The Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization voted again this week to reject Malibu’s petition for an independent school district, in a process that was every bit as chaotic and confusing as the initial meeting that necessitated a revote.
The rejection came during a revote prompted by procedural errors during the committee’s initial April vote. That meeting was marked by confusion over voting procedures, with committee members speaking simultaneously and competing motions creating clarity issues.
In April, the committee voted 6-5 to deny Malibu’s 2017 petition, but according to amended meeting minutes, there was confusion over whether that vote represented the committee’s final recommendation or simply approval of a substitute motion.
While all 11 members voted in April, only nine cast a vote this month after two Santa Monica representatives on the panel recused themselves.
Prior to the vote, Malibu had raised concerns about the two committee members’ participation in the deliberations, questioning the appropriateness of Ralph Mechur and Barry Snell’s involvement.
The city had first expressed these concerns in December 2021 correspondence but said it never received a response. Malibu said both Santa Monica residents were fundamentally biased against their proposal and pointed to a history of political activity by the two men. Mechur was formerly a member of the School Board that Malibu is attempting to split from and Snell is a current member of the Santa Monica City Council.
Both men did step down but did so after saying they could be impartial had they chosen to stay.
The School District had also filed its own complaints over the process saying the entire revote process violated the Brown Act. The District said the revote decision has been made outside of properly noticed public meetings and individuals opposed to Malibu’s petition said the process was inappropriate.
Committee members had their own criticisms to levy saying lobbying attempts following the April meeting were tantamount to bullying of Committee members and that communications between advocates and decision makers that should have been shared among the entire Committee were delayed in a way that seemed suspicious.
Despite the swirling accusations and counter-accusations, a vote was eventually taken with the Committee voting 5-4 against Malibu.
Committee member Estefany Castaneda reiterated her opposition to Malibu’s petition saying it was fiscally unsound and would hurt minority students. She was among the members to call out Malibu’s communications as inappropriate.
“Rather than fixing these issues or negotiating in good faith, we know that there were actions done to target this committee, and there was communication targeting and bullying this committee that was not a good faith attempt at transparency. It was an attempt to undermine and intimidate a body that has conducted its work with integrity,” she said.
Committee member John Nunez was the lone member to switch votes. After initially supporting Malibu in April, he voted against the petition this month. He also criticized the post-vote lobbying attempts but said his vote was based on the merits of the petition and he did see concerns from both sides.
“This is one of the hardest decisions to make,” he said.
Any efforts to split the district are now limited to negotiations over a set of documents that were previously announced but never formalized. The three key agreements covering revenue sharing, operational transfers and joint powers are still the subject of discussion between the two parties and should they come to a conclusion, a new petition could be brought forward with the support of both sides.
This week’s decision can be appealed and regardless, State regulators will have the final say. While Sacramento lawmakers will take the County’s recommendation under advisement, they are not required to adhere to it.
editor@smdp.com