> ## Content Index
> Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.smdp.com/llms.txt
> Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further.

# Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth
- URL: https://www.smdp.com/dont-look-a-gift-horse-in-the-mouth-editor/
- Published: 2004-02-20T16:00:00.000Z
- Updated: 2026-10-23T03:51:18.000Z
- Author: Guest Author
- Tags: Opinion, Malibu, #archive-import

*By Donna Block Santa Monica*

(This letter was originally addressed to Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Superintendent John Deasy and the school board).

I have prepared some comments and suggestions that I hope you’ll consider in shaping the district’s gift policy.

Although I support the goal of equity among our district’s schools, I do not support the method that has been proposed to create equity.

In fact, I believe that the current proposal will create inequity in many of the programs that are now in place. It will make it even harder to accommodate the needs of many students who now benefit from the fundraising.

Without it, they could not afford to participate in the programs. The current proposal also threatens the very existence of some of these programs, due to the reduction of necessary funding, both from the 15 percent tax and the corresponding reduction in motivation to fundraise and donate.

I believe that the policy, as suggested, will dampen the spirit and enthusiasm of fundraising for both the donors and worker bees. After 11 years of raising funds for the district, I believe I can speak for many of the dedicated fund raisers in this district. You should be aware of how others like me really feel about this proposal as it stands. We work to offer opportunities for students that would not be possible without the funds we raise. Us and our donors give for the same reason. We see the results of our work in the program(s) we support. That is why we achieve what we achieve.

I ask you to explore and consider all the unintended consequences of this proposal. If you hastily implement a policy that has not been thoroughly discussed and reworked in a public forum, you risk alienating those upon whom you will depend to create your equity fund. Without the worker bees and the donors, there is nothing to tap into. Some suggestions are as follows: • The board should initiate a public forum for discussion that includes both Santa Monica and Malibu people — not a hand-picked committee appointed by the board, but a public workshop that allows all sides the opportunity to be heard by each other in an open discussion. Many supporters of this policy have no idea what it takes to raise the funds that are being redistributed in this policy.

They need to know. Some people have no idea of the disparity that exists among some of our schools. They too need to know. We need to have a clear understanding of the problems and work together for a solution — not have this ill-conceived policy forced on us over the objections of many. If this type of collaboration does not happen, the board will be responsible for creating even more ill will and prejudice in our district. Please do not set the stage for more tension between the haves and the have-nots. Many of us who have been put in the category of haves, actually have not. That is why we work so hard to give our children and other children a little more. • Groups that fundraise to pay expenses of established school programs should give a percentage of their net, not their gross, proceeds. In order for these groups to provide an equitable level of participation for students who could otherwise not afford to participate in the activities of the group, the funds raised must first be used to fully insure participation for all. To balance inequities among the schools by creating new inequities within specific programs does not make sense. You don’t rob Peter to pay Paul and call it a sound business practice, or an equitable policy. When groups have some discretionary funds available at the end of the year, they can voluntarily contribute a percentage to the equity fund. You can only expect so much from volunteers; many of us sacrifice a lot to help meet the needs of children. It is not only the poor who work hard in this community.

Most of us are just average folks who work very hard at our jobs and taking care of our families. Then we go out and work even harder to raise these funds. • If the district intends to skim an equity fund off the top of funds raised, it must ensure that substantial funds continue to be raised. People will much more readily contribute a portion of their group’s net proceeds to disadvantaged schools if those funds support the same cause for which the funds were raised. For example, if funds are raised for music education, then a percentage could be voluntarily contributed to enhance programs for music education in disadvantaged schools. The Santa Monica Band Parents have contributed some of their proceeds to the middle and elementary schools for years — knowing that the high school music program will be better for it. Other groups will see the logic in this practice. A percentage of PTA net proceeds could be voluntarily donated to needs determined by the PTAs at the disadvantaged schools. There are many special interest groups trying to raise a few extra dollars for specific programs — music, athletics, technology, for example.

Telling volunteers that a part of their hard-earned funds will go to a use other than what was intended breeds resentment and will not produce a gift policy that this community will support. • A better way to capitalize on the fundraising success within the district would be to set up a mechanism to share the skills of veteran parent fundraisers with the schools that need to learn how to tap into the generosity of their community. The professional fundraisers mentioned in the current version of the gift policy could also be used to increase the funds raised by the disadvantaged schools. I think the notion that disadvantaged schools cannot raise substantial funds is an elitist attitude. Parents from Edison and McKinley have complained that they’re willing to do the work but have no contacts with wealthy people or businesses and therefore cannot get them to donate. The district can provide them with volunteers who do have contacts with wealthy people or businesses interested in helping these schools. The disadvantaged schools in some ways have a better chance to attract donations from the community. Their needs are blatant and well publicized. It’s elitism that assumes schools in wealthier neighborhoods are the best source of funds for schools in lower-income neighborhoods. Why not concentrate volunteer efforts to empower parents from those schools to raise more funds themselves? It should not require a huge amount of effort to raise the extra $10,000 or $15,000 that the Title I schools stand to gain from the policy as currently proposed. Increasing the amounts for John Adams, Samohi, and Lincoln will require more work, but there is also more potential parent labor. Volunteers would be motivated to work because they would be able to see the results of 100 percent their labors instead of having 15 percent deducted for the equity fund.

I believe that by following suggestions such as the ones above from people actually raising the funds that the gift policy seeks to redistribute, you can create a policy that succeeds due to cooperation rather than the present one, which is based on coercion.

*Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 20, 2004.* [Read the original PDF.](https://s3.us-east-1.amazonaws.com/smdp%5Fbackissues/022004.pdf?ref=smdp.com)