were “punitive rather than compensatory,” according to the Ninth Circuit Opinion report, thus needing criminal procedural safeguards not provided by the district court.

The sanctions were overturned by U.S Circuit Court Judge Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, based on the implication of the plaintiffs First Amendment Rights, thus awarding America Unites with attorney compensation.

news@smdp.com

Court requires SMMUSD to remove PCBs by 2019

byJeff Goodman  September 2, 2016

From <https://smdp.com/2016/09/02/smmusd-lawsuit-ruling-malibu-pcb-removal-2019/>

Both sides are claiming victory following a judge’s ruling in the lawsuit over the Santa Monica-Malibu school district’s handling of chemical testing and cleanup in Malibu.

The school district must remove all polychlorinated biphenyls from the two Malibu sites in question by the end of 2019, according to the decision handed down by U.S. District Court Judge Percy Anderson of the Central District of California.

The outcome arrives about a year and a half after SMMUSD was sued by Malibu activists and public health advocates who have been seeking the removal of PCBs, which were discovered in the caulking at Malibu High and Juan Cabrillo Elementary schools nearly three years ago.

The district claims the ruling validates its modernization plans, which include the replacement of windows and doors in buildings constructed before 1979. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, argue that the ruling proves the widespread existence of potentially harmful chemicals at the school sites.

The ruling states that PCBs would likely be found in buildings that have not been thoroughly examined.

“Although Defendants have removed and replaced the caulk from the specific areas and rooms identified in their testing as exceeding the 50 [parts per million] threshold, and some other areas may have had doors and windows repaired or replaced after 1979,” the court document reads, “there is no evidence that all of the caulk in the buildings at the Malibu Campus constructed prior to 1979 has been tested or removed. …

“The Court concludes, based on common sense, that … it is more likely than not that caulk containing PCBs in excess of 50 ppm remain in ‘use’ at the Malibu Campus in areas that have not been tested or repaired.”

SMMUSD, which has spent millions of dollars on consultants and legal fees since PCBs were found in Malibu, has long maintained that it has complied with remediation guidelines set by the federal Environmental Protection Agency. The district is currently upgrading facilities in Malibu with funds from voter-approved bond measures.

“We respect the court’s determination in this case,” Board of Education president Laurie Lieberman said in a district press release. “With the planned modernization already in the works at Malibu High School and nearly complete at Cabrillo, which is the court’s endorsed remedy, we’re very pleased to now turn back to our primary purpose of providing quality education for our students.”

Jennifer deNicola, the leader of Malibu-based America Unites for Kids, which is a plaintiff in the lawsuit alongside Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, said the ruling will hold the district accountable on a legal level.

“They can’t just do whatever they want,” said deNicola, a Malibu parent. “I don’t know how they’re calling this a win. It’s a win for every student and every teacher and every family who goes to that school. It’s a guarantee that they will have PCB-free classrooms.”

In March 2015, America Unites and PEER filed a lawsuit against then-Supt. Sandra Lyon, chief financial officer Jan Maez and all seven school board members over the district’s handling of chemical testing and cleanup in Malibu. About two months later, a request by SMMUSD officials to dismiss the suit was denied.

By October, the district was seeking criminal vandalism charges against deNicola after she collected independent caulk samples and provided the district with additional PCB testing results. The alleged crimes were reported to the county sheriff’s department, but the county District Attorney’s Office declined to file criminal charges.

SMMUSD then pursued court-ordered sanctions that were imposed on the plaintiffs in December. The activists were not allowed to use the samples they obtained as evidence in the lawsuit, and they were instructed to pay for repairs related to damage from the unauthorized testing.

In March, the court paved the way for a trial when it denied the district’s motion for summary judgment, citing evidence suggesting that the district has failed to implement best management practices for removing chemicals.

jeff@www.smdp.com

From <https://smdp.com/2016/09/02/smmusd-lawsuit-ruling-malibu-pcb-removal-2019/>

Legal Action by Malibu residents/parents 

who form: America (Malibu) Unites for Kids

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SPENDING TO AVOID PCB REMOVAL BREAKS $10 MILLION MARK; PARENTS TO DEMAND INVESTIGATION INTO MISMANAGEMENT OF FUNDS AND SCHOOL BOARD PRESIDENT’S CONNECTION

April 30, 2016

Pillsbury Legal Bills Reach $3.38 Million after another $500K Approved at March 3rd, 2016 Board

March 17th Agenda shows $500k more which Superintendent claims may be a mistake but has not removed it from the agenda.

MALIBU — Local parents and taxpayers are outraged that the school district has now spent more than $10 million to avoid removing hazardous waste, known as PCBs, from its schools; this includes a whopping $3.38 million spent on the law firm Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw and Pittman in only 2 years.  The estimated cost of removing the PCBs is far less than those legal bills alone. Parents and taxpayers have raised questions about why a school district would spend 10 times more to force kids in classrooms with known toxic hazardous waste. New information expands this questioning into the law firm’s selection, spending and strategy, the propriety of the School Board President’s involvement in PCB-related votes, and the firm’s connections to Monsanto, the leading manufacturer of PCBs.

PCBs and Monsanto are in the news right now due to an ongoing a Los Angeles Superior Court trial where plaintiffs allege cancer as a result of PCB exposure. In addition, there is legislation pending, H.R.2576, to amend the Federal Toxic Substances Control Act in a manner that The New York Times reports may give Monsanto a ‘get out of jail free card’ relating to its PCB liability. Harvard researchers estimate that up to 20 million children nationally may be exposed to PCBs in their schools, making the Malibu case of broad importance.

March 17, 2016: SMMUSD AGENDA LINK: http://www.smmusd.org/brd1516/agn031716.pdf

Pillsbury is leading the fight on behalf of SMMUSD against parents and teachers who filed a citizen’s suit eleven months ago that does not seek any monetary damages, only an order from a Federal judge to remove illegal and hazardous PCBs from Malibu public schools. Removal is estimated to cost $750,000 to $1.5 million, and parents are shocked that Pillsbury’s legal fees alone far exceed this amount.

When consultant costs are factored in, the Pillsbury-led strategy to prevent identification and removal of PCBs has cost taxpayers more than $10 million, an amount that will continue to rise if the board keeps approving Superintendent Lyon’s spending requests — last week, the board approved an additional $500,000 for PIllsbury.

While public school districts routinely engage in sophisticated and competitive bidding processes for things like books and landscaping services, Pillsbury was hired to perform millions of dollars of legal work based on the recommendation of School Board President Laurie Lieberman through her husband’s law partner, Tom Larmore. Before becoming a law partner with Lieberman’s husband, Larmore was a partner at Pillsbury.

In response to a public records request, Gail Pinsker, SMMUSD’s public relations officer wrote, “In the case of Pillsbury, I am able to confirm that Tom Larmore, who is very involved on the district’s Financial Oversight Committee on which he has served for years, originally referred us to the Pillsbury firm, where he had been previously employed.”

Larmore currently sits on the district’s financial oversight committee and is representing Santa Monica on the committee to create a separate Malibu school district. In 2014, when Ben Allen was elected to the CA State Senate and his board seat was vacated, Larmore asked to be appointed to the board. The only vote Larmore received from the remaining six board members was from Laurie Lieberman.

The connections between Pillsbury, Larmore and Lieberman were not disclosed to the public in advance of the firm’s hiring. Also not disclosed to the public was the fact that Pillsbury represented a Monsanto spin-off (Solutia) in a bankruptcy case from 2003-2008. Monsanto was the only U.S. manufacturer of PCBs, and Solutia was

formed through a divesture of its chemical business . Over the past two years, numerous legal teams approached SMMUSD suggesting, at no charge to the district, to file a case against Monsanto and Solutia to pay for PCB removal, as many other school districts have done. Pillsbury recommended against it.

PCBs are dangerous to Children and Teachers:

International PCB expert David O. Carpenter, M.D., spoke to the Malibu community for several hours last week at Pepperdine University about the dangers of PCBs.

“What we need to do is get the PCBs out,” Carpenter said. “When I get asked what level of PCBs are safe, I say, ‘zero molecules.’ Any molecule is harmful. The more you have, the more harm.”

SMMUSD sent statements to the press trying to discredit Dr. Carpenter as being a biased expert witness for the plaintiffs, despite his extensive resume and recognition by other world experts. In fact, Pillsbury trusted the expertise of Dr. Carpenter when they retained him as an expert witness for them in 2006 when they represented shareholders of the Monsanto spin-off, Solutia, in a PCB liability case – underscoring the fact that Dr. Carpenter is undoubtedly one of the nation’s preeminent PCB researchers and not a biased expert regarding PCBs’ dangers. 

IARC 26 Experts on PCBs:

http://monographs.iarc.fr/ENG/Monographs/vol107/mono107-F05.pdf

The plaintiffs in this case, America Unites for Kids, have confirmed that Dr. Carpenter is providing his expertise pro-bono. According to Dr. Carpenter, he has never profited from working on legal cases — he said he feels it is his obligation as a scientist to work to protect public health and any money received is donated to the University of Albany’s research institute including those monies paid to him by Pillsbury.

###

For more information:

See Pillsbury’s own website where it touts its work on behalf of polluters:

http://www.pillsburylaw.com/environmental-litigation

New York Times story on Toxic Substances Control Act legislation:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/01/business/monsanto-could-benefit-from-a-chemical-safety-bill.html?ref=topics&_r=1

Story on LA Superior Court trial regarding Monsanto and PCBs:

http://patch.com/california/malibu/s/fnbgr/cancer-patients-take-on-chemical-giant-behind-one-of-regions-most-notorious-pollutants?utm_source=newsletter-daily&utm_medium=email&utm_term=health%20%26%20fitness&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_content=article-topstories

Dr. David Carpenter’s Presentation at Pepperdine University’s Law School

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v d9Y1sIEUU

H.R.2576 TSCA Modernization Act 2015 text

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2576/text/ih

SMMUSD’s Latest Approval of $500,000 for Pillsbury

http://www.smmusd.org/brd1516/agn031716.pdf

Text of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.’s Letter to the New York Times:

To the Editor:

You reported a scheme by Congressional Republicans to include in

legislation to amend the Toxic Substances Control Act a provision that

could immunize Monsanto from damages caused by polychlorinated

biphenyls, or PCBs. Monsanto was the exclusive American manufacturer

of PCBs, which are potent endocrine disrupters and carcinogens.

Thousands of American schools built between 1950 and 1979 contain hazardous concentrations of PCBs in their window caulking and lighting fixtures, endangering millions of children. Internal company documents show that Monsanto aggressively marketed this product to schools knowing that it was extremely toxic and would ultimately be prohibited by law. The mitigation costs could run from approximately $1 million to $3 million per building. Congress now seeks to shift these costs to school districts and to abolish Monsanto’s liability for more than 80,000 miles of PCB-contaminated streams and rivers.

Congress should be fighting for the health and environmental interest

of Americans and their children instead of safeguarding the ill-gotten

profits of one multinational corporation.

ROBERT F. KENNEDY Jr.

President, Waterkeeper Alliance

New York

###

From <http://www.americaunites.com/press-release/santa-monica-malibu-unified-spending-to-avoid-pcb-removal-breaks-10-million-mark-parents-to-demand-investigation-into-mismanagement-of-funds-and-school-board-presidents-connection/>

Advisory Board

Dr. David O Carpenter, Director, Institute for Health & Environment, Univ. at Albany: website

Robert Herrick, Harvard Department of Environmental Health: website

Dr. Ken Spaeth, Medical Director, Occupational & Environmental Medicine Center at North Shore-LIJ, Hofstra North Shore-LIJ School of Medicine: see more

Nachman Brautbar, MD, Forensic Toxicologist, Internist, Professor of Pharmacology and Clinical Professor of Medicine at USC, School of Medicine  website

Victoria Di lorio, Indoor Air Quality Expert

Jim Tarr, Environmental Engineer, Chemical Engineer  website   resume

Christina Giorgio, Esq, Attorney for PCB case in NYC

Skylar Peak, Mayor of Malibu

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER), Washington DC: website

Teens Turning Green, Judi Shils, Executive Director: website

New York Lawyers for the Public Interest, PCB case law in NYC: website

California Safe Schools, Robina Suwol: website

Parents Advocate League, Julie Collier, Executive Director website

Osborne Organics, Chip Osborne, consultant to City of Malibu and Malibu Unites: website

Beyond Pesticides, Jay Feldman & Drew Toher, Washington DC: website

Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Penny Newman, CA: website

California Communities Against Toxics [CCAT], Jane Williams, Executive Director: about

Martin Sheen, Actor and Environmental Activist

Janet Sheen, Environmental Activist

Cindy Crawford, Supermodel, Entrepreneur and Environmental Activist

Josh Malina, Actor, and Activist

Emilio Estevez, Actor, Director, Environmental Activist

Mariel Hemingway, Actor and Environmental Activist

Anson Williams, Actor, Director, Environmental Activist

Ed Begley Jr., Actor and Environmental Activist

Jeremy Roenick, Professional Hockey, Hall of Fame, NBC Sports, and Child Activist

Dick Van Dyke, Actor, Singer, Comedian, Producer and Malibu Resident

Dan Kraft, Retired U.S. EPA Region 2, Acting Chief Pesticides and Toxic Substance Branch

Paul Rosenfeld Ph.D, Environmental Chemist

Hugh Kaufman, Environmental Engineer-Investigator

Malibu Parents 4 Healthy Schools

Ed Brown, Unacceptable Levels, Environmentalist, Producer and Director: website

Marianne Williamson, Author, Child Advocate & Founder of PeaceAlliance.org

William Preston Bowling, Environmental Consultant at Friends of the Los Angles River and former EPA Environmental Consultant

Bambi Young, PhD, MPH in Epidemiology/Toxicology, Center for Science in the Public Interest Washington, DC

Dr. Lisa Benya, Malibu Medical & Cure Concierge Medicine

Jefferson Wagner, Former Mayer of Malibu, 2012 Environmentalist of the Year, Military Contractor, Explosive Expert

Dror Avisar, PhD, Professor, Hydro-Chemistry Laboratory

Please contact us to join our advisory council or leadership team. We are gathering experts to support our mission and assist us in achieving our goals

From <http://www.americaunites.com/advisory-council/>

Who We Are

Mission Statement:

United to ensure high standards of health and safety in our schools, for all children and those who educate them.

We are concerned students, parents, teachers, community members, scientists, experts, public figures and environmental groups from across the U.S. We are facing an environmental issue at the Malibu schools that dates back to the summer of 2010. We fear that we might be unknowingly putting our children and ourselves at risk. Some of us have no other choices for schools. Many of us want no other choice. Our children love their schools, love their teachers and love their friends.

With responsibility and grace, our various interest groups have decided to unite to achieve a common goal: ensuring a healthy school environment for all children in all schools and the teachers who educate them.

Each generation is charged with cleaning up the mistakes of past generations, so that future generations can thrive. We believe we owe it to our children to do what we can, within our means, to guarantee them a healthy and successful future.

What better legacy can we leave our children and our grandchildren than the chance for a healthy future? United and together, we can achieve this goal.

Our Local Goals

1. Campus-wide testing of soil and classrooms at MHS and JC

2. Independent oversight of testing

3. Community input in assessment, planning, testing, and remediation

4. Increased transparency and full disclosure

5. Successful representation for Malibu within SMMUSD

UPDATE: We have successfully achieved each of the above local goals and continue to provide oversight to ensure SMMUSD is complying with the Federal Judge’s orders. 

Our National Goals

1. To author and advocate for a Parent Right to Know Law.

2. Advocate for policy change with EPA and other government agencies regarding PCB and other toxins in schools to give communities options to achieve a toxin-free campus.

3. Unite resources to assist other schools through contaminant issues.

UPDATE: We continue to advocate towards our national goals and work with elected officials to understand the nature and scope of PCBs in Schools in our nation and ensure students and teachers have safe learning environments. 

From <http://www.americaunites.com/who-we-are/>

Leadership Team

Founders:

Hope Edelman, Founder and Former Board Member  website

Nicolle Holland, Founder

Samantha Rose deNicola, Founder and Board Member

America Unites is a collaborative team of parents, teachers, students, and experts united under a common goal: healthy, safe schools.

