October 29, 2004

Dear Editor,

In his recent column, Frank Gruber incorrectly states my position on Measure "S." (WHAT I SAY: The College Bond and the College Board,” October 29)

Measure "S" asks that voters approve and pay for another $135 million in bonds for Santa Monica College.

Measure "S" is predicated on "partnerships" with the Cities of Malibu and Santa Monica. The College has an agreement with the City of Malibu. The City of Santa Monica asked for an agreement on terms similar to that with Malibu but the College rejected this.

I have stated numerous times that I will support the measure when the City and College agree that there is a partnership. Along with my colleagues, I asked the City to negotiate in good faith with the college to achieve the desired partnership. We placed no restrictions on City staff and encouraged a positive result. This has not been
forthcoming.

Last May, the College President asked the City Council to take a "leap of faith" and support the bond measure. My feelings then are the same as they are now. One cannot take a "leap of faith" when it comes to committing public dollars. Frankly, I think it is regrettable that the City and College have not been able to agree.

While there certainly are major problems with an institution that is unable to control its annual growth, the College also plays an unmistakably positive role in our community, providing excellent affordable educational opportunities for a broad range of people. We simply must find a way to coexist.

Mr. Gruber mentions the Madison theater in his remarks. Until now, Santa Monica College has insisted that this theatre would be built with privately raised funds. Now, we find that the theater has been added to the list of projects that may be built with bond proceeds, meaning that the theatre will likely be built with public, not private funds.

Moreover, we have no assurance that the theater will operate in the black (the City Manager tells us that public theaters are frequently subsidized). This means the very real possibility that with virtually no public discussion, not only will the public have to pay for the building, but may also have to subsidize its operation.

Mayor Richard Bloom
Santa Monica

October 29, 2004

Dear Editor,

I recently read about the Community for Excellent Public Schools candidate interviews. (“CEPS Gives Eight Council Candidates Passing Grades, Fails Feinstein,” October 12)

At the time, I was surprised to learn that longtime schools supporter and City Council candidate David Cole had failed to win the approval of the CEPS organization.

I was surprised because, while David and I may come from different ends of the political spectrum, I have known him for 10 years and know him to be a dedicated and hardworking supporter of our children and our public schools.

Today I received a mailer from CEPS which rated the City Council candidates and which stated that David is not a "reliable school supporter." While I strongly support and appreciate the work CEPS is doing in our community, I am concerned about the fairness of its candidate rating process.

David Cole may not be the pick of SMRR or the Chamber of Commerce, he may be outspoken and ruffle some people’s feathers, but when it comes to supporting our schools his record of service is long and distinguished.

He served as PTA President at McKinley, PTA Vice-President at Lincoln, and was Vice-President of the Santa Monica/ Malibu PTA Council. He was also an active member of the SMMUSD Childcare Taskforce, and the District’s Prop. ES Oversight Committee.

In addition to all of this he co-founded “Save our Playgrounds,” an organization which succeeded in keeping playgrounds open for children when the district introduced a wrong-headed program that kicked kids off the playgrounds after school and charged parents $100 a month for one hour a day of after school play.

He also co-founded “Citizens for School District Reform” a group which spearheaded the move for positive changes in the district and which helped pave the way for the arrival of Superintendent Deasy and the election of new school board members. And to top it all off, he is on record as being in support of increased City funding for schools.

Yet somehow he has been given a “no” rating by CEPS.

Just to point out how absurd this is, take a look at how CEPS treated Chamber of Commerce backed Candidate Kathryn Morea. She is a person who, in addition to having no history of support for our schools, publicly refused to sign the CEPS pledge and walked out of the CEPS candidate meeting.

Yet according to the CEPS mailer she gets a “yes” rating as a reliable supporter of public schools while David Cole does not. It just doesn’t add up. If you look at the facts it becomes clear that CEPS was wrong to give David a "no" rating and unfairly tarnish his reputation. And I'm sure many of their members know it.

It is my sincere hope that, in the future, CEPS will take the high road and assess candidates based solely on their support for public schools, instead of allowing personal animosities or other political considerations to come into play.

If they do, school supporters like David Cole will always get the thumbs up they deserve.

Sincerely,

John Petz
Santa Monica