Plenty of Questions for District

May 24, 2004

Dear Editor,

With regard to your recent articles on the funding agreement between the City Council and the Board of Education, I am hopeful that the negotiated revenue stream from the City of Santa Monica along with the two parcel taxes will help maintain or improve services to students, staff, and the community.

But I am troubled that District Administration appears to be -- on the one hand -- extremely organized and focused when it comes to passing a parcel tax or negotiating more money from the City; but -- on the other hand -- Superintendent Deasy shows no sense of urgency when it comes to correcting seriously flawed management and budgetary practices.

Careful examination of the District’s recent decision-making history leaves many questions unanswered. For instance:

1. During the current contract negotiations with their two employee unions, the District has made a proposal to correct an anomaly in the health benefits language that has cost the District $2 million over the past four years. Why did it take so long for the District's negotiators and lawyers to recognize the need to correct this inequity?

2. Since all personnel matters require the approval of the Board at a public meeting, why was the Malibu High School principal given a 5 percent pay raise two years ago in secret? And why is the salary paid to the Director of Special Education higher than the salary rate listed on the current Management Salary Schedule?

3. Recently, much has been reported publicly about the pending reassignment of the Olympic High School principal. But the reassignment last July of McKinley’s former principal to a Samohi Student Advisor position at her administrator pay, happened without a word at a Board meeting. Why the inconsistency in Board procedures and what’s the status of her employment for next year?

4. When the Deputy Superintendent/Chief of Staff position was approved in June of 2001 at a cost of $500,000 over three years, the Board promised to reevaluate the need for this new position when it was up for renewal. When will the future of this position be discussed at a Board meeting?

5. Last August 21, the Superintendent pulled from Board consideration a recommendation to approve an elementary Assistant Principal and three Teachers on Special Assignment as Program Facilitators. Since this item was never brought back for Board consideration, why were these four individuals’ employment and pay status changed as if the proposal had been approved?

6. For over a year, the Superintendent -- and hopefully the Board -- has been aware of the growing discontent among teachers and parents at one of the District’s largest schools over their principal’s lack of experience and leadership skills. Has the Superintendent ruled out reassigning this administrator to a vacant position at Samohi where Dr. Straus could mentor her colleague?

7. Two years ago, the Heath Benefits Technician position was cut and her specialized responsibilities were assigned to the Director of Business and Fiscal. This move has left the maintenance of employee and retiree health plan paperwork in disarray. Will the Superintendent fulfill his promise to recommend reinstatement of this vital position?

8. About five years ago, the District’s web site, www.smmusd.org, was created to disseminate timely and accurate information to staff, parents, and the community. But today, most of the individual department sites have gone one or two years without being updated. Who’s responsible for correcting this embarrassment?

9. Presenting the itemized Comparative Budget Report (Volumes I & II and Summary) to the Board at a public meeting for discussion and approval had been a long standing District practice. Why was it stopped two years ago?

10. On April 1, the Board and the MET Charter petitioners agreed to extend the time for the Board’s final decision in order for legal council to review the proposed MOU/ Contract language. On May 6, the Superintendent announced the parties had agreed to a second extension. Which administrator or legal firm failed to inform the Board that their decision to grant or deny the petition could only be extended up to 30 days? (See EdCode Section 47605)

10. Three of the 8.5 teachers allotted to SMASH have recently resigned. What Board staffing policy will District administration follow when filling vacant teacher positions at SMASH and other District schools?

11. Every Board agenda since March 11, has listed “Brown Act – Review (date to be determined)” as a Future Agenda Item. What’s taking so long to review the Board’s Brown Act policy? Clearly, a pattern of poor managerial and business practices has caused a loss of time, money, confidence, and trust. Measure “S” provides for the expenditure of funds “to protect the taxpayers’ investment.” A thorough independent evaluation of the District’s organizational structure, procedures, and practices should be one of the Board's highest priorities. To every reader that agrees with me, please let the Board know by e-mailing them at www.brd@smmusd.org.

Respectfully,

Jim Jaffe
Retired SMMUSD teacher