Ken Miller, Attorney at Law, AU Board Member

Cindy Crawford, Parent, AU Advisory Council, AU Spokesperson

Jennifer deNicola, Parent, AU Spokeswoman

Joshua Malina, Parent and AU Advisory Council

Anson Williams, Parent and AU Advocate

Beth Lucas, Parent and AU Director

Gabriella Williams, Student and AU Advocate

Oliva Williams, Student and AU Advocate

Maddy Maiers, Student and AU Advocate

Dana Friedman, Parent and AU Advocate

Sky Kunerth, Parent and AU Advocate

Len Simonian, Parent and AU Advocate

Steven Fox, Parent and AU Advocate

Soniya Perl, Parent and AU Advocate

Caren Lieb, Parent and AU Advocate

Lori Jacobas, Parent and AU Advocate

Andrew Zinnes, Parent and AU Advocate

Deborah Frankel, Parent and AU Advocate

June Louks, Parent and AU Advocate

Catherine Dao, Parent and AU Advocate

Brent Almond, Parent and AU Advocate

Connie Brock, Parent and AU Advocate

Pamela Eells O’Connell, Parent and AU Advocate

Katy Lapajne, Parent, Educator and AU Advocate

Brigette Leonard, Educator and AU Advocate

Lisa Lambert, Parent, Educator and AU Advocate

John Cary, Parent, Educator and AU Advocate

Sarah Ryan, Parent, Educator and AU Advocate

Lynne Flowers, Parent, Educator and AU Advocate

Maureen Rosen, Parent, Educator and AU Advocate

Wendy Cary, Parent, Educator and AU Advocate

Anna Deshautelle, Parent, Educator and AU Advocate

Julie Jones, Parent, Educator and AU Advocate

Claudia Damasceno, Parent and AU Advocate

William Bowling, Parent, former EPA consultant and AU Advocate/Advisory Council

Ingrid Peterson, Educator and AU Advocate

Paula Dinerstein, Attorney for PEER

Judi Shils, Environmental Advocate and AU Advisory Council

Robina Suwal, Environmental Advocate and AU Advisory Council

Dennis O’Connell, Parent and AU Advocate

Kathy Feig, Parent and CEO of Still Water Interactive, AU Advocate

Penny Newman, Environmental Advocate and AU Advisory Council

Bambi Young, Educator, PhD, MPH in Epidemiology/Toxicolgy, AU Advocate

David Cruz Thayne, Political Consultant and AU Advocate

June Louks, Parent and AU Advocate

Jessica Isles, Parent and AU Advocate

Lily Foster, Parent and AU Advocate

David Lamont, Parent and AU Advocate

Jackie Williams, Parent and AU Advocate

Kathleen Delaney, Parent and AU Advocate

Jeff Louks, Parent and AU Advocate

Michele Geft, Parent and AU Advocate

Kathie Fettke, Parent and AU Advocate

Nena Lauerman, Parent and AU Advocate

Dr Susan Helm, BioChemist, Parent and AU Advocate

Suzanne Guldimann, AU Advocate

Melanie Jacobs, Parent and AU Advocate

Jenni Ogden, Parent and AU Advocate

Diane Sittig, Parent and AU Advocate

Donna Sorce, Parent and AU Advocate

Denise Hayman, Parent and AU Advocate

Cori Lowe, Community Member and AU Advocate

Cheryl Torrey, Parent and AU Advocate

Taunie Moreland, Parent and AU Advocate

Noreen Austin, Parent and AU Advocate

Genevieve Jolliffe, Parent and AU Advocate

Catherine Dao, Parent and AU Advocate

Nancy Levy, Educator and AU Advocate

Jude Brown, Parent and AU Advocate

Brenton Brown, Parent and AU Advocate

Gisselle Borras, Parent and AU Advocate

Tara Buran, Parent and AU Advocate

Matt deNicola, Parent and AU Advocate

Lisa Maiers, Parent, Educator and AU Advocate

Michelle Droeger, Parent and AU Advocate

Stacie Cox, Parent and AU Advocate

(We stopped adding names to this page in March 2014. Please accept our apologies if your name does not appear on this list; we are grateful for everyone’s support.)

From <http://www.americaunites.com/leadership-team/>

Headers Added for readability....

Lawsuit information  - court filings / decions RE Student v. District

STUDENT V. SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

SANTA MONICA – CASE BRIEF

Student v. Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District

Counsel for Student: Parents

Representative for School: Ben Drati

Decided by: Los Angeles Superior Court jury

Date of Decision: October, 2022

REFERENCE#1 https://www.educationjusticelaw.com/student-v-santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district>

REFERENCE#1 https://www.audacy.com/931jackfm/news/california-school-district-ordered-to-pay-usd45m-in-abuse-case

SMMUSD to seek new trial in $45 million lawsuit case

byGrace AdamsDecember 14, 2022

Overview:

The School District will appeal a $45 million judgement in a lawsuit brought against the district by the family of two special needs twins.

The Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) will be requesting a new trial in a lawsuit brought against the district by the family of two special needs twins who alleged abuse by a behavioral aid.

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury found in favor of the plaintiffs in October 2022 and ordered the district to pay $45 million to the family.

The lawsuit, filed back in 2019, alleged that Galit Gottlieb, a school district employee at Juan Cabrillo Elementary School in Malibu, used corporal punishment including physical restraint, physical abuse and intentional battery against the two special needs second graders. 

The incidents described in the case occurred during the 2017-18 school year and were initially reported by a bus driver at the District, who said she witnessed Gottlieb physically restrain and punish the students by putting hand sanitizer on their cuts to cause them pain.

Following the October decision, the District asserted in a statement that they believed the verdict “was not justified by the evidence presented.” The district again expressed this belief this week in the agenda for its upcoming Dec 15 School Board meeting. 

“The District will be seeking a new trial as a result of the verdict rendered in October of 2022,” it stated. “This is its first priority because the District believes the evidence simply does not support the verdict or the damages that were awarded.”

In the meantime, the District will be voting on a resolution at the upcoming meeting to allow them to pay out the $45 million in installments over a 10 year period rather than all at once, the reasoning being that a one time payment would result in “undue financial hardship on the District and its ability to provide services now and in the future,” according to the agenda text.

In the resolution and meeting agenda, the district makes clear they do not view this arrangement as an admission of guilt, but as a protective measure while they challenge the payment in court. 

“While the District is working with its legal team on the motion for a new trial and a reduction of the damages, it is incredibly important that the District take steps to protect the students and ensure that, whatever happens, we can always provide all the services they need in the future,” the agenda states. 

School Board members will vote on the resolution at the Dec. 15 meeting during which the two newly elected School Board members will be sworn in and an interim Superintendent will also be appointed. 

The meeting will also include a presentation from the Health and Safety District Advisory Committee about the fentanyl crisis along with recommendations for the District including making overdose kits widely available on campuses and educating students and staff about fentanyl, opioids and how to use Narcan, a drug capable of reversing overdoses. 

The Dec. 15 public meeting will begin at 6 p.m. Those wishing to comment virtually must submit an online form and those in person must turn in a request to speak card. The form and full agenda can be found on the SMMUSD website: https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/SB_Meetings/ViewMeeting.aspx 

he Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District(SMMUSD) will be requesting a new trial in a case brought against the district by the family of two special needs twins who alleged abuse by a behavioral aid.

A Los Angeles Superior Court jury found in favor of the plaintiffs in October 2022 and ordered the district to pay $45 million to the family.

The lawsuit, filed back in 2019, alleged that Galit Gottlieb, a school district employee at Juan Cabrillo Elementary School in Malibu, used corporal punishment including physical restraint, physical abuse and intentional battery against the two special needs second graders.

The incidents described in the case occurred during the 2017-18 school year and were initially reported by a bus driver at the District, who said she witnessed Gottlieb physically restrain and punish the students by putting hand sanitizer on their cuts to cause them pain.

Following the October decision, the District asserted in a statement that they believed the verdict “was not justified by the evidence presented.” The district again expressed this belief this week in the agenda for its upcoming Dec 15 School Board meeting.

“The District will be seeking a new trial as a result of the verdict rendered in October of 2022,” it stated. “This is its first priority because the District believes the evidence simply does not support the verdict or the damages that were awarded.”

In the meantime, the District will be voting on a resolution at the upcoming meeting to allow them to pay out the $45 million in installments over a 10 year period rather than all at once, the reasoning being that a one time payment would result in “undue financial hardship on the District and its ability to provide services now and in the future,” according to the agenda text.

In the resolution and meeting agenda, the district makes clear they do not view this arrangement as an admission of guilt, but as a protective measure while they challenge the payment in court.

“While the District is working with its legal team on the motion for a new trial and a reduction of the damages, it is incredibly important that the District take steps to protect the students and ensure that, whatever happens, we can always provide all the services they need in the future,” the agenda states.

School Board members will vote on the resolution at the Dec. 15 meeting during which the two newly elected School Board members will be sworn in and an interim Superintendent will also be appointed.

The meeting will also include a presentation from the Health and Safety District Advisory Committee about the fentanyl crisis along with recommendations for the District including making overdose kits widely available on campuses and educating students and staff about fentanyl, opioids and how to use Narcan, a drug capable of reversing overdoses.

The Dec. 15 public meeting will begin at 6 p.m. Those wishing to comment virtually must submit an online form and those in person must turn in a request to speak card. The form and full agenda can be found on the SMMUSD website: https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/SB_Meetings/ViewMeeting.aspx?S=36030435&MID=14503

Two hearings set to evaluate multi-city voting districts for School Board

Letter: Protecting the integrity of SMMUSD elections

Public hearing set for district-based school board voting issue

Grace Adams

Grace Adams is a graduate of Loyola Marymount University where she studied Spanish and journalism. She holds a Master’s degree in investigative journalism from City, University of London. She has experience... More by Grace Adams

From <https://smdp.com/2022/12/14/smmusd-to-seek-new-trial-in-dollar45-million-lawsuit-case/>

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District to pay family $45 million

By Judy Abel

A Los Angeles Superior Court has awarded $45 million to two special needs twins who went to Juan Cabrillo Elementary School. A jury this week unanimously found that the students were abused with corporal punishment, physical restraint, and intentional battery by a behavioral aide at the primary school that closed in 2019.

The alleged abuse happened in 2017 when the twins were just 7 years old. It was first reported to SMMUSD administrators by a bus driver who claimed the boys were physically hurt when escorted off the bus. An employee at Juan Cabrillo also reported the boys were being hurt. Apparently, a teacher at the school finally made a formal report of child abuse that got the attention of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, which began an investigation. The twins were found to have been abused in the classroom as well. The boys, however, never told their parents of the abuse because they are non-verbal, but their mother Nadine Wong said she knew something was wrong because her sons were acting out very aggressively to their parents. The Wongs said this behavior towards them had never been displayed before. 

“As a parent you know something’s wrong when your child is treating everyone different and when you know yourself, that you look at your child and you say, ‘What has happened to you?’, but they can’t tell us,” Wong said.

The lawsuit claimed the district did not take actions when physical abuse to their boys was reported. The parents said the district should have reported the employees’ actions to law enforcement.

According to the lawsuit, filed in 2019, a behavioral support person employed by the district for the twin brothers “repeatedly applied chemicals to the dried, chapped, hands” of the twins and “repeatedly grabbed and touched” them “in a manner intended to inflict pain.” The lawsuit maintained both of these acts “were harmful and offensive forms of contact” and “were in fact harmful and did in fact cause pain. As a proximate result of the above-mentioned conduct, (the plaintiffs) suffered general damages, including, but not limited to bruising, emotional distress and pain, suffering and inconvenience.” 

The two children also suffered special damages that included “counseling expenses, behavioral interventions, and increased living expenses and costs for additional individual support throughout their lives.” One of the plaintiff’s lawyers, David German, said, “District administrators failed the twins by allowing them to be abused for months despite clear warnings they were being harmed.”

Named in the lawsuit were the aide, Galit Gottlieb, then-Principal Pamela Herkner, district administrator Elizabeth Sciutto, classroom teacher William Brown, Special Education Coordinator Kristopher Vegas, Special Education Director Pamela Kazee, and Assistant Superintendent Mark Kelly.

Late last week, SMMUSD officials said they were exploring “options to respond to what we believe to be a verdict that was not justified by the evidence presented.”

Then on Monday, Superintendent Dr. Ben Drati issued a statement that read: “Nothing is — or ever could be — more important to us than the safety and security of all students. Our ongoing dedication to our special needs students is paramount to the success of our district as a whole, and we are committed to making sure that nothing like what has been claimed here could ever happen in the future. We must always examine our shortcomings, but we are also determined to protect the well-being of thousands of our future students and ensure that an unduly punitive award cannot impact the quality of education for an entire generation.”

Charles and Nadine Wong say they don’t want this behavior to be repeated and hope what happened to their family will lead to change for other families.

“I feel vindicated,” said Charles Wong. “It’s out in the open now. The jury saw it.”

The children are now 12 years old and attending a private school with a special program for children with autism.

A SMMUSD spokesperson said any settlement in the case would be covered by insurance and not from the district’s general fund.

From <https://malibutimes.com/santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district-to-pay-family-45-million>

Headers Added for readability....

Pennywise and pound foolish

Opinion by MILES WARNER - November 6, 2023

Santa Monica Daily Express

These days you hear a lot of talk about affordability. We talk about inflation, growing inequality, rents, our growing homeless population, how expensive housing and food is and how we’ve become ever more divided between the haves and the have nots.

And it’s a lot to make sense of as individuals and as a city. Do we believe in a livable wage? Do we want the people in the service sectors to be able to be our neighbors? I mean do we? Are we prepared to pay what it costs for people who work in our community to afford to live in it?
  

WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING?

Last time around we looked at some class size issues and I repeatedly asked, where’s the money, SMMUSD? Without an option to hire more teachers, the administration’s best solution offered was to hire more in-classroom aids. But they can’t seem to find anyone. Let’s look at what being a SMMUSD classroom assistant looks like:

Starting pay is $16/hour with a three or a six-hour daily assignment. If you work over 7 hours you qualify for full benefits—they only allow up to 6 hours a day max.

Gee, I wonder why they can’t find anyone? Now I understand that two of the biggest annual SMMUSD expenditures go to certificated teachers and benefits programs, and of course I understand that there’s a lot of other pots to fill with limited resources. But sometimes paying people less costs you more later or as the English say, it’s “pennywise and pound foolish.”

1. LEGAL SETTLEMENTS

Case in point: the 2022 $45M jury award for the use of corporal punishment by a behavioral aid (Paraeducator—special education starting salary $16.40/hour).

( https://smdp.com/2022/10/22/special-needs-parents-win-45-million-lawsuit-over-abuse-at-smmusd-school/)

What made the jury award so high was that the abuse was reported and allowed to continue for months. Then as the Juan Cabrillo Elementary closed and the lawsuit progressed administrators moved the behavioral aid to Franklin Elementary.

https://smdp.com/2022/11/05/questions-persist-about-aid-involved-in-45-million-settlement/

It wasn’t until the jury award that they put her on home assignment.

Why did they allow the aid to continue to work with these two non-verbal autistic kids after she’d been reported abusing them? And why would they keep her on staff and move her to another school after an allegation of abuse was known about?

I’m not part of the administration, so I can only speculate on how a situation like that was allowed to persist, but I have been told by other aids (again not administrators) that it was simply because they didn’t have anyone to replace her and they legally had to have someone there with the twins. I would love to hear a better explanation from the SMMUSD, but the issue is clear, they can’t seem to fill these positions, they pay terribly, but they legally must have the positions filled, which leads us to third-party contractors…

UNFAIR LOW PAY, POOR QUALITY OF PARAPROFESSIONAL

Case in point 2: According to the SEIU 99 rep, the labor union that represents classified workers (inclusive of aids and paraeducators) “SMMUSD is subcontracting out paraprofessional work due to high demand and low retention. Low pay makes it difficult for the school district to recruit and retain paraprofessionals and instructional assistants.”

