Schools face uncertain future in wake of vote
A parcel tax increase to fund local schools was defeated by voters Tuesday.
The school district didn’t get its required two-thirds majority vote with the 61.2 percent, or 17,693 votes it garnered. The “no” votes constituted 11,228, votes, or 38.8 percent.
Measure EE would have authorized the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District to levy a special tax of up to $300 a year, adjusted annually for inflation, on each of the 32,413 parcels in the two cities.
“With the defeat of EE, now is the time for the school board members and the community to come together and reassess our priorities,” said newly-elected school board member Shane McLoud. “We have to look at our programs and how best they meet the needs of the students. We were hoping that EE would bring our district to an acceptable level and now it’s time to go back to the drawing board.”
Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Superintendent John Deasy, who stationed himself at Union Restaurant on Fifth Street and Broadway Avenue on Tuesday along with dozens of school supporters and school board candidates, said communities would get the schools they want if the wage passed.
Harry Keilly, president of the local teacher’s union, described the election as too close to call just after midnight. Keilly said teachers and union representatives called 2,500 voters throughout October drumming up support.
“We found residents were very supportive,” he said. “We called more for this than any previous measure.”
But he had hoped all of the campaigning dozens of people did over the past month would have paid off. It didn’t.
The tax increase would have pumped $9.6 million annually into the cash-strapped school district for 12 years.
Because the state has cut school funding drastically, the district faced a $4.5 million budget deficit this year. Through severe cutbacks and an additional $1.5 million donation from Santa Monica, the school district was able to balance its books. The city normally contributes $3 million annually to the school district, but this year the total subsidy is $4.5 million.
The school board approved a $79.9 million budget in June that was the school district’s lowest in three years. The budget cuts would have been deeper had the City of Santa Monica not donated $1.5 million in one-time aid. Malibu voted not to contribute $250,000 in additional aid the school district requested.
School officials anticipate another $5.7 million to $8 million budget deficit next year and said that without the tax increase, the district will have to make even more drastic cuts.
As the state legislature continues to cope with its $28.8 billion deficit, officials say education will likely continue to fall by the wayside. And school districts across the state are being squeezed by precipitous declines in state funding and significant increases in the cost of health insurance and retirement plans.
In Santa Monica schools, officials also are attempting to lower class sizes over the next three years so that classes stay well below 35 children on average. To achieve that, the school district will have to go with less funding from the state, which pays districts based on the number of children enrolled.
“Now more than ever we are going to need strong leadership from the board and the superintendent,” McLoud said. “It’s time to look at why this didn’t work and why the community rejected it.”
The tax increase would have been used to fund a variety of programs for every grade level in Santa Monica and Malibu schools.
The Committee for Excellence in Education — Vote Yes on EE, the group that supported the measure, had shelled out more than $116,000 for its campaign as of last week. During that same time, $150,000 had been donated by supporters who represent a wide range of people, including parents, teachers, unions, city politicians and community activists.
Detractors of the measure argued during the campaign that the tax is unfair because it requires that the poor and wealthy pay the same amount.
Instead, the measure’s opponents — who say they agree the school district needs more local funding — wanted the district to use some other way than a parcel tax to find more funding.
Opponents also wanted to vary rates paid by commercial and residential properties, and have exemptions for seniors and low-income families.
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on November 6, 2002. Read the original PDF.