The latest disaster to hit the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District is school superintendent John Deasy’s “Robin Hood” tax scheme, wherein a percentage of all educational gifts and donations would be placed in an equity fund and doled out to needy schools.
The “Deasy Tax” is designed especially to redistribute a portion of donations raised by well supported schools to schools that are less successful at fundraising. The proposal mandates 15 percent of the first $100,000 in donations must be set aside in an equity fund, with 13 percent of the second $100,000, and 11 percent of the third $100,000, and so on.
To make things worse, the tax also would apply to money raised by student activities such as the orchestra and band, field trips, athletics, scholarships, and state and federal grants.
The purpose of the scheme is to achieve economic equality between rich and poor schools through redirecting resources. But it’s a dumb idea, possibly illegal, could cost a cash-strapped school district critical financial help, not mention the good will it so desperately needs and depends on.
Typical of statements in support was a comment by school board president Jose Escarce who described the proposal as, “A vehicle for fostering greater educational opportunities throughout the district.”
School board member Julia Brownley who first argued that it isn’t a tax, predicted “with the new policy in place fundrais-ing will... continue to increase” and then hedged her bet with this statement: “If we find fundraising declines dramatically, we can revisit the policy.”
School board member Emily Bloomfield went so far as to turn down donations outright that didn’t agree with her social agenda by “not accepting gifts that would prohibit our goal of parity.”
Bloomfield wants to throw the baby out with the bath water and I’m not sure Brownley would know a tax if it bit her. And, being that the district has been less than successful at voluntary fundraising, (which is why taxpayers districtwide are now paying for a bond, two parcel taxes and why school supporters want the city of Santa Monica to commit $6 million annually to the district), how prudent is it to risk losing even a dime of support?
Board member Shane McCloud had it right when he said, “I don’t think we should be altering someone’s charity.” Board member Mike Jordan wisely observed that “funding might be withdrawn with ensuing litigation.”
Unfortunately, it’s almost certain the full board will support Deasy’s proposal, proving once more that personal social agendas rule fiduciary responsibility. A final decision is expected at the March 11 school board meeting.
I’m willing to bet the family Buick that all those socialists salivating to tax gifts have rarely, if ever, written a check to Edison Elementary or McKinley Elementary, or anything else in disadvantaged neighborhoods. Besides, why contribute when they can force everyone else to do it?
I advocate helping poorer schools, but another way can and must be found instead of robbing donors and student activities. This could only play in the former Soviet Union and present day Santa Monica. It’s irresponsible to gamble on losing income and good will, although we shouldn’t be surprised. The district’s financial house has been an embarrassment for years.
Deasy was hired in the spring of 2001 to remedy rising budgets deficits and mismanagement issues left in the wake of the former superintendent.
Then, in April 2002, Deasy approved and participated in a pro-union rally (along with Brownley and current board president Maria Leon Vasquez) organized primarily by an off-campus labor union and current board member Oscar de la Torre. The rally originated on the Santa Monica High School campus and culminated at a nearby non-union hotel, thus infuriating the business and tourism community who are both big-time school supporters.
Two weeks later, Deasy requested a $100,000 loan to help finance his $900,000-plus condominium near Montana Avenue. The board voted to give him district money — then found out such loans are illegal. Deasy withdrew his request after the board was willing to skirt illegalities by giving him an $85,785 advance.
Malibu resident Ken Peterson, in a letter dated Feb. 20, 2004, printed in the SMDP wrote that Deasy had claimed publicly that many other school districts had similar equity sharing policies. Yet, when Peterson contacted those districts, he found that their policies were “100 percent of donations to specific schools must remain with that school.”
Although Deasy also had asserted that charitable foundations and corporations would be “OK” with the redistribution of their funds, the school board received a letter on Feb. 19 from a very large corporate foundation specifically objecting to the diversion of its funds.
How about our children? A recent posting on a high school e-mail bulletin board by a frustrated senior who is on the aquatics teams puts it in focus. He said it was hard enough to practice and beg for money for the team and then to have to surrender 15 percent of it, especially when they’re short of their fundraising goal.
“God, I can’t wait until I graduate from this socialistic school,” he wrote. (Bill Bauer is a longtime Santa Monica resident and a freelance writer).
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 5, 2004. Read the original PDF.