So how much are they paying these third-party sub-contractors? I would imagine it would have to be more than $16/hour since that’s barely above minimum wage… so if that’s true, instead of paying SMMUSD employees a livable wage they’re paying third-party for-profit companies more?

Seems pretty short-sighted to me, not to mention upsetting. I mean these are people working with kids with special needs and assisting our teachers in classrooms, both difficult important jobs, and we’re not taking care of them?

And before you @ me, just know that according their website, LAUSD pays a starting salary of $20.52 for classroom assistants/$22.85 paraeducators, which is not great but it’s a lot better than $16 & $16.40/hour and LAUSD operates on a much tighter per pupil budget than SMMUSD.

LOW PAY = POOR OUTCOMES FOR CHILDREN

So, who really suffers here? Well definitely the kids and teachers who aren’t getting enough assistants. Not to mention the assistants themselves who are under paid and often have to work multiple jobs to make ends meet. Is this who we are?

Can we as a city have it all? Can we have beautifully manicured lawns, amazing weather, excellent public infrastructure and a livable wage? Can we be a town that attracts the wealthiest people in the world, is also is feasible for service workers and takes care of its homeless population?

I don’t have an easy answer for those questions, but I do know we can afford to pay the people who work with our kids and assist our teachers something comparable to our larger less-funded neighbors to the East.

SEIU is currently negotiating a new contract. So, my sincerest hope is that they walk away with something that is fair for all.

Next time we’ll take a break from the schools and discuss some city politics. In the meantime, thanks for reading and happy belated Halloween!

Miles Warner is a Santa Monica parent and resident. His column will explore the emerging and changing identity of our city and stir the pot…a bit

From <https://smdp.com/2023/11/06/becoming-santa-monica-3/>

Becoming Santa Monica - 23October2023

By Guest Author Miles Warner, October 23, 2023

Santa Monica Daily Express

A few weeks ago, my wife and I trotted into our first grader’s class excited to meet her teacher and get a sense of what was ahead for our energetic and bright little girl. It was back to school night at Roosevelt Elementary and her teacher, a seasoned pro, started in on how this was going to be a big year for reading. First grade is one of those transitionary years, where there is a jump in the kind of work kids do.

After a bit our teacher stopped her presentation, and you could see she was a little frazzled as she told us she was going to need extra parent volunteers this year. You see, she said, there are 26 kids in her class, and well, she’s never had that many first graders. She explained that between her aide and herself, it’ll be hard to get enough one-on-one reading time with each kid, while making sure the other kids are properly engaged and occupied.

Now parents of all stripes worry about their kids’ education, but parents of younger kids are particularly concerned, because we know that these are formative years and that our kids are more fragile and need more help to succeed. So this request and noticeable concern from our teacher created considerable alarm. Someone in the room suggested that maybe the board is trying to save money on teachers so they can buy the Civic Center (more on that in the future). Eventually the teacher got back to her program.

We left the class, eager to catch up with the other parents and see how their first-grade presentations were. My wife, clearly shaken, asked “When can we afford to put her in private school?” She wife wasn’t alone—two of the kids in my daughter’s class did leave the school shortly after that night.

It turns out that the other three first grade classes are also over 24 kids, which is the teacher union contract recommended and California state local control funding formula maximum number of students that can be in a preK-3rd classroom. Later we found out there are 30 kids in our 4th grader’s class, which happens to be the maximum for 4th-5th grades. (You should see the WhatsApp parent groups!)

The way Roosevelt stays in compliance is that it’s measured through a TK-3rd grade average. So, because other grades at other schools are below the average, we’re within the allotment Teachers know—and much of the research backs this up—class size directly affects success in the classroom. It also affects more vulnerable populations more drastically. So, if SMMUSD is trying to improve things for low-income kids and students of color, as it so often tells us, we would see this being of the highest priority. It clearly isn’t.

This brings up all sorts of questions. The first, which we will return to almost certainly over and over again, is: why should you care? That’s where we get into our civic identity and where our values fall. Because while the school board and superintendents are telling us what a great job they’re doing, and asking for more and more bond money—that you’re going to pay for when approved—you’re relying on our schools to continue to be excellent. You’re relying on that because for purely cynical reasons you want your property values to increase and because you want families to move here and invest emotionally and financially in the further well-being of our city. And benevolently, you’re relying on good schools because you hope that you live in a city that values things like science, critical thinking, knowledge/education, and the furtherment of the human enterprise. At the very least, you want for your tax dollars to be well spent, which leads us to the ultimate question here: where’s the money going?

SMMUSD as of last year had the second highest per pupil spending of any district in the county (after Beverly Hills). Think about that statement for a moment. Yet we aren’t hiring enough teachers to keep the class sizes below the agreed number. They’ll tell you about the “project based learning” and all of the extra programs like music and art that they furnish our kids with, but then they approach parents and tell us we need to donate to the Ed Foundation (more on this in the future) so that we can keep those programs thriving. So… where’s the money going, SMMUSD?

Roosevelt has a brand-new principal. So far she is fantastic, energetic, and as far as I’m concerned, an awesome addition to our wonderful school community. She has very little power over the problem of class sizes, but she assures us that she is trying. The solution the administration is suggesting is to hire more aides. But they can’t seem to hire them! We’ll discuss why that soon, but I’ll give you a little preview—we pay our classroom aides roughly what McDonalds does and often offer only part-time work. We all know the real solution is to hire more teachers, but they can’t. Because they don’t have… the money.

So, I ask once more: Where is all of the money going?

Miles Warner is a Santa Monica parent and resident. His column will explore the emerging and changing identity of our city and stir the pot…a bit

Miles Warner

From <https://smdp.com/2023/10/23/becoming-santa-monica-2/>

Sowing Misinformation

Santa Monica Daily Express Nov 2 2023

Editor:

In his October 23rd column “Becoming Santa Monica,” Miles Warner reported that in a meeting of first grade parents concerned about class size, “(s)omeone in the room suggested that maybe the board is trying to save money on teachers so they can buy the Civic Center.”

Mr. Warner was a candidate for school board in 2022 so he is presumably well-versed in SMMUSD finances.  So it’s curious and surprising that he didn’t advise the parents — and his readers — that any money saved on operational expenses such as salaries doesn’t translate into extra funding for one time capital expenses such as purchasing the Civic Center (BTW, the City Council solicited buyers for the Civic, so let’s not make the school district a villain for responding). 

Surely Mr. Warner is aware that SMMUSD has two pots of money, one of which can only be used for ongoing, annual operational expenses and the other of which is solely for one time capital expenses such as facility improvements, and never the twain shall meet. After all, he ran for office to be a fiduciary of taxpayer dollars.

So why is he conflating the two in his column and thereby sowing misinformation?

Ted Winterer

From <https://smdp.com/2023/11/02/sowing-misinformation/>

reddit & opinion writer: CANDIDATE MILES WARNER, SCHOOL BOARD

https://www.santamonica.gov/elections/2022-11-08/candidates/miles-warner

https://santamonicademocrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SB-Miles-Warner-Questionnaire-R1.pdf

Candidate Name: Miles Warner

Email Address: vote4MilesWarner@gmail.com

Phone Number: please email to schedule a phone call ± I am very happy to speak with anyone

&DQGLGDWH¶V&XUUHQW2FFXSDWLRQ Father and Business owner

&DQGLGDWH¶V(PSOR\HU Self-employed

Campaign Contact Person (if other than candidate

 reddit battles - Biasedsm v Miles Warner and others

 Posted by u/Biasedsm   3 months ago

The Right Wing attempt to take over our schools has begun

Miles Warner, a Republican SM Daily Press journalist who is trying to engineer a take over of our school district has begun his public attacks on our schools. You'll recall he ran for school board as a member of the The Brighter Path and was resoundingly rejected by voters in 2022. He has been given a prominent platform by the NIMBY owner of the SMDP rag.

The point of his latest "feelings as facts" piece was to simply ask where is SMMUSD spending its money. He claims the district is "wasting money" but fails to provide any hard data to back up the claim. All he needs to do is provide his analysis of the current budget (which is public) and show us where the waste is. https://www.smmusd.org/Page/3899. As you read the article, you will notice that he is completely clueless on the schools funding mechanisms.

It needs to be mentioned that in 2022 Miles was endorsed by three council candidates whom are deeply involved with our schools - Phil Brock who is a leader of the Ed Foundation, Oscar de la Torre who served on the school board for 18 years and Lana Negrete who uses her businesses relationship with SMMUSD to convince voters she is good for our children.

The Slate of Change is a threat to our highly ranked schools and their relationship with the Brighter Path can no longer be ignored. And their attack on parents who move to Santa Monica for the quality of our schools is unhinged.

NOTE: In Warners most recent rant, SMDP has failed to identify him as the author of this piece: https://smdp.com/2023/11/06/becoming-santa-monica-3/ NOTE: This has been corrected.

From <https://www.reddit.com/r/SantaMonica/comments/17px6nj/the_right_wing_attempt_to_take_over_our_schools/> 

Response from Miles Warner

MilesSM 4 mo. ago · edited 4 mo. ago

Hi, @ BiasedSM. A friend told me that you are spouting lies about me here. I will tell you that I will probably not return to confront this nonsense routinely, but I will say a few things:

1. I have looked at some of your past comments and you seem to be all over the map and really only presenting a POV that is toxic and destructive. That is the antithesis of what SM needs right now. Please consider becoming a positive contributor with actual ideas.

2. It's funny that you call someone you disagree with MAGA. I have literally never in my life voted for a Republican. I grew up going to abortion rallies with my single mother and anti-nuclear testing protests. As a child I witnessed multiple same-sex marriages at the Church in Ocean Park and have always been a fierce advocate for true equality. I went to UCSC and am a tried and true bleeding heart liberal. So good luck with that nonsense. Name calling someone is a waste of time and it completely undermines any argument or idea you have. How about I call you a MAGA who spreads false news? Does that help anything, at all. Please stop with this nonsense--or dont, who really cares? You seem to have nothing to add anyway?

3. Who are you? I have put my name out there with my opinions in an effort to improve our city. I will certainly have wrong takes, but I will own them and make amends. You hide here under a pseudonym. There is a huge lack of courage in your behavior.

4. The 'A Brighter Future' group was a coalition of people from very different backgrounds and political ideologies who came together to improve the schools. There were far leftist and hard conservatives and everything in-between. We were united by a desire to improve the schools. So far since three of the four of us lost the election, (having been out spent 4-1, by incumbents who raised heavily from Construction Unions, who shocker benefit directly from the over $1.6b in bond capital improvement funds) the schools have had a $45m abuse lawsuit awarded, a $2m fraud announcement and now while test scores and enrollment continue to decline and John Muir shows no clear progress towards reopening, the School Board is trying to buy the civic auditorium (even though SAMO is declining in enrollment) to continue to advance their real estate empire, with seemingly no real regard for the actual education of our kids. I disagree with a lot of the people I worked with on a lot of things, but we all agreed that the current board (with only two parents with kids in the schools) was leading the ship aground.

5. And yes, I ran for school board to make things better. What have you done? Other than sit here and spew toxic hatred? I agree with the others here, why don't you leave this city and go somewhere else, since you seem so hateful toward it.

I am writing this column to explore the city I love and to create a conversation about who we are becoming. We are not the same city I grew up in. There are no clear answers moving forward and there are very different takes on the problems and challenges ahead. So I hope to engage with those and from time to time point out issues. I greatly look forward to constructive positive and oppositional engagement. But if all you got is to call people names, then you clearly have nothing constructive to offer this city or this conversation.

To the rest of you who care about our city, I welcome your input and I look forward to engaging with you and trying to express a multitude of perspectives as well as an evolving understanding of who we are and where we're going. Thank you in advance for reading and for engaging.

From <https://www.reddit.com/r/SantaMonica/comments/173tit2/sm_daily_press_goes_full_maga_with_the/>

MilesSM  3 mo. ago

We’ve already gone through this charade and yet you persist. You know I’m not a republican. You know that it was a coalition of many different people across the ideological spectrum and yet you continue to lie. These are not facts as feelings as you are so aware with these two posts of yours. They pay assistants $16/hour and don’t offer benefits and then turn around and hire independent contractors. Where’s your sense of social justice that you so readily proclaim??! How about a livable wage! You are clearly just a political shill.

From <https://www.reddit.com/r/SantaMonica/comments/17px6nj/the_right_wing_attempt_to_take_over_our_schools/>

Santa Monica Daily Press Goes Full MAGA with the introduction of Miles Warner as a guest journalist

Posted by Biasedsm

For those who can’t remember, Miles is a member of the The Brighter Path, a group of aggrieved parents who have viciously attacked our schools, its leaders and its teachers. His beliefs were rejected by a super majority of voters in the last election when he ran for School Board. He was backed by the Slate of Change.

This is some of the BS he is spouting in his first piece:

Our schools were always excellent. The promenade was a focal point for the greater LA area, and the slow-growth mindset made it so there was limited housing density. That is not an all-inclusive list, it’s just a start, but each of those things have changed: Our schools have dropped in enrollment and standing from their highs, while we’ve seen the number of private schools rapidly increase. The promenade feels seedy and at times disquieting. And finally, we are at a crossroads over how much density we want.

But homelessness seems overwhelming now, in a way it never did before.

Please note that Warner never mentions micro mobility, social justice, climate change, housing density near transit, etc.

The Slate of Change and the No Growth Extremists are trying to change their tone without changing their radical views. We the residents of Santa Monica are tired of right wing grievance.

64 comments

From <https://www.reddit.com/r/SantaMonica/comments/173tit2/sm_daily_press_goes_full_maga_with_the/>

Biasedsm

Op · 4 mo. ago · edited 4 mo. ago

And yes, here are two local articles that dismantle your claim the school district is being run into the ground: https://patch.com/california/santamonica/samohi-ranks-top-4-best-high-schools-nationwide

https://smdp.com/2023/09/05/samohi-district-commended-by-national-rankings/

FYI - you lost your race for school board because of your beliefs, not because of money.

Those who oppose the Slate of Change and its views have been doxxed and threatened by residents and council members (from the dais) for years. Those who downvote me really dislike my views on housing, mobility, the role of systemic racism in our culture and the desire to treat the unhoused with compassion.

For more than a decade, those who now call themselves The Slate of Change and The Brighter Path have been viciously attacking our elected officials and city workers. When those techniques are applied to The Slate of Change, suddenly we need less confrontation and more "just get alongism"? This position is hypocrisy on steroids given that our right wingers have refused to change their tactics. Santa Monica will be a better place once they stand down.

From <https://www.reddit.com/r/SantaMonica/comments/173tit2/sm_daily_press_goes_full_maga_with_the/>

 Measurement6753 4 mo. ago

You are the exact MAGA you pretend to oppose. Congrats for self identifying as the most MAGA person here

From <https://www.reddit.com/r/SantaMonica/comments/173tit2/sm_daily_press_goes_full_maga_with_the/>

Change Slate plays the race card from the Dais on 1.23

Posted by u/Biasedsm

Former Mayor Pam O’Connor applied for a position on The Architectural Review Board and was the only qualified candidate. Ms. O’Connor is a perceived Slate enemy and they have attacked her for over a decade.

The Slate of Change electeds along with their followers and handlers do not want progressives to serve our city in any capacity. This is evidenced by the way they stuff our boards and commissions with loyalists, not the most qualified. This trend was on display on Jan 23.

When it came time to vote for Ms O’Connor, who is white, they injected race into the discussion. Oscar de la Torre, who self identifies as a champion of DEI, said the city should pause the appointment to see if there are more diverse candidates. Brock, Parra and Negrete immediately jumped in to support Oscar. Then a funny thing happened - Council member Davis, a Latina, called bullshit on this tactic. She asked why DEI standards were ignored in all past appointments and was suddenly an issue - which caused The Slate to stutter and mumble. If you watch the meeting on Youtube, you will see for yourself how emotionally unhinged The Slate became when they responded to Davis and her challenge to their DEI objection that exposed their hypocrisy.

What The Slate of Change did this week was play the race card to prevent their perceived democrat enemy from serving our city. Davis called this public display of racism out as a ploy strictly to serve political ends, not one to address diversity.

