A funny thing happened on the way to balancing the city’s budget. Twelve million dollars annually given to the schools disappeared. There’s no need to send out a search party, because the funds fortuitously turned up as found money on the city’s balance sheet. But that doesn’t help the pillaged Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD). So it’s up to the voters to pay the ransom, I mean pass Measure ES.
Let me rewind.
Almost exactly a year ago, the city initiated a Realignment Plan, or as the Mayor proudly calls it, a Renaissance Plan, although it’s worth noting the Renaissance mostly benefited the upper class and not the working class. Regardless, it’s a bold and meticulous plan, and the Council and City Manager deserve credit for the hard work invested and the political risks taken.
That’s why I chose not to initially write about the plan’s flaws, but chief among them was a clever accounting trick buried in the document. The city eliminated the aforementioned $12 million payment to SMMUSD, and in its place suggested a tax on each “parcel” of land to replace the missing money.
Theoretically, it was a win-win. The city would get help digging its way out of its current financial hole, and the public would be okay with pitching in, as long as it was to support the schools. The city paid a strategic research firm to poll residents on the topic, but at a time when affordability is the number one concern for many voters, new taxes are a hard sell.
Initial positive response was as low as 42%, far less than the 66% required for a ballot measure to pass, but the number rose as high as 59% if residents were told that the money would be used to protect schools from state or federal government cuts. However, it wasn’t the state or federal government cutting funding, it was the city. And instead of communicating openly, the city did it through subterfuge, like a cartoon bandit tying the school budget to train tracks and counting on voters coming to the rescue.
But 59% of the vote isn’t enough for a rescue. So more cleverness was needed. There’s a loophole in California election law that allows tax measures to pass with only 50% of the vote as long as they’re proposed by citizens, rather than elected leaders (though Proposition 43, also on the November ballot, aims to end this loophole).
So abracadabra, the parcel tax was removed from the Council’s agenda, eliminating any need for public discussion, and a citizens group sprung to life to sponsor Measure ES. While the group verbally denies any collaboration with City Hall, there’s little effort otherwise to hide the appearance of it. The group is led by two former Mayors, and it was the current Mayor, Caroline Torosis, who spoke on behalf of the group when seeking the measure’s endorsement from the Santa Monica Democratic Club.
Torosis said that without the parcel tax, the school system will have to make drastic cuts, including 73 classroom teachers. Councilmember Barry Snell has suggested an even worse scenario if the city is forced to come up with the money: cuts to police, firefighters and library hours.
Opponents dismiss such talk as hyperbole and point to the millions of dollars in annual budget surpluses SMMUSD keeps having, despite repeatedly forecasting millions in deficits. They also say that if the city’s maneuver is meant to solve the current fiscal crisis, then the ballot measure should have a sunset clause, but it doesn’t. Claiming long-term structural deficits in SMMUSD’s finances, as supporters have done, seems like a bait and switch, and it’s belied by the continual surpluses.
However, opponents aren’t acknowledging that those surpluses aren’t sufficient to offset a $12 million annual loss. Instead, some are criticizing SMMUSD for having surpluses, but no organization can precisely predict at the beginning of a year what its income and expenses will be at year-end. There are only two options: ending up in the red or in the black. And not ending up in the red is a good thing.
Still, it’s hard to defend the financial choices of a school district that paid $150 million for a state-of-the-art building that lacks working air conditioning. In our convoluted system, building projects are funded by school bonds, not tax revenue, and the former can’t be used for most other school needs. So it’s apples and oranges, even if there’s a lot of missing accountability, particularly from the three school board members running for re-election.
There’s missing accountability on many fronts, but that’s part of the purpose of the Realignment Plan. Instead of wringing our hands about our fiscal crisis, there’s an attempt to do something about it. Some say that residents shouldn’t be the ones responsible. But if not us, then who?
Measure ES is a clumsy effort that has lacked transparency from the start, but if we reject it, we will be denying responsibility for our financial situation and risking repercussions. I resent the poor choice we’ve been given. The people elected to protect us are instead blackmailing us, putting a metaphorical gun to our heads and saying “your money or your schools.” And they’re asking us to pull the trigger.
Devan Sipher can be reached at Devan@smdp.com.