Contract put forward by City Hall is criticized as vague, ambiguous and containing errors
A contract that would guarantee more than $6 million a year in city funds for the struggling Santa Monica-Malibu school district has been criticized as vague, ambiguous and containing errors.
The local school board tonight is expected to discuss criticisms of the school funding contract, which was drafted by City Hall and released last month.
The proposed agreement calls for increased funding for schools over the next five years, with options for both sides to renew the deal through 2014.
City Hall agreed to voluntarily boost its school funding after a powerful parent group threatened to place an unprecedented charter amendment on last November’s ballot. If voters had backed the amendment, the city would have been forced to permanently increase its contributions.
The terms of the deal were hashed out behind closed doors by City Manager Susan McCarthy and Superintendent of Schools John Deasy. City Hall agreed to double the $3 million it pays annually for use of school facilities, with an adjustment of up to $1 million in 2007, depending on the city’s economic prognosis. Provisions were included for inflation adjustments and loopholes were added for extraordinary economic circumstances.
How those terms were translated into the actual contract has caused a stir among some residents. In a Feb. 14 letter to the school board, a district financial oversight committee criticized the draft agreement for “material inconsistencies,” “errors in mathematical formulas” and “ambiguous language.”
The financial oversight committee was formed in September of 2000 in answer to the community’s request for increased communication and understanding of the district’s finances, and a desire to generate additional revenue for the district, officials said. Its eight members are appointed by the school board.
“One of our most significant concerns about the draft agreement is that it focuses much too narrowly on city use of school district facilities, rather than ‘community use of school facilities’...,” wrote Paul Silvern, chairman of the financial oversight committee. A minor change in language could affect a large number of Santa Monica nonprofit groups that regularly use school facilities, parents argued.
In the same section of the contract, Silvern proposed adding language that would limit city and community use to the schools in Santa Monica, meaning Malibu sites wouldn’t be covered by the agreement, even though City Hall’s education dollars are shared by all campuses in the joint school district.
Another sticking point raised by Silvern was that the contract “fails to express the parties’ (and the community’s) clear intent in supporting city funding of the district... (which was due to) the critical importance of having excellent public schools to the overall quality of life in Santa Monica, including attracting quality businesses, increased property tax and other local revenues...”
To remedy that omission, Silvern proposed three paragraphs that could be added to the contract that would explicitly name the goal of excellent public schools as the agreement’s intent.
Seven specific technical issues were raised in Silvern’s letter, including changing the way the contract is renewed and payments to the district are made, how adjustments are calculated and several other inconsistencies. Silvern also suggested that provisions be included to protect the agreement in the event that Malibu secedes from the district, and to protect the district’s control over its properties and the additional funds.
McCarthy and Steve Stark, the city’s finance director, said Wednesday they had not reviewed the suggested amendments but said they planned to do so, along with the school board’s comments.
“There’s no reason to think that we wouldn’t come up, ulti.mately, with a document that reflected our agreed upon terms,” said McCarthy, adding the contract’s delay was due partly to questions over whether the contract could include sub-agreements on items like after-school programs and playground uses.
“It proved to be unwieldy, not workable just logistically to try and get all of that incorporated,” she said. “I think that ultimately we need to be more flexible with the sub-agreements... They may be one thing today, they may be another thing in three years. Although from a tidiness perspective it may be nice to tie up all things at once, it could end up tying our hands as the dynamics of the programs morph over time.”
Deasy said he was hopeful the issues would be resolved.
“I’m hopeful that whatever the board chooses, if any, about edits that we can rapidly bring that to closure with the city, and I have every hope that we can,” Deasy said Wednesday.
Parents and district officials acknowledged the issue had the potential to become controversial, but said they hoped the requested changes would become a natural step in the process of reaching a fair agreement.
“The bottom line is that the city has given the school district $6 million for the year, which is crucial, crucial funding,” said Shari Davis, co-chair of the Community for Excellent Public Schools, which sponsored the charter amendment. “We want to make sure that the agreement is fulfilled... and positively reinforced.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on February 17, 2005. Read the original PDF.