What we learned is that the DEI speeches we hear from de la Torre and Parra are simply political gamemanship and not one of their core beliefs.

Oscar de la Torre, Christine Parra, Lana Negrete and Phil Brock have shown they are more interested in MAGA governing than they are in doing right by residents.

It is Item 16A and can be found at the end of the meeting.

6 comments

UCLAClimate

 · 6 days agoBergamot

Can you include a link to accompany your rants? It looks like they talked about this for 35 minutes.

Biasedsm

Op · 6 days ago

The Slate Change also attempted to turn The Tenant Protection Act into the Landlord Protection Act (it is Item 10B and can be found here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDMBA9zsmxQ ).

The Slate of Change, now that Brock is mayor, is trying to appease their large financial backers as they realize they have accomplished nothing in 3 year

From <https://www.reddit.com/r/SantaMonica/comments/1acgm53/change_slate_plays_the_race_card_from_the_dais_on/>

Separation / Break-up of District

Malibu is Moving on...Sayonara Santa Monica

Proposed Malibu Unified School District

Current Status [LINK CITY OF MALIBU]

MAY 15, 2023: The City of Malibu and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District released the following joint statement on May 15, 2023:

Negotiations between the City of Malibu and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD), initiated in October 2022, led to agreement on a “Term Sheet,” which outlined a framework to accomplish formation of an independent Malibu Unified School District and Santa Monica Unified School District. The Term Sheet identified a goal of finalizing three agreements by April 15, 2023, but clarification of additional details will be required to accurately   reflect the agreement between the parties.

Most importantly, the parties have reached an agreement that all students will benefit from the creation of independent school districts. Hence, the parties will continue to finalize key terms for the three agreements that will define the separation.

The next mediation session is scheduled for August 8, 2023. Meanwhile, an update on the negotiations was given to the Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization on May 3 and was provided to the Malibu City Council on May 8. 

VIDEO: Community Testimonials on Forming the Malibu Unified School District

SANTA MONICA-MALIBU UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT AND CITY OF MALIBU ANNOUNCE PROGRESS ON SCHOOL DISTRICT SEPARATION

The City of Malibu and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SM-MUSD) have jointly settled on a detailed framework and process to pursue the separation of the two territories into two separate unified school districts: Santa Monica Unified and Malibu Unified.

The framework emerged after months of mediation and joint meetings between the parties dating back to April of this year.

The details of the framework and process are spelled out in a Term Sheet document available on the website.  

Highlights of the framework include:

1. A conceptual financial model to insure both districts maintain sufficient revenue and revenue growth to provide the same or greater level of educational programs to students in both territories.

2. A description of agreements that the City and the District will need to finalize, including a tax-sharing agreement, operations agreement, and joint powers agreement, to fully implement the unification.

3. The pursuit of special legislation to assist in the implementation of the unification.

4. A detailed timeline of the process.

“This process we’ve identified reflects countless hours of negotiations and hard work on both sides,” Jon Kean, SM-MUSD Board Member, said. “Unification has been discussed, debated and pursued many times over the last few decades. The commitment by both sides to move forward under this framework represents the first time that we have been able to mutually agree upon an equitable financial model. While there is work left to do, we have reached an historic moment in this process.”

“After years of hard work and negotiations, we finally have a viable framework for an independent Malibu Unified School District,” Malibu Mayor Paul Grisanti said. “We would not be here without the hard work, dedication, and compromise made by the District and the City’s negotiating teams. Now that the Term Sheet has been accepted by both the SM-MUSD Board of Education and the Malibu City Council, I am hopeful that the process and framework set forth will guide us to the ultimate goal of two separate school districts.” 

There will be many opportunities for public feedback and input as progress is made by the parties. Additional public engagement on this process is expected to begin early in the new calendar year.

Acronyms

The following are commonly used acronyms in discussion of school district separation and formation of a new district:

• AMPS - Advocates for Malibu Public Schools

• LACOE - Los Angeles County Office of Education

• MUNC - Malibu Unification Negotiations Committee

• MUSD - proposed Malibu Unified School District

• SM-MUSD - Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District

• SMUSD - proposed Santa Monica Unified School District

• SSC - School Services of California

From <https://www.malibucity.org/782/Proposed-Malibu-Unified-School-District>

Santa Monica-Malibu School District Separation Expected By 2026

Malibu and Santa Monica should have their own independent school districts by fall 2026, officials say.

Chris Lindahl, Patch Staff article link

Posted Mon, Oct 16, 2023 at 3:14 pm PT

Image Malibu and Santa Monica are working to create independent school districts. (Emily Rahhal/Patch)

MALIBU, CA – Officials have completed the "heaviest piece of work" in creating an independent Malibu school district, but are urging patience as the separation of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District is now expected to be completed by fall 2026.

Recent negotiations between the city of Malibu and SMMUSD have spawned a near-finalization of the revenue-sharing agreement that creates a formula and methodology for how the separation will occur financially, Deputy City Attorney Christine Wood told the City Council at a recent meeting.

Wood said the council should expect to vote on that formula in the "very near future."

While that part of the negotiations represented what Wood described as the "heaviest piece of work," there's still several other matters to be ironed, such as dividing district assets and determining which services a future Malibu school district will need from Santa Monica, Wood said.

The negotiations are guided by a framework that both sides agreed to in November 2022. At that time, officials said they could submit their proposal to the county by May. It would then go on to the California Board of Education and reach voters’ ballots in March 2024 and be finalized later that year.

But Wood now says that timeline is "ambitious," and the matter is likely to be completely wrapped up by fall 2026.

"There's not a format, there's not a plan for how this happens, we don't have anyone's shoes to walk in," she said. "This has never happened to two basic aid districts in LA County."

From <https://patch.com/california/malibu/santa-monica-malibu-school-district-separation-expected-2026>

Santa Monica, Malibu agree on ‘conceptual framework’ for school district separation

byEmily Sawicki October 29, 2022 Santa Monica Daily Express [link]

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District offices (File photo)

“After extensive conversations, negotiations and mediations, both the City of Malibu and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District agree that it is now in the best interest of all students that a mutually agreed to process for the formation of an independent Malibu Unified School District and Santa Monica Unified School District be pursued jointly by the two parties.”

So says the seven-page term sheet laying out the divorce settlement between Malibu and the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD). Santa Monica and Malibu are heading into the weekend closer to a school district divorce than ever before, with both sides agreeing to a term sheet outlining a “conceptual framework” for the long-anticipated separation to begin.

Malibu City Council voted, 3-0, in closed session on Friday morning to approve terms for a school district split, with Councilmember Steve Uhring absent from the meeting and Mayor Pro Tem Bruce Silverstein abstaining from the vote. The vote came days after a similar approval by the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) School Board, though no formal vote was taken. 

“The term sheet contains a conceptual framework that sets forth the process and timeline for creating an independent Malibu Unified School District,” according to Malibu Interim City Attorney Trevor Rusin, who spoke during the Friday meeting. “The Council also authorizes legal and financial consultants to continue to negotiate three separate agreements contemplated by the term sheet that would accomplish a full separation: a tax revenue sharing agreement, an operational agreement and a joint powers agreement. The City and District will continue these negotiations with the mediator to finalize these agreements. If the contemplated processes are accomplished within the proposed timeframes, an independent Malibu school district could be formed by July 1, 2024.”

The general terms of the split state that the proposed Santa Monica Unified School District would retain all school sites in the City of Santa Monica as well as all local revenues; the same would be true for Malibu under a new Malibu Unified School District, with the addition of revenue from the unincorporated portions of LA County often referred to as “unincorporated Malibu.”

The major sticking point in negotiations up to this point has been the potential loss of funding for Santa Monica students after Malibu — with its deeper pockets — departs. Proposed terms account for an allocation to maintain funding for Santa Monica schools.

“Each successor educational entity shall upon the first day of operations be allocated a sufficient share of funding to provide for a similar level of service at each school site as delivered by the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District in the fiscal year prior to formation,” according to the term sheet. Various machinations would ensure Santa Monica students would retain current funding levels (accounting for inflation) at least through 2042, at which point “tapering of tax revenue sharing shall commence” if necessary, that would go no longer than 10 years until tax revenue sharing officially ends by 2052.

The agreements also acknowledge that property tax revenues could change due to things like natural disasters, and that the cost of operating a Malibu Unified School District could be higher than currently foreseen. 

The timeline attached to the term sheet includes a roughly 70-day stress testing of the proposed tax revenue sharing agreement terms that is now underway. By mid-December, the two sides hoped to have requested the special legislation required to split the two districts (one of the requirements for the process to continue). Parent and stakeholder input would be collected from January through mid-March 2023, and final agreements — tax revenue sharing, operations and joint powers authority — were to be completed by mid-April.

In early May of next year, the two sides hoped to have earned SMMUSD Board of Education approval for the split, followed by Malibu City Council approval shortly thereafter. The petition would finally be submitted by May 15, if the timeline holds up, giving the County Superintendent of Schools until June 14 to approve of the joint petition.

LA County Office of Education (LACOE) would then hold hearings on the arrangement in July 2023, before a November 2023 decision.

If all that goes according to plan, the split would appear on the March 2024 ballot for voter consideration in the statewide primary election, with the earliest possible start date for each independent school district set at July 1, 2024.

The move is the latest in a years-long process the City of Malibu and SMMUSD Board of Education have undertaken to facilitate Malibu departing the District. Malibu is geographically separated from the Santa Monica-based School District and its students make up about 15% of the total school population, but Malibu’s strong tax base has been responsible for supplying an outsized percentage of school funding to the shared District over the years, complicating the negotiation.

“This process we’ve identified reflects countless hours of negotiations and hard work on both sides,” SMMUSD Board Member Jon Kean said in a statement provided by the SMMUSD. “Unification has been discussed, debated and pursued many times over the last few decades. The commitment by both sides to move forward under this framework represents the first time that we have been able to mutually agree upon an equitable financial model. While there is work left to do, we have reached an historic moment in this process.”

The next LACOE Committee on School District Organization meeting, which had been scheduled for Wednesday, Nov. 2, has been canceled. The next scheduled meeting of the County Committee is for Wednesday, Dec. 7, 2022, at 9:30 a.m. 

emily@smdp.com

From <https://smdp.com/2022/10/29/santa-monica-malibu-agree-on-conceptual-framework-for-school-district-separation-2/>

Future of Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District in question; effort to divide district gaining traction

By John Gregory  ABC

Monday, April 5, 2021

Chef James leads a team of volunteers at the Bread and Roses Cafe to serve the unhoused in Venice.

Battle has been brewing for years between Santa Monica and Malibu, two cities sharing one school district. A county committee will hear from both sides later this month.

KABC

SANTA MONICA, Calif. (KABC) -- Could one area school district be split in two? It is a battle that has been brewing for years. Two cities, Santa Monica and Malibu, sharing one school district -- and some Malibu residents say they've had enough.

"Santa Monica wants to take our tax dollars but doesn't want to give us the same treatment that the Santa Monica schools have," said Seth Jacobson, parent.

It's not just about money. Mudslides and fires often leave Malibu isolated from the rest of the district. City leaders believe a local district could better serve students in emergencies.

"There was a time when combining these two discontinuous cities into one school district made sense, but it no longer makes sense. And we are looking for something that's very basic that most communities have and that is local control of its own school district," said Karen Farrer, Malibu City Council.

A county committee will hear from both sides later this month. And Santa Monica residents plan to put up a fight.

"Anyone who cares about equity, social justice and the scourge of income inequality should oppose Malibu's petition and implore the committee to deny the Malibu proposal at its preliminary hearing," said Ted Winter, Santa Monica resident.

"Malibu's plan sets their schools and their students up for success, and if approved as is would be deeply damaging to Santa Monica students," said Kristin McCowan, Santa Monica City Council.

Malibu's money is at the heart of this fight, and the city is offering to compensate Santa Monica for any damage the break would cause, but how much money now appears to be a key question.

From <https://abc7.com/santa-monica-malibu-unified-school-district/10489072/>

Budget Concerns...

School budget hits the red starting next year

byMatthew Hall

June 7, 2023

The Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District’s ledger is headed into the red with the District forecasting budget deficits for the next two budget cycles.

SMMUSD will formally adopt its budget at the end of this month but the Board heard a preliminary update last week with bad news in the short term.

The District projected total revenues for next school year as $132,538,788 [2023/2024].

That is projected to increase slightly to $137,119,554 for the 24/25 school year.

Expenses are estimated to be $141,918,920  [2023/2024] for next year and $139,110,031 for the 24/25 year.

“We’re projecting a possible $9.3 million deficit for that fiscal year and then the next fiscal year about $1.9 million deficit,” said Assistant Superintendent Melody Canady.

The preliminary budget is based on a set of assumptions including declining enrollment of 8,394, average daily attendance of 7,974 (95%), about 28 percent of students requiring additional fiscal support and a cost of living adjustment (COLA) of 8.2%.

Staff said the surging inflation rate and its impact on COLA rates closed the gap between the amount of money the District received from property taxes and what it could receive from the state based on attendance but as tax revenues continue to outpace state funding, the District continues to draw its funding from the property taxes.

The two funding sources (state vs. property tax) arrive at different points in the year with the property tax revenues arriving about six months after State payments. That will require the District to temporarily borrow money for a few weeks to preserve cash flow at the end of the year.

The District will dip into its reserves to cover the losses but boardmembers said more needed to be done to safeguard the District’s financial future.

“This is not a ‘Chicken Little the sky is falling’ budget but it is a ‘wake the heck up budget’,” said Boardmember Jon Kean. “We did something that was important in terms of our pay scale last year. And this budget is showing us that by not making larger reductions or adjustments and 23/24, we’re seeing that.”

In July of last year, SMMUSD approved rates for contracts going into the 2022-23 school year, with teachers earning 10% wage increases. Teachers also got a 0.57% salary increase as part of “step and column” increases, which essentially provide increases to salaries in a “step” program to incentivize teachers to stay with the District. The raises are retroactive back to June 2021 and with salary as the District’s largest expense, the raises have a significant impact on the budget.

Kean said he wanted to see more cuts more quickly to right the ship before the shortfalls reached critical levels.

“Cuts made now compound,” he said. “So the longer we take to adjust, the harder it is to get back online. Our budget is telling us that. This budget is saying our reserves are threatened.”

He said the district really needed to find more income but in the absence of additional revenue, spending cuts were the only choice.

“I would like to see a little more austerity before this comes back to us,” he said. “Because anything we do for 23/24 will show the double effect in 2024/25. I don’t know if there’s any more belt tightening to do. But if we don’t do it next year, we’re just making it harder for us the year after.”

Boardmember Alica Mignano agreed saying the District should evaluate its current programs.

“I think they really need to look at what we’re offering and what we’re spending and how effective it is,” she said. And we need to work on that as soon as possible.”

Kean said he agreed with a program analysis and stressed that the current problems were largely the result of broader economic factors. As the District is funded through property taxes, it doesn’t receive the same funding increases tied to inflation that it would get as a State Aid district.

“The cost of what we have to provide has gone up and our revenue has not necessarily increased at that same rate,” he said. “I don’t believe we have a spending problem … but our issue is just a basic economic problem. The cost of goods and services has skyrocketed, and our revenue streams have not matched that.”

The Board will have two more opportunities to reflect on the budget during a June 22 special meeting and at their regularly scheduled meeting of June 29.

editor@smdp.com

From <https://smdp.com/2023/06/07/school-budget-hits-the-red-starting-next-year/>

Budget Information

Budget Information for 2023-2024
2023-24 Adopted Budget – Presentation
2023-24 Adopted Budget – Attachment
2023-24 Adopted Budget – Multi-Year Projection (MYP)
2023-24 Adopted Budget – Budget by Site & Department
2023-24 Adopted Budget – Second Interim Budget Review Letter from LACOE
2023-24 Adopted Budget – SACS Report
2023-24 Proposed Public Hearing Budget – Presentation

From <https://www.smmusd.org/Page/3898>

ADOPTED BUDGET

2023-24 Adopted Budget – Presentation

https://www.smmusd.org/cms/lib/CA50000164/Centricity/domain/300/budgetinfo/2023-24AdoptedBudgetPresentation.pdf

2023-24 Adopted Budget

General Fund

Presented by Melody Canady, Assistant Superintendent,Business & Fiscal Services

June 29, 2023 Board Meeting, Agenda Item II.I.4

LCFF Budget Assumptions

§ SMMUSD Enrollment – 8,394 (declining)

§ Average Daily Attendance – 7,974.30 (95%)

§ Unduplicated Count (ELL, F/R, Foster) – 2,577 (27.71%)

§ Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) – 8.22%

§ Total LCFF funding – $120,002,215

§ Included in the LCFF dollars is the LCAP Supplemental

funding of $5,491,921

CVRA ISSUES - DISTRICT OR AT-LARGE VOTING, and Malibu??

Doublespeak: Note Unification means Separation of Malibu and Santa Monica into two separate school districts

Two hearings set to evaluate multi-city voting districts for School Board

byThomas LefflerJanuary 23, 2024

There will be two hearings to talk about proposed districts for Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) Credit:Courtesy photo

While the City of Santa Monica awaits a court ruling on the future of municipal elections, a much delayed proposal to force the local school district into districted voting will get a pair of public hearings in the coming weeks.

At 6 p.m. on January 31, the Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization (LACCSDO), part of the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE), will host the first meeting at Santa Monica College’s Malibu campus multipurpose room. The second hearing will be held on Feb. 10 at 9:30 a.m. at SMMUSD District Offices, 1717 4th St. Both will focus on a proposal to establish trustee voting areas but no decisions will be made at either meeting.

Malibu attorney Kevin Shenkman submitted the petition on behalf of two residents to establish district based voting for SMMUSD in 2022 saying the at-large system is unfair to minority voters. SMMUSD has strongly opposed the plan to implement districts saying the maps are not legal and that there’s no evidence the current system disenfranchises minority voters.

County officials tabled discussion of the concept after a tentative agreement was reached to split Malibu from Santa Monica creating two entirely distinct school organizations.

Though the district petition and the petition to form a Malibu Unified School District are different actions, County officials and proponents of splitting the district said any effort to establish districts would be moot if Malibu were to separate and in addition, a letter from Dale Larson, an attorney representing SMMUSD in the trustee area petition, stated that SMMUSD could not pursue work needed to achieve unification (the legal term for splitting Malibu into its own district) if it also had to attend to the trustee area petition, and that the trustee area petition should be delayed in order for SMMUSD to “undertake significant public outreach” on unification.

Legal counsel representing SMMUSD and City of Malibu both echoed that statement in recent months, with SMMUSD legal counsel David Soldani saying public hearings on the trustee area petition would delay special legislation in the unification process by a year. Soldani added that “it does not make sense” to review the trustee area petition “on the cusp” of a unification petition, since that would “necessarily address trustee areas” by making Malibu its own district. Legal counsel Christine Wood representing the City of Malibu said the City “would not be happy” if the process to get special legislation started for unification was delayed, and that the City “want[s] to move forward” with unification.

Framework for the divorce settlement between Malibu and SMMUSD has been in the works for years. In the fall of 2022, both Malibu City Council and the SMMUSD Board of Education approved a “term sheet” for a school district split, with negotiations between the parties based around a tax revenue sharing agreement, an operational agreement and a joint powers agreement. On September 6, 2023, Wood stated that the parties agreed to a formula to monetize the term sheet, and during a November 1, 2023 meeting, Wood added that parties have made “substantive” progress on revenue sharing, and that a joint powers agreement “shouldn’t be difficult” for the sides to achieve.

According to LACCSDO, Shenkman expressed doubts that proposed special legislation to branch Malibu into its own district would take place in 2024 and continued to make the case that the petition should be thoroughly examined regardless of progress in splitting the district. At a December 6, 2023 committee meeting, Shenkman declared that the trustee area voting petition was not linked to the unification petition and should not be delayed.

The upcoming hearings will focus on the impact a recently passed law, AB764, has on the proposal. The new law puts restrictions on redistricting and the creation of district maps.

According to a letter sent to the participants, the hearings will not delve into matters beyond the legality of the proposed maps.

“The purpose of this letter is to respond to your request for clarity on the subject of these hearings,” said the Jan. 3 notification. “As we stated previously, during these two hearings the Committee will focus only on whether the map provided in the SMMUSD TAV Petition conforms to statutory requirements given the recent passage of Assembly Bill 764. These hearings will not focus on matters outside that scope, such as whether there is evidence of racially polarized voting and vote dilution, and whether the SMMUSD TAV Petition furthers the purposes of the California Voting Rights Act (CVRA) or whether the SMMUSD TAV Petition map is an appropriate remedy for vote dilution.”

The maps attached to the districting proposal split SMMUSD into seven districts. Part of Malibu is merged with Santa Monica’s Sunset Park neighborhood to create District 1 and the other half of Malibu is combined with a swath of Santa Monica’s NOMA/Wilmont neighborhoods to create District 3.

Shenkman also currently represents plaintiffs in the case of Pico Neighborhood Association et al. v. City of Santa Monica, which alleges that the city’s at-large voting system unfairly discriminates against Latino voters and violates the CVRA.

The case is under further review after the California Supreme Court overturned an appeals ruling favoring the City, with Justices stating the case should be reheard and re-evaluated under different criteria.

thomas@smdp.com

From <https://smdp.com/2024/01/23/two-hearings-set-to-evaluate-multi-city-voting-districts-for-school-board/>

A powerful California law is reshaping how you vote. Lawyers are making millions off it

SAN FRANCISCO CHRONICLE

IMAGE: The invoice sent by Shenkman to the Martinez Unified School District. The invoice totals $34,390.20 but Shenkman requested $30,000 for reimbursement.

Redwood City School District also made the switch from at-large elections to district-elections in 2018.

Before the switch, the school board had one Latina member and  four white members.

After elections in 2018 and 2020, ethnic representation on the board remains the same.

Elsewhere, the law has spawned unexpected outcomes.

UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES - NIMBY WINNERS, FAR RIGHT WINNERS

Housing becomes harder to build in many cities, because districts give NIMBYs more leverage to reject unpopular projects, potentially worsening the state’s dire housing crisis, according to research on home permitting. Fewer candidates are running for office in some towns, leading to canceled district elections and disenfranchised voters.

In conservative pockets of California, the CVRA has boosted the fortunes of Christian evangelicals and other hard-right candidates, helping them take over school boards and pass policies that restrict LGBTQ+ rights and ban books about race.

According to experts on election law, at-large systems can make sense in some places. Citywide elections don’t always harm minorities. But the CVRA is a blunt instrument, without a precise test to separate valid claims from invalid ones. Even state judges, who lean heavily Democratic, have sometimes struggled to understand when to apply it. So in practice, plaintiffs and their attorneys are the ones making those calls, pressuring agencies of all shapes and sizes to adopt districts.

“To me, it’s a perfect example of how the one-size-fits-all approach just does not work,” said Randy Groom, the former city manager of Exeter and Visalia. “There are absolutely places where it made a positive difference. But boy, in many other cases, it not only serves no valid purpose, it does damage.”

There are also places where the law’s failure to increase minority representation has exposed barriers faced by those groups that can’t be fixed just by drawing new lines on a map. “I don’t think you can wave a magic wand and take a city to court and fix representation issues automatically,” said Robb Korinke, a data analyst formerly with the California League of Cities, which has argued in court that the law is being misapplied in some towns. Sometimes the true scope of the problem becomes clear only after the CVRA has come to a place and disrupted it.

“It’s throwing a hand grenade into local politics,” he said.

CVRA IN RESPONSE TO EROSION OF VOTERS RIGHT ACT

Proponents say California’s law provides crucial guarantees to minority voters in a world where other protections are crumbling. In the last decade, conservative courts have eroded the power of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, one of the key achievements of the Civil Rights Movement.

“As voters across the country can no longer rely on the federal government to uphold these protections, California’s voting rights laws are even more important,” U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla wrote in an opinion article earlier this year, calling the CVRA part of the “long march” toward equality that began with Martin Luther King Jr.

Two

The CVRA was born from a mix of progressive ideals and frustration with Republicans.

It was February 2001. President George W. Bush had just taken office after the Supreme Court intervened to stop a recount in Florida, where GOP officials had purged some Black voters from voter rolls. Newly flush with power, conservatives began to chip away at the federal Voting Rights Act.

“The Supreme Court was turning conservative,” recalled Robert Rubin, a longtime civil rights attorney in San Francisco who ended up co-writing the CVRA. “We had to do something.”

Rubin, an expert on federal voting protections, had spent years in the Deep South, challenging governments that brutally repressed Black people. He worked for the Lawyers’ Committee, a nonprofit civil rights group, and often collaborated with another voting rights crusader, Joaquin Avila, a brilliant Latino attorney who had grown up poor in Compton.

Avila and Rubin were “completely revered” in the legal community, recalled Ruth Greenwood, director of the Election Law Clinic at Harvard Law School. “They’re legends.” They also had close ties to Richard Polanco, then the state Senate’s majority leader and chairman of the California Latino Legislative Caucus. The two Democratic lawyers wrote the text of the CVRA, and Polanco pushed it through the Legislature.

The bill was the first of its kind. At the time, there were no state-level voting rights acts, although many states have passed them since. “California was a trailblazer here,” said Rick Hasen, an election-law expert at UCLA.

The CVRA shares some similarities with the federal VRA. Under both, a minority plaintiff has to prove the existence of “racially polarized voting” — different racial groups voting as blocs in a way that stifles the minority.

But the federal law sets up extra hurdles that are eliminated in the CVRA. With the state law, “It’s easier for plaintiffs to win,” Hasen said. At the same time, the CVRA includes a more generous and straightforward set of financial incentives for winning attorneys. In a recent conversation, Rubin said that he and Avila, who died in 2018, included the fee awards to give the law teeth.

“Attorneys’ fees are about civil rights enforcement,” Rubin said. “We need to do all this work before we can sue. We need to line up the experts. We need to pay them $50,000, $60,000, $100,000.” Without fee awards, he said, worthy cases are too risky to take, so the law becomes ineffectual.

The law’s first decade was relatively sleepy. Rubin and Avila filed the first CVRA lawsuits, suing a range of cities and schools in Southern California and the Central Valley, usually on behalf of Latino clients in areas where Latinos were starkly underrepresented. The targets tended to settle out of court, paying six-figure awards.

That all changed in 2012, when Shenkman sued Palmdale, a 150,000-person city north of Los Angeles that was run by white Republicans despite being 69% Latino and Black. When Shenkman beat the city at trial, a judge forced Palmdale to pay him $4.6 million in fees and expenses.

After that, cities and their lobbyists began pushing for a change in the law that would immunize them against Shenkman-size fee awards. In 2016, the Legislature obliged, adding a provision that allows plaintiffs’ attorneys to collect $30,000 simply by sending a demand letter. If the agency agrees to “voluntarily” adopt districts and pays the attorney, they are immune from a lawsuit.

Proponents described the amendment as a “safe harbor,” saying it would cap the legal expenses of cities “that are making a good-faith effort” to adopt district elections.

But if the safe harbor amendment was supposed to trim the sails of plaintiffs’ attorneys, it failed.

Three

Shenkman started mailing out letters in waves.

Beginning in Southern California and moving north, he encouraged a wide range of local governments to take advantage of the safe harbor. In every letter, he referenced his triumph over Palmdale, noting that the city’s decision to fight his clients ultimately cost them “millions.” He often wrote that he was representing local California members of a Texas-based nonprofit, the Southwest Voter Registration Education Project.

Shenkman typically cited a few past results from local elections — like losses by Latino candidates — to argue that racially polarized voting was taking place. But the letters were short, three or four pages, and mostly legal boilerplate. They lacked detailed evidence of CVRA violations.

Unlike the Palmdale case, which involved a midsize city, he began targeting smaller places as well. Big Bear Lake, a ski town that counts only 3,000 registered voters and is home to almost as many bald eagles as coffee shops, received one of his letters.

So did the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District, a tiny fire station with one building and two fire engines near San Diego. There are 380 independent fire agencies in California, many of which, like Bonita-Sunnyside, often dispatch crews to help battle wildfires. They can be sued under the CVRA, as Mike Sims was surprised to learn.

“I spoke with a lot of other fire departments across the state, and they said yeah, we got that letter too,” recalled Sims, Bonita’s fire chief.

Mike Sims, fire chief of the Bonita-Sunnyside Fire Protection District. Ariana Drehsler / For The ChronicleGoie Cosca, left, does chores while Sonny Felkins, right, checks the gear and fire engine at the Bonita-Sunnyside fire station after a call. Ariana Drehsler / For The Chronicle

Sims didn’t mind switching to district elections, but he was reluctant to pay the lawyer’s $30,000 fee. For one, he needed the money for capital improvements and equipment costs. The station’s yearly budget is only $3.3 million. But he had another reason to push back on the fee — one that involved a weird coincidence.

In 2018, not long after Shenkman mailed his letter to the fire station, a wildfire broke out in the Los Angeles area, the Woolsey Fire, and Sims sent his main engine north to help battle the blaze. One day, with the flames approaching Malibu, the Bonita crew found themselves in Shenkman’s neighborhood, protecting his office — his home — from destruction. Afterward, Sims emailed someone on Shenkman’s team.

“Our guys saved your building,” Sims said he told them. “Can you waive the fee?”

According to Sims, they responded saying no, but agreed to drop the price by $5,000.

Shenkman said he “vaguely” remembers the incident.

“I know that I did give them a discount,” he said.

Why not waive the fee altogether? “We have to pay our experts,” Shenkman said. “We have to pay our demographics firm.”

By that time, Shenkman’s letters were pushing into the Bay Area.

Four

Some of the letters achieved dramatic, quick results.

Brittni Kiick never considered seeking public office until a friend urged her in 2020 to run for City Council in her East Bay hometown of Livermore, and even then she wasn’t sure. A mixed-race, bisexual mother, Kiick didn’t know if people like her could win. The council had been white and male for a long time. That year it featured “three white men named Bob,” Kiick recalled.

But after receiving a Shenkman letter in 2018, the city switched from at-large to district elections, and Kiick decided to run in the first-ever round of district contests. Getting her message out on Instagram and recruiting high school students to campaign, she won handily, becoming part of a new guard: “We went from three Bobs to three women — two queer women — all in just a year.”

Another huge shift happened on the San Rafael City Schools board in Marin County. Before Shenkman sent the board a letter forcing a switch to districts, three out of five board members were white, even though 70% of students in that system are Latino. Today, three of five on the board are Latino women.

The first of that trio to run was Marina Palma, a grandmother of nine from the city’s Canal neighborhood, which is home to many immigrants from El Salvador, Mexico and Guatemala. Palma is Salvadoran. “It is a community full of hardworking people” and “very resilient,” she said. But for years, they felt their views weren’t represented on the local school board, Palma said.

In 2020, a mentor encouraged Palma to put herself forward. “I don’t really do very well speaking in front of the public, especially in English,” she said. “But he told me that we needed to be represented.” She ran unopposed to represent the newly created District 5, which overlaps with the Canal area.

It sparked a chain reaction. Lucia Martel-Dow, a 46-year-old lawyer and immigrant from Venezuela, said she ran for the school board last year after seeing Palma’s success: “You feel like you can also do it.” Then Carolina Martin, a 50-year-old Mexican immigrant and mother, campaigned in a different district. “Marina, Lucia — they’re women like me,” Martin said. “I think representation really matters.”

The three Latina members of the San Rafael City Schools board of education: Lucia Martel-Dow, Carolina Martin and Marina Palma. They form a majority on the board, and their success shows how the California Voting Rights Act can make local government more representative. Carlos Avila Gonzalez / The Chronicle

San Rafael is a textbook example of a city ripe for districts, according to research by Asya Magazinnik, a political scientist at the Hertie School in Germany and an expert on the impact of U.S. districting policies. She said districts have the biggest effect on minority representation in places where there are large, clustered minority neighborhoods, like the Canal area. Although it’s a relatively small space — bounded by the San Rafael Canal, San Francisco Bay and Highway 101 — it contains 13,000 people, 90% of whom are Latino, so it’s easy to draw a strongly Latino district there.

If a city lacks these types of features, districts won’t necessarily lift more minorities into public office, Magazinnik said.

To be sure, there are no certainties, only probabilities. People don’t just vote for candidates of their own race, and the Canal is an extreme example of a compact minority neighborhood. Sometimes, districts can help smaller minority communities grow political power, build coalitions and win elections. Other times, however, little or nothing happens once the new lines are drawn.

The Chronicle analysis found wide variation in the law’s impact on diversity.

We examined 45 local boards that switched to districts under legal pressure, mainly from Shenkman. This sample included city councils, school boards and other kinds of local agencies serving an average population of about 100,000.

In that group, 22 of 45 councils and boards became more diverse after the switch to districts, with Latino and Black officials benefiting the most. The number of Latinos doubled. Before the switch, out of 218 officials on those boards, 26 were Latino and 11 were Black. After the switch, 50 were Latino and 14 were Black.

Meanwhile, on the other 23 councils and boards, the move to district voting created no increase in diversity. Sixteen saw no change; seven became whiter.

That group of 23 includes a number of smaller towns and obscure special-purpose boards. Several officials at these agencies said the CVRA put them through an inflexible, expensive process that seemed designed for big cities with large minority populations but didn’t fit their circumstances.

“I really believe the whole thing was a scam,” said Tom Lando, a retired white government employee who serves on the board of the Chico Area Recreation & Park District, which maintains a nature center, athletic fields, a pool and community centers in Chico, a city of 100,000 in Butte County. “Somebody can write a three-page letter with inflammatory comments and collect a check.”

The recreation board received a Shenkman letter in 2021, saying its at-large system was unfair to Latino voters. Annabel Grimm, a Latina of Mexican heritage and the agency’s general manager, was “taken aback” by the allegation.

Annabel Grimm, general manager of the Chico Area Recreation & Park District. Chris Kaufman / Special to the Chronicle

Yes, the board was all white, but as far as she could tell, it wasn’t related to their voting rules. The reason seemed simpler: Being on the board is an unattractive job. Members are paid “a whopping $100 per meeting,” Grimm said. Still, they capitulated to Shenkman, sending him a $30,000 check and switching to district voting. Grimm said she “walked away angry.” For $30,000, “I could buy a brand-new fleet vehicle. I could buy two standing mowers.”

The change to districts has had no impact on the board’s diversity.

“I mean, we had the districts created,” Lando said. “We had three middle-aged white men run, and they all ran unopposed.”

Shenkman said the Chronicle’s data show that the law is achieving major results. “I would challenge anyone to pick out any other kind of reform” that has increased minority representation to this degree “in such a short period of time,” he said.

Five

WHEN MAPS CANNOT BE DRAWN--EVEN RACIAL DISTRIBUTION

There may be another reason that nothing changed in Chico: The city’s Latino voters are pretty evenly spread out across the city. So it wasn’t possible to create a strong Latino district unless the board drew some unnatural, obviously gerrymandered shape on the city map. Other boards face the same situation, like the Martinez school board.

The Martinez education system is small by East Bay standards, with just four elementary schools, one junior high, a single comprehensive high school and 4,000 total students (neighboring Mt. Diablo has 29,000). Skirting the town’s massive oil refinery, you can drive from one elementary school to the other three in about 10 minutes, through well-kept neighborhoods that are more racially integrated than elsewhere in the county. The voters are 75% white and 14% Latino, while Latinos are 31% of the students.

Backpacks hang outside a classroom at John Swett Elementary School in Martinez. Gabrielle Lurie / The Chronicle

The school system has never had a lot of money, but 2017 was particularly lean. There was less cash than ever in its financial reserve, which funds salary increases for teachers and helps offset the high cost of living in the Bay Area. “Our margins were very, very thin,” said Deidre Siguenza, then the board president.

After years of deficit spending, the board had begun making painful cuts, saving $1.3 million by laying off or cutting the hours of teachers and staff. They also delayed a $100,000 investment in new textbooks and closed the libraries in elementary schools two days a week. At the administrative office, funds were so scarce that leaders were mailing letters to parents.

“Our support staff was gone,” remembered Superintendent Helen Rossi. “You want to mail something? You go get the envelope. You go down to the post office and get the postage.”

Martinez school district Superintendent Helen Rossi at John Swett Elementary School in Martinez. Gabrielle Lurie / The Chronicle

In the middle of all that, Shenkman’s letter dropped.

“It sent shock waves through everyone,” recalled Jonathan Wright, then one of the board members, a white labor organizer married to a Latina immigrant.

The letter was spawned by a group of local Democratic activists that included Anamarie Avila Farias, a former Martinez vice mayor and member of the Contra Costa County Board of Education who is now running for state Assembly.

Farias, 50, the granddaughter of Mexican immigrants, grew up in the county and has been the first Latina to serve in a number of public roles there. Despite its large and growing Latino population, “People of color are not holding positions of leadership in our community at the level that we’re growing,” she said. “That’s not right.”

IMAGE Martinez school district Superintendent Helen Rossi, center, walks through John Swett Elementary School in Martinez. Gabrielle Lurie / The ChronicleRossi, center, participates with students as they sing holiday songs in a classroom at John Swett Elementary School in Martinez. Gabrielle Lurie / The Chronicle

Looking for ways to change that, Farias and a coalition of other activists stumbled onto the CVRA in 2017. The group began exploring lawsuits against the Martinez City Council, which was all white, and the school board, which had four white members and one Filipino.

But they didn’t call Shenkman first.

Initially, the activists spoke with Scott Rafferty, a Walnut Creek attorney.

Rafferty, a 67-year-old white lawyer and lifelong Democrat, had never handled a CVRA case, though he would send almost 30 demand letters in the years that followed, representing Latino and Asian clients and sometimes suing. Earlier in his career, he had sued the federal government to expand the voting rights of military members. He didn’t like the idea of bringing a CVRA case against Martinez agencies, he said.

“You can’t draw strong minority districts in Martinez,” Rafferty told the Chronicle. “They’re just too integrated. It’s great to be residentially integrated.”

Later, he ran the numbers, reviewing years of data on Martinez elections and outlining the results in a November 2017 letter to the school board. According to Rafferty’s analysis, there was no clear sign of racially polarized voting in the board’s at-large elections. He also examined how Martinez voted on Proposition 58, the 2016 state ballot measure that allowed bilingual education in schools. If there was racially polarized voting, precincts with more Latinos should have voted yes on Prop. 58 at higher rates, Rafferty wrote. Instead, the percentage of yes votes — 74% citywide — was about the same in white and Latino precincts.

Given this data, the Walnut Creek attorney wrote, switching to districts could do more harm than good in the school system. Its voting population was small to begin with — 22,000. Chopping it into five districts of 4,000 to 5,000 voters each might create districts so tiny as to be powerless, he wrote.

“You can come up with a map that makes it worse than before,” Rafferty told the Chronicle. “There have just been too many cases where (the CVRA) has been abused.”

Farias said the activists stopped talking with Rafferty when they realized he wasn’t a CVRA specialist.

Asked about Rafferty’s critiques, Shenkman said, “Scott Rafferty is not an expert on me or anything else.”

Six

SHENKMAN WINS--BUT LEGAL COSTS RAISE CONCERNS

The Martinez school board initially considered taking Shenkman to court. “The way people like Shenkman have used the CVRA is a perversion of the original intention,” said Wright, the former board member. “It’s been manipulated.” But after researching the CVRA, they realized that he was following the law down to the letter, said Siguenza, who is a trial attorney. No one wanted to risk blasting a hole in the schools’ budget by opposing a lawyer with such a powerful weapon on his side.

In early 2018, the school board sent $30,000 to Shenkman. They also paid $57,500 to their own lawyer and a demographic consultant to deal with Shenkman and draw the maps of the new voting districts, bringing the total tab to almost $90,000.

“The impact of $90,000 on a school district our size is huge,” said Rossi, the superintendent, on a recent weekday in her office. A 62-year-old former math teacher, she had a basket full of snacks atop a nearby cupboard, for parent meetings. She said she buys the cups and snacks at Sam’s Club with her own money because “I don’t want anyone to think I’m charging.”

Asked what she could have done with that $90,000, Rossi reeled off a rapid list. That amount is almost enough to hire a full teacher, she said. It’s also enough to raise the salary of all 220 teachers in the system by one-third of 1%. Or it could keep the school libraries open five days a week instead of three.

The CVRA and Shenkman, she said, are “taking money away from my teachers and students.”

IMAGE: Kevin Shenkman practices for a California Supreme Court hearing on Pico v. Santa Monica, a voting rights case, in front of law professors in San Francisco. Michaela Vatcheva / Special to The Chronicle\

ARGUMENT FOR DISTRICT-ELECTIONS VS. AT LARGE ELECTIONS

Shenkman said that in the big picture, the benefits of district elections make them worth the costs that fall on places like Martinez.

“There is no price to elevating equitable representation,” Farias said, echoing him. “We know better public policy is created when we have diverse dialogue. And this school board desperately needed diversity.”

After switching to districts, the diversity of the Martinez school board has fluctuated. Two white members resigned, and two Filipino members did not seek re-election. A Latina candidate, Yazmin Llamas, ran for a board seat and won. Carlos Melendez was appointed in a mostly white district; he is a registered Republican and a “2nd generation Hispanic American,” he wrote in an email. The board today is three fifths white.

Rossi said she still doesn’t understand why they were targeted under the CVRA. Instead of helping the schools in Martinez, the state law seemed mainly to have empowered a wealthy lawyer in Malibu.

“Mr. Shenkman,” she said. “I don’t think I’ll ever forget that name.”

Correction: An earlier version of this story misstated the position of Deidre Siguenza when she received a legal demand letter from Kevin Shenkman.

Alexandria Bordas and Emma Stiefel contributed to this report. This story was reported as part of a partnership between The Chronicle and The Investigative Reporting Program at the UC Berkeley Graduate School of Journalism.

Credits

Reporting by Jason Fagone, Daniel Lempres and Alexandria Bordas. Data by Emma Stiefel. Maps by Todd Trumbull. Editing by Emilio Garcia-Ruiz, Lisa Gartner and Dan Kopf. Visuals editing by Nicole Fruge. Design by Danielle Mollette-Parks and Alex K. Fong. Design, graphics and development by Stephanie Zhu. Copy editing by Michael Mayer. Map data from the City of Jurupa Valley and Redwood City School District.

Originally published on Dec. 21, 2023

KTLA California designates Santa Monica as ‘prohousing’ community

by: Travis Schlepp

Posted: Jan 31, 2024 / 03:13 PM PST

Updated: Jan 31, 2024 / 03:13 PM PST

 From <https://ktla.com/news/california/california-designates-santa-monica-as-prohousing-community/>

 REDDIT ON AB1287

Who is to blame for AB1287?

AB1237 is a new state law that allows developers additional height and density for including moderate income housing in their project. When stacked on top of low income height bonuses, buildings can reach nearly 20 stories. Projects of this magnitude have already been submitted to the city.

As you can imagine, NIMBY heads are exploding as this is their worst nightmare come true. They have turned their anger towards The Slate of Change Council Members (Mayor Brock, Vice Mayor Negrete, de la Torre and Parra). Consistent with their past behaviors, these electeds they are seeking someone to blame as they refuse to lead us on this subject.

From <https://www.reddit.com/r/SantaMonica/comments/19czafb/who_is_to_blame_for_ab1287/>

REDDIT ON CVRA-LOCAL SANTA MONICA

K-Parks

2 points · 10 days ago

“Scam Artist” is more than just a bit of editorializing in the title here…

At the end of the day you either like the CVRA (California Voters Rights Act) or you don’t like the CVRA.

On net, it seems like district based voting is better than at large voting and so I don’t know why the legislature didn’t just pass a law that required everyone to switch to districts by X date.

As it is our legislature wrote a bad, ambiguous, law and gave a private right of action to figure it out. And now we are supposed to be shocked/upset that some enterprising members of the plaintiffs’ bar figured out how to force districts to switch and make some money along the way?

Biasedsm

1 point · 10 days ago

So you think voting for one council member every four years is better than voting for seven council members every four years? If de la Torre believes he is going to win, why doesn't he just do a ballot initiative?

And we currently have 4 Latinos on the council...tell me how at large elections in Santa Monica limit the opportunities of minorities?

K-Parks

4 points · 10 days ago

I honestly don’t know if districts or at large is a better form of local democracy.

But it seems like the state legislature made the decision that districts are better than at large because they think that districts are more likely to allow for minority candidates to succeed.

Mostly I think that the CVRA was a cop out by the state legislature. They wanted to say they were doing things, but wanted to allow some districts to maybe keep at large positions (probably because of lobbying / political capture) if they weren’t “bad”.

That is a silly system that is going to end up with people gaming the system, creates perverse incentives like these lawsuits, etc.

Basically I think the state legislature should either make bright line rules such as “all governing bodies need to use districts” or “the people in each governing body can decide if they want at large or districts”. Trying to have something in the middle was always going to be a mess.

Biasedsm

1 point · 10 days ago

In SM, we should think about the role money would play if we go to districts. Its easy to imagine developers funding a PAC to get 4 candidates elected. If they thought they could make $1B by changing zoning codes, you can bet investing $1MM in each district would be money well spent.

From <https://www.reddit.com/user/Biasedsm/>

xxx School Board Member

RICHARD Tahvildaran-Jesswein

My notes from his video

• TEACHES diversity, equity and inclusion

• Refers to politics of recognition re BLM

• Recruiting in Dr. Drati.

• Recruiting from historically black colleges

• Wants to recruit other DEI / black folks

• Talked about black staffers saying they are not being heard

• Opposed to armed guards inside of schools; supports patrolling of perimetes

• Focused on affordable housing for teachers & staff and all people - issue for retention and recruitment

• Talked about shooting at smc

• Re-election campaign for richARD form 410

• Treasurer debbie mulvaney

• Supports "policy GS"

https://netfile.com/Connect2/api/public/image/200943172

Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein Candidate 2022Dec School Board election

Candidate Statement in English  

Election DateNov 8, 2022

Candidate TypeSchool Board

Occupation College Professor

As the Board of Education Vice-President and a fulltime professor at Santa Monica College, Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein works everyday to make the joy of learning a reality so that every child can thrive. 

Over the past eight years, Tahvildaran-Jesswein’s skills in collaboration, innovation, and professionalism have resulted in: An American Cultures graduation requirement; the establishment of district-wide social justice learning standards; the expansion of project-based learning opportunities (PBL); and, a 9th – 12th grade PBL experience. Further testaments to his effectiveness on the Board are the District’s re-imagining the Malibu pathway, the many improvements to our classrooms and school facilities, and his commitment to fiscal responsibility. 

As the District’s liaison to CEPS (Community for Excellent Public Schools), Tahvildaran-Jesswein works with community stake-holders to ensure access and equity for all children. 

Tahvildaran-Jesswein knows our community, shares our values, and understands that an excellent education makes the world of difference for our kids. His unique qualifications and demonstrated leadership warrant his reelection to the Board of Education. His endorsements for re-election include Congressman Ted Lieu, Senator Ben Allen, Assemblyman Richard Bloom, Supervisor Sheila Kuehl and all members of the Board of Education and Trustees of SMC. 

For more information go to: www.rtjforschoolboard2022.com

From <https://www.santamonica.gov/elections/2022-11-08/candidates/richard-tahvildaran-jesswein>

SMC Professor Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein

Political Science, Public Policy

tahvildaran_richard@smc.edu

HSS 356, 310-434-3546

From <https://www.smc.edu/academics/academic-departments/philosophy-and-social-sciences/faculty.php>

Democracy and Difference Through the Aesthetics of Film Misc. Supplies – December 14, 2017

by Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein (Author)

From <https://www.amazon.com/Democracy-Difference-Through-Aesthetics-Film/dp/1524900826/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1706917221&refinements=p_27%3ATAHVILDARAN-JESSWEIN+RICHARD&s=books&sr=1-1>

Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein asocc

Resolutions

Academic Dishonesty

Postponement of 80% Resolutions

Part-time Faculty Hiring Study

Re-articulation of Accreditation Standard III.A.1.c

ACCJC Communications

From <https://www.asccc.org/directory/richard-tahvildaran-jesswein>

Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Candidate for SMMUSD Board of Education 2022

1. GENERAL INFORMATION

Candidate Name: Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Ph.D.

Email address: richardamir@me.com

Phone Number: 928-600-0403

Candidate’s Current Occupation: College Professor

Candidate’s Employer: Santa Monica College

Campaign Contact Person: Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein, Ph.D.

Campaign website: www.rtjforschoolboard2022.com

DEMOCRAT QUESTIONAIRRE

https://santamonicademocrats.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/SB-Richard-Tahvildaran-Jesswein-Questionnaire.pdf

https://www.santamonica.gov/elections/2018-11-06/candidates/richard-tahvildaran-jesswein

School Board Richard Tahvildaran Jesswein SMDC Interview

SOCIAL MEDIA

https://www.facebook.com/rtahvildaranjesswein/

SMMUSD School Board Candidate 2022 SMRR Candidate Interviews:   

All candidates playlist VIDEO 2022 SMRR Candidate Interviews  

School Board Interviews: Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein

October 11th, 2022 | 54:44 |E180

Share

Embed Recast Subscribe

Episode Summary

Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein talks about running for school board.

Show Contributors

Matthew Hall

Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein

From <https://smdp.simplecast.com/episodes/school-board-interviews-richard-tahvildaran-jesswein>

Westside ballet

DIRECTOR OF INDIVIDUAL and INSTITUTIONAL GIVING        Dr. Richard Tahvildaran Jesswein

EDUCATIONAL OUTREACH PR COORDINATORS        Dr. Richard Tahvildaran Jesswein

BACKSTAGE DADS COORDINATOR        Dr. Richard Tahvildaran Jesswein and Charlie Calderon

From <https://westsideballet.com/westside-ballet-staff-directory-2/>

ENDORSEMENTS: Lieberman, Mignano, Rouse, and Tahvildaran-Jesswein for Santa Monica-Malibu Schools

November 3rd, 2022

By Westside Voice

From <https://westsidevoicela.com/2022/11/endorsements-lieberman-mignano-rouse-and-tahvildaran-jesswein-for-santa-monica-malibu-schools/>

 School Districts and their School Boards became real punching bags during the heart of the COVID pandemic, none likely more so than that governing Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD). But using the best science they were given (and it would change at times!), and despite some clear academic and socializing deficits that have clearly resulted from students being home, I feel the district and its board have done comparatively well, and have continued to strive for improvement in student achievement and opportunity. Therefore, we believe Laurie Lieberman and Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein deserve re-election for another term. We would like to see them joined by district parents Alicia Mignano and Stacy Rouse.

Relationships can create bias, but we also feel relationships provide an opportunity into the soul of who people are. And in our case, our relationships with Lieberman and Tahvildaran-Jesswein are ones of great respect, and we’ve always liked them personally. In Laurie Lieberman, we see a Board Member oozing with competence. We want her in the room for just about any challenge or policy debate, be it education-related or some other issue entirely! We have the highest confidence she’ll continue to ask good questions and get to the heart of district problems and their solutions.

In Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein, we find one of the biggest-hearted individuals we’ve ever known, someone who is really sensitive to what students in the district experience and need. We know he’ll continue to seek positive learning environments for both students and teachers.

And as boots on the ground that have served multiple terms, we are confident these two incumbents should be involved in the recruitment and retention challenges plaguing or soon to challenge so many school districts around the country. They each have the support of our Santa Monica-Malibu Classroom Teachers Association and their fellow School Board colleagues, as well as other local leaders and organizations we trust.

Alicia Mignano we’ve only met this year, but in just brief conversation she made a strong impression. We love her story as someone who rose from being categorized as an “at risk” student and an English-language learner as a child to the active, productive student/parent advocate she is with the district today. It is this advocacy that has motivated her to run, and we applaud her platform which calls on stronger parent engagement and communication, spending focused on repairing learning loss, smaller class sizes, and a commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion in our schools. She already has Lieberman and Tahvildaran-Jesswein’s support to join them on the board, as well as from many of the same local leaders and organizations we trust and respect.

We support Stacy Rouse, a Malibu resident, because we genuinely believe in Malibu representation on the board. But among the other remaining candidates, she stands out because of her background as a trained conflict resolution specialist. This background is certain to help not only her relationship-building with fellow board members but also the board as a whole as tough issues are negotiated (including union contracts).

We recognize the District hasn’t handled every issue well. We acknowledge the frustration many parents have felt, and the resulting chaos their student children have suffered, due to the mold crisis that struck the district. It has separated friends, broken up carpools, and abatement has genuinely been frustrating. But we’re simply not prone to electing candidates being backed by spoiled, wealthy Santa Monica-Malibu parents that just want representatives to be their proxies for yelling at everybody. These people will NEVER be happy, no matter how well the school district, its students, teachers, and other faculty, are performing.

Please support Lieberman, Mignano, Rouse, and Tahvildaran-Jesswein to lead SMMUSD.

 From <https://westsidevoicela.com/2022/11/endorsements-lieberman-mignano-rouse-and-tahvildaran-jesswein-for-santa-monica-malibu-schools/>

Iranian American and Santa Monica Leader Announces Bid for the Board of Education

From <https://paaia.org/CMS/iranian-american-and-santa-monica-leader-announces-bid-for-the-board-of-education.aspx>

18 Jul 2014

July 18, 2014, Washington, D.C. – Richard Amir Tahvildaran-Jesswein, an educator and community leader, is seeking a seat on Board of Education for the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District. If successful, he will be the first Iranian American elected to public office in Santa Monica and amongst a small group of elected Iranian Americans throughout the nation.      

A first-generation Iranian American and California native, Tahvildaran-Jesswein earned a Bachelor’s Degree from California State University, Hayward, a Master’s Degree from California State University, San Francisco, and a Doctorate degree from Northern Arizona University. A tenured full professor teaching American Politics and Difference Theory at Santa Monica College, Tahvildaran-Jesswein serves as the Associate Director of the college’s Public Policy Institute and is the advisor to the Iranian Student Union. 

An active member of the Santa Monica community, Tahvildaran-Jesswein serves as the co-chair of Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights, a non-profit organization considered to be one of the largest associations or neighborhood groups in the city. He is also working with the city of Santa Monica on its Wellness Initiative that is part of the Bloomberg National Campaign. 

“My experience as a community college professor and father of two school-aged children has affirmed my commitment to public education,” Tahvildaran-Jesswein explained to PAAIA. “Now that there is an open seat on the school board in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District, I have a real opportunity to expand my commitment to public education.”

Tahvildaran-Jesswein wants to make sure that the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District remains one of the best school districts in the nation, a status that he states has been jeopardized by the recent recession. “With a large Iranian American student population it is especially important to me to protect the stature of our local public schools so that all our children have the best opportunities.” 

Asked about the critical issues facing the school district, Tahvildaran-Jesswein said that protecting and improving upon the high level of curriculum offered by the district while finding innovative solutions to balancing the budget in difficult times would be amongst his top priorities. In addition, he believes that it is important that major ethnic groups, like Iranian Americans, have a voice on the school board.   

“As is customary in the Iranian American community, education is a core value and is the key to the success of our families that have immigrated here to the United States,” said Tahvildaran-Jesswein. “I hope that the Iranian American community will play a major role in informing my views on policies directly related to education.”

Tahvildaran-Jesswein’s campaign has gained significant endorsements from public officials and community leaders, including U.S. Congresswoman Julia Brownley, California State Assemblyman Richard Bloom, six of the seven elected members of the Santa Monica-Malibu Board of Education, and four of the seven elected members of the City Council of Santa Monica. 

Tahvildaran-Jesswein is one of eight candidates – including three incumbents—running to fill four seats on the seven-member Board of Education in the in the non-partisan November election. The four highest vote-getters will be elected to serve on the Board of Education for the Santa Monica –Malibu Unified School District.

Tahvildaran-Jesswein and his wife, Jennifer, have been married for 25 years. Their children attend Santa Monica High School and Lincoln Middle School.  

Click here to learn more about the campaign of Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein.

From <https://paaia.org/CMS/iranian-american-and-santa-monica-leader-announces-bid-for-the-board-of-education.aspx>

School Board Meetings

SMMUSD Board of Education

Mission Statement
Extraordinary achievement for all while simultaneously closing the achievement gap.

Vision Statement

As a community of learners, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District works together in a nurturing environment to help students be visionary, versatile thinkers; resourceful, life-long learners; effective, multilingual communicators and global citizens.  We are a rich, culturally diverse community that values the contributions of all its members and strives to promote social justice.  We exist to assist all students in their pursuit of academic achievement, strength of character, and personal growth, and to support them in their exploration of the intellectual, artistic, technological, physical and social expression.

Contact the Board of Education at brd@smmusd.org or their individual email addresses.

Public Comments at Board of Education meetings:

Meetings are generally held the first and third Thursday of each month starting at 5:30pm at either the SMMUSD offices located at 

1717 4th Street, Santa Monica, CA 90401 or the Malibu City Hall located at 23825 Stuart Ranch Road  Malibu, CA 90265.

Meeting agendas are posted online the Friday prior to the scheduled meeting.

• The public may request to speak regarding an item that is scheduled for that meeting by submitting a “Request to Address” card (commonly known as a 'chit') prior to discussion of that item.

• The public may also request to speak on general topics (items that are not scheduled on that meeting’s agenda) during the Public Comment segment of the meeting.  This is generally held earlier in the meeting. To speak during the Public Comments section, you must submit a "Request to Address" card at the beginning of the meeting.

• "Request to Address" cards, printed in both Spanish and English, are located with meeting materials just outside the board meeting room. Completed cards should be submitted to the Recording Secretary sitting next to the Superintendent (this is usually Sarah Wahrenbrock, Assistant to the Superintendent).

• Public comments at board meetings, both to agenda items & general topics, are generally limited to 2-3 minutes in length, depending on how many members of the public wish to speak at the meeting.\

Board of Education Member's Terms
Jon Kean, December 2024
Maria Leon-Vazquez, December 2024
Laurie Lieberman, December 2026
Alicia Mignano, December 2026
Stacy Rouse, December 2026
Jennifer Smith, December 2024
Dr. Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein, December 2026
Thomas Drummond, Malibu High School, June 2024
Mira Wagabaza, Santa Monica High School, June 2024
TBA, Olympic High School, June 2024

ADMINISTRATION

Dr. Antonio Shelton, Superintendent & Secretary of the Board of Education

From <https://www.smmusd.org/domain/1791>

School Board Meetings - 2023-24

You can view and search agendas and minutes here:

Feb. 2020-current: https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/index.aspx?S=36030435

June 2017-Feb. 2020: http://agendaonline.net/public/Agency.aspx?PublicAgencyID=1305&AgencyTypeID=1

Pre-June 2017: www.smmusd.org/Page/4049

MEETING PROCEDURES:

 Persons may attend the board meeting via Zoom webinar or in-person in the district office boardroom (1717 4th St., Santa Monica, CA).
Public Comments: Public comments on closed session items will be heard prior to closed session.  All remaining public comment on agenda items, except public hearings, will be heard after the Board returns from closed session (public comment for public hearings will be heard when the items are called).  

Public comment on non-agenda items will be heard at the end of the Board meeting.  Persons wishing to address the Board of Education on an agenda item must fill out a Request to Speak Card (in-person comment) or Google Form (comment via Zoom).  Speakers must fill out one form per agenda item.  

A person may address the Board under "Public Comments for Items Listed on the Agenda" and/or "Public Comments for Items Not Listed on the Agenda" (this second option is for general public comments on topics that are within the Board’s jurisdiction, but do not appear on the agenda).  A person must indicate on the public comment card/form whether they wish to speak for one, two, or three minutes on that item.  

Based on the number of people who sign up to speak on a specific item, the Board may decide to reduce the maximum number of minutes each person is allowed to speak on that item.  A person who submits the public comment card/form after the public comment period has already started will be given a maximum of one minute per agenda item they list.  If persons in the boardroom and on Zoom sign up to speak on the same item, the Board will prioritize in-person comments.  Please note that each person will be given a total of six minutes to speak for the entire meeting, including on items listed on agenda and general public comments.  Once the public comment section is over, the Board will no longer accept requests from the public to speak on agenda or non-agenda items.  When giving public comment, members of the public are asked to follow the SMMUSD Civility Policy, the details of which can be found in a grid at the top of each board meeting agenda. 

Parking Information: Parking for those attending board meetings is now available underground at 1717 Fourth St. in spaces marked, “SMMUSD.”  The code to exit the parking lot will be provided at the board meeting.  

Simultaneous Interpretation: Persons wishing to hear a board meeting in Spanish can log into the Zoom link (located at the top of an agenda) and select Spanish under the Interpretation button at the bottom of the Zoom screen.  Please use your own headphones if listening to simultaneous interpretation while in the boardroom.

Meeting Formats: The first board meeting in a month will follow Format A, the second meeting in a month will follow Format B, and in a month in which there is only one meeting, the Hybrid Format will be followed.
Time-certain Items: Those items listed for a specified time (marked in the title of the item) are so noted to give the public an indication of when the Board will hear that item. However, if it is prudent to do so, the Board may adjust the time stamp to complete an item currently on the floor, but will not delay the time stamped item for more than fifteen (15) minutes.
To see the list of board meetings and review the upcoming agenda, scroll down this screen.

From <https://www.smmusd.org/domain/2977>

Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District

1717 Fourth Street

Santa Monica, CA 90401

Phone: 310-450-8338

www.smmusd.org

Board of Education

 Jon Kean

Board Member

 Maria Leon-Vazquez

President

 Laurie Lieberman

Board Member

 Alicia Mignano

 Board Member

 Stacy Rouse

Board member

 Jennifer Smith

Board Member

 Dr. Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein

Vice President

From <https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/index.aspx?S=36030435>

jkean@smmusd.org

mlvazquez@smmusd.org

llieberman@smmusd.org

amignano@smmusd.org

srouse@smmusd.org

jsmith@smmusd.org

jsmith@smmusd.org

rtahvildaranjesswein@smmusd.org

Local Democratic Party Club

Our Endorsed Candidates

October 2, 2022 by admin

At our most well-attended virtual meeting ever, hundreds of Santa Monica Democrats gathered to determine our endorsements for the 2022 election. 

DEMOCRATS ENDORSED CANDIDATES OCTOBER 2022

You can watch the entire meeting which included a robust discussion on all statewide and countywide ballot measures on the ballot this year, followed by our endorsement voting, farewell remarks from some of Santa Monica’s departing elected officials, and a look at some proposed bylaws amendments. 

The Club provided in depth questionnaire responses from 20 candidates seeking our endorsement, followed by Board interviews with each of those candidates. Over the course of the month of September, we hosted a series of debates over three nights to consider the differences between the candidates. We are proud to say this has been our most transparent process ever.

Finally, on September 28, over 150 members of the Club voted in this year’s endorsements, a 30% increase over 2020’s turnout. 

Endorsement Results 

Santa Monica City Council

Caroline Torosis

Natalya Zernitskaya

Jesse Zwick

Santa Monica Rent Control Board

Daniel Ivanov

Ericka Lesley

Kurt Gonska

Santa Monica-Malibu Board of Education

Stacy Rouse

Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein  [HIT WITH RECALL]

Alicia Mignano

Laurie Lieberman [HIT WITH RECALL]

Santa Monica College Board of Trustees

Sion Roy

Thomas Peters

Barry Snell

Nancy Greenstein

City Ballot Measures

Measure CS – Yes

Measure GS – Yes

Measure PB – Yes

Measure DT – No

Measure DTS – No Endorsement

Measure HMP – Yes

Measure RC – Yes

Measure EM – Yes

Measure SMC – Yes

State Ballot Measures

1 – Yes

26 – No

27 – No

28 – Yes

29 – No

30 – Yes

31 – Yes

County Ballot Measures

Measure A – Yes

Measure C – Yes

Congratulations to all of our endorsed candidates!

In Case You Missed It – Check out our debates from earlier this month:

City Council: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7CmqFVCcbW4

Rent Control Board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JlZSLuGYn4I

College Board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luFa_ImBOQw

School Board: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b76IXSvpF8Y

Local Ballot Measures: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPtokZ-6VgA

From <https://santamonicademocrats.com/our-endorsed-candidates/>

Progressives Score Wins in City Council and School Board Races and Other Thoughts on the 2022 Election Results (as of Thursday 11/10 at 5:00 p.m.)

By Damien Newton 10 November, 2022 | SANTA MONICA EXT LINK

This year’s midterm Congressional elections saw a surprisingly strong turnout from progressive voters hold back and nearly completely dissipate a ‘red wave’ that pundits expected to sweep over the country. Santa Monica was no exception, as a well-funded conservative slate of candidates for City Council and the School Board have seemingly been rejected by voters. Of the two slates, only incumbent Councilmember Lana Negrete is winning. She currently holds a (narrow) lead for re-election.

There’s a big caveat here that somewhere around votes left to be counted and things could change dramatically by the time the final votes are counted considering that the leading City Council candidates have less than 10,000 votes total. As these ballots are expected to trend towards the progressive candidates that unless there’s a shocking change, there’s a few things that we can divine from this election.

The biggest takeaway is that the candidates endorsed by the Democratic Club, Santa Monicans for Renters Rights, Santa Monica Forward and Unite Here did very well in the election. The two candidates that were each endorsed by all three groups, Caroline Torosis and Jesse Zwick, are at the top of the results and it’s a near certainty they are heading to the Council.

One of the following four candidates will get the last seats:

Negrete, Ellis Raskin (endorsed by SMRR/Unite Here), Natalia Zernitskaya (endorsed by Forward/Dem. Club) and

Armen Melkonians who ran on a ticket with Negrete and was backed by many of the same PACs, and the police and fire fighters union.

After the preliminary votes were counted, Negrete was holding on to her seat with 5,494 votes with Raskin (5,002), Melkonians (4,994) and Zernitskaya (4,943) all well within striking distance. In the results released just minutes ago, Negrete’s lead over Zernitskaya was only slightly increased (it was 551 votes, now it’s 563 votes) and she increased her margins versus Raskin and Melkonians. As of this evening’s vote drop, it’s Negrete has 6,360 votes ahead of Zernitskaya (5797), Melkonians (5777) and Raskin (5714).

Results as of November 10, 2022

The incumbent school board members on the ballot seem to have also survived despite being heavily outspent by the slate of outsiders backed by the ‘A Brighter Future‘ slate. As we’ve seen in the rest of the country, a slate of outside candidates emerged that was backed by wealthy out-of-town donors. However, in this case the incumbent slate was successful.

One of the losers of this election was the local Santa Monica media outlets. Two of the three largest media outlets, the Lookout and the Daily Press, passed on making City Council endorsements. As part of a 501c(3) public charity, Santa Monica Next can’t make candidate endorsements, but what’s the excuse for the for-profit publications?

On top of that, despite having far more resources than Next, it fell to our publication to look into irregularities and unethical behavior from City Council candidates and the PACs that supported them. Santa Monica is a city with around 90,000 residents, with two daily newspapers and three weekly ones (in addition to Next). What benefit does a city get from a stack of news options if they don’t provide adequate coverage of a major election? Outside of the Daily Press’ hour long interviews with most of the candidates, what value was the election coverage to voters who don’t have the time to obsess over local politics?

Next will continue to update as election results are posted.

From <https://santamonicanext.org/2022/11/progressives-score-wins-in-city-council-and-school-board-races-and-other-thoughts-on-the-2022-election-results-as-of-thursday-11-10-at-500-p-m/>

Change for Who? Another Santa Monica PAC with Murky Donors Groups Influences Local Races

By Jason Mastbaum  14 October, 2022 Santa Monica Ext [article link]

The Santa Monicans for Change PAC was described in an October 3 Santa Monica Lookout article as a “slow-growth organization”, but they are in fact a far-right organization with major overlap with the local pro-Trump landlords association ACTION Apartments, and which has received significant financial backing from LA-area developers.

This group was first formed in 2020 as Santa Monicans for Change 2020 in support of Christine Parra, Mario Fonda-Bonardi, Phil Brock and Oscar de la Torre for City Council (this is still the name they’re using on their 2022 campaign filings). The PAC has reemerged in 2022 in support of Lana Negrete and Armen Melkonians in their November 2022 city council election bids.

Santa Monicans for Change’s significant connections to far-right Republican politics begins with their treasurer, Kelly Lawler. Lawler is also the campaign treasurer for a large number of Republican candidates and PACs across the state. These include Steve Knight (the Congressman unseated by Katie Hill in the 2018 election), the PAC TEAPARTYEXPRESS.ORG, and the ACTION Apartment Association’s political arm, called ACT-PAC.

For a copy of the full report, click here.

In addition to sharing the same Republican treasurer, in 2020 the ACTION Apartments Association contributed over $5,000 to the Santa Monicans for Change PAC. And their far-right Republican bona fides extend well beyond sharing the same Republican treasurer. One of ACTION’s board members is Robert Kronovet, the former rent control commissioner who is vocally pro-Trump and who wrote into the Lookout in August decrying rent control as a communist plot to make renters dependent on the city. 

Their “Links” page includes links (which they label as news links) to pages such as Infowars, which is run by rightwing conspiracy theorist Alex Jones and who recently was ordered to pay $965 million in damages for spreading lies about the Sandy Hook School shooting, and “Magagator”. In October 2020, one of the articles listed on their front page was a screed by Rosario Perry, full of pro-Trump views and Republican conspiracy theories on topics like COVID and “mail-in ballot harvesting”. 

In addition to being pro-Trump, this group is also anti-renter; a document authored by Rosario Perry which is posted on their website is “10 Great Things to do as a Housing Provider”, the first of which is, “When helping tenants with reduced payments, or the like, remember no good deed goes unpunished.” As noted in the Lookout, when Perry died in April, he was motivated into organizing landlords in direct response to the passing of Santa Monica’s rent control law, which he opposed.

Also affiliated with this PAC is Housing Commissioner Dominic Gomez. As of April 25, 2019, Gomez was listed as the Vice President of ACTION. Gomez was briefly a city council candidate in 2020, before withdrawing and endorsing Councilmembers Phil Brock, Oscar de la Torre, and Christine Parra, as well as their failed slate member and sitting planning commissioner Mario Fonda-Bonardi.

In Santa Monicans for Change’s campaign filings from 2020, Gomez is listed as the recipient of multiple large payments for services by the PAC, and was appointed to the Housing Commission with the support of Councilmembers Negrete, Brock, de la Torre and Parra in December 2021. Now, Gomez is listed as the principal officer of Santa Monicans for Change on their latest campaign filing.

For a copy of the full document, click here.

For a copy of the full document, click here.

The PAC’s other funding sources further bely the notion that they’re just another slow-growth group. Take for example the September 2022 $10,000 donation to Santa Monicans for Change by New Commune DTLA LLC. New Commune is a development company run by developer Leo Pustilnikov. Readers may be familiar with Pustilnikov from his planned 2,300 unit builder’s remedy project in Redondo Beach, and his summer 2022 appointment to the Downtown Santa Monica board by Councilmembers Negrete, Brock, de la Torre, and Parra. Other real estate interests that have gotten involved in this election cycle include $4,200 in donations to Negrete from 11 individuals at JRK Property Holdings; these $4,200 represent the biggest source of donations to Negrete by employer. JRK owns the Oceana Hotel, which was recently before the city council seeking a conditional use permit to open its restaurant to the public.

For a copy of the full document, click here.

I hope I’m not the only Santa Monica resident deeply disturbed by this large-scale intrusion of deep-pocketed Republican and anti-renter interests into our city council election for the second election cycle in a row. We’re already seeing them stack our boards and commissions with allies such as Gomez and Pustilnikov. A supermajority of councilmembers backed by these interests would be devastating both for renters and rent control in particular, and our city as a whole.

From <https://santamonicanext.org/2022/10/change-for-who-another-santa-monica-pac-with-murky-donors-groups-influences-local-races/>

Special Interests Are Major Players in Council Race

 By Jorge Casuso

Editor's note: A previous version of this article stated that Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights (SMRR) received a $50,000 contribution from a real estate investor. The recipient was Santa Monicans for Residents Rights.

October 3, 2022 -- Special interest groups will have a major impact on the November 8 City Council race, with one union spending as much to target a single candidate as all eleven candidates have spent combined.

The hotel workers union has spent $56,815 opposing Councilmember Lana Negrete, nearly $22,000 more than she has raised, according to campaign finance disclosure statements filed with the City Clerk.

Unite HERE local 11 has also spent nearly $30,000 backing Rent Board Commissioner Caroline Torosis, Planning Commissioner Ellis Raskin and Public policy adviser Jesse Zwick, who have spent a combined total of $33,042.

[BACKED BY POLICE UNIONS[ Negrete, who was the target of a hit piece by the union, will have plenty of help during the final month of what promises to be a hotly contested race ("Negrete Target of First Election Hit Piece," September 23, 2022).

With the County elections office set to start mailing ballots this week, the two unions representing police officers and firefighters have been holding on to war chests that total $242,769.

The Firefighters union -- which backs Torosis, Negrete and slow-growth activist Armen Melkonians -- has a balance of $134,708, while the Police Officers Association (POA) has $108,061 on hand.

The police union is backing Negrete, Melkonians and Recreation and Parks Commissioner Albin Gielicz, instead of Torosis.

Santa Monicans for Change -- a slow-growth group that backs Negrete and Melkonians -- has raised $50,705 and has a balance of $38,276, nearly as much as both candidates have raised combined.

Political organizations that have traditionally been major players in local elections have fallen behind their usual fundraising pace.

Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights (SMRR), which raised an average of $131,796 in the five election years before the coronavirus shutdown in 2020 from hundreds of contributors, has raised $43,374 this year and has a balance of $37,245.

Meanwhile, Santa Monica Forward, which backed three incumbents that lost in 2020, has raised only $3,700 and has a balance of $3,590 to support Torosis, Zwick and former League of Women Voters president Natalya Zernitskaya.

CEPS (Community for Excellent Public Schools) has raised $27,301 and had an ending cash balance of $31,048, including money left over from the previous year.

A new group named Santa Monicans for Residents Rights has raised $55,000 thanks to a $50,000 contribution from Sergey N. Vershinn, a real estate investor and has $54,950 in hand. They have yet to spend money backing or opposing any candidates.

Of the eleven Council candidates, Torosis easily leads in fundraising with $65,160 in contributions, including a personal loan of $6,500. After expenditures, she has a balance of $52,684.

Zwick is second, having raised $47,884, and has a balance of $40,901, while Negrete, the only incumbent in the race, has raised $34,942 and has a balance of $21,598.

Zernitskaya has raised $31,069 and has a balance of $22,110, while Raskin has raised $18,738 and has $5,442 left in his war chest.

Troy Harris has raised $9,705, almost all of it from more than one hundred personal loans totalling $9,121, of which he has $584 left, while Gielicz has raised $8,375 and has a balance of $6,848.

Melkonians, the founder of the online group Residocracy, has raised $7,510, including a $2,500 personal loan, and has a balance of $4,962.

From <https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2022/October-2022/10_03_2022_Special_Interests_Are_Major_Players_in_Council_Race.html>

Council member Negrete Target of First Election Hit Piece

From <https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2022/September-2022/09_23_2022_Negrete_Target_of_First_Election_Hit_Piece.html>

By Jorge Casuso

September 23, 2022 -- The local hotel workers union fired the first attack of the 2022 Election season with a mailer targeting Councilmember Lana Negrete.

The piece, which landed in mail boxes late this week, criticized the Council's newest member for voting to approve new uses at the Shore Hotel, which has been embroiled for years in a bitter unionizing battle ("Council Breaks With Union, Backs Hotel's Proposal," December 9, 2021).

In 2019, the local family owned hotel was hit with a record $15.5 million fine by the Coastal Commission for building a high-priced hotel with a permit to build moderate priced lodgings ("Santa Monica Hotel Hit with Biggest Fine in Coastal Commission History," May 8, 2019).

"Lana Negrete Voted for a law-breaking hotel developer and against environmentalists," the front of the predominantly red and black flier reads.

"In a scheme that a judge called 'a bait and switch,' a hotel developer illegally demolished two motels with dozens of low-cost guestrooms and replaced them with the high-end Shore Hotel without a proper permet," reads the back of the flier.

"Yet Councilmember Lana Negrete was the deciding vote to give MORE development permits to Shore Hotel and ignored Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights (SMRR)" and three environmental group "that opposed the expansion."

In voting for the new uses at the Shore Hotel last December, Negrete joined a non-SMRR majority on the Council that dealt a blow to Unite HERE Local 11, which had mounted a strong lobbying effort with other community groups against the hotel.

"It would be easy to make friends, so to speak, and just fall in line with how the community at large, seemingly, or special interests feel about this issue," Negrete said before casting her vote.

"I'm not speaking or doing anything that's appeasing the large groups that call in, and I know that's not the popular thing," Negrete said.

Negrete's December 7 vote signaled a strong shift for a Council whose SMRR majority had sided with the union for the past two decades, attending its rallies and casting votes on policies it pushed.

Negrete said she voted to allow Shore Hotel to open a cafe space and an 80-seat restaurant with a bar and to create a 14-room "micro hotel" because it was important to help a local Santa Monica business trying to recover from the coronavirus shutdown.

She voted, she said, "for the good of the community and economic recovery and giving peoople their jobs.

"They were asking to expand to keep their jobs and maintain service," Negrete said. "It keeps their line cook and bus boy and waiter (employed). It had nothing to do with labor issues."

Negrete noted that her campaign has received major labor endorsements, including that of the powerful Los Angeles/Orange Counties Building and Construction Trades Council, and the Santa Monica police and fire unions.

But the clash withUnite HERE Local 11 is already placing roadblocks for Negrete's first election campaign since being appointed to the Council in June 2021.

Earlier this month, the union played a role in denying Negete the SMRR endorsement ("Hotel Union Flexes Muscle at SMRR Convention," September 12, 2022).

And it has vowed to mobilize "everyone, everywhere" as part of a canvassing effort that has helped boost the prospects of local candidates for more than two decades

From <https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/news/News-2022/September-2022/09_23_2022_Negrete_Target_of_First_Election_Hit_Piece.html>

Missing the Point

October 31, 2022

Dear Editor,

In reading the response of Nicole Faries to my letter titled "Who Are The Real Right Wing Conservatives in Santa Monica," she clearly misses the point of my opinion letter ("Stop Throwing Stones," October 27, 2022).

The Santa Monica Democratic Club and its endorsed City Council candidates should not disparage other Democrats by falsely accusing them of being Republican and/or right-wing conservatives.

The impact of such rhetoric works to marginalize Democrats within our Party and create division along racial lines. Rather, they should focus on the issues that are affecting Santa Monica voters. As Democrats we must do better!

When Ms. Faries makes an effort to racialize A Brighter Future’s School Board endorsements, she gets it wrong by saying "all four are white."

The fact is that Esther Hickman self identifies as a Latina. Her mother came to this country from Ecuador and worked as a housekeeper and nanny. Public schools have recognized Esther as racially and economically disadvantaged since 1978, benefiting from school lunches and affirmative action.

ABF has proudly endorsed a diverse group of candidates for the City Council, College Board and School Board.

Even if all of the ABF School Board candidates were people of color, Ms. Faries would still be against them. Why? In fact, Community for Excellent Public Schools (CEPS) has become a booster club for the incumbents' behaviors, policies and practices.

ABF has endorsed Esther Hickman, Miles Warner, Angela DiGiatano and Stacy Rouse for School Board because our schools are in crisis, and we need a new school board majority in order to stop the downward slide of our once renowned school district.

Sincerely,

Maria Loya

Santa Monica

From <https://www.surfsantamonica.com/ssm_site/the_lookout/letters/Letters-2022/10_31_2022_LETTERS_Missing_the_Point.html>