CEPS, School Board Support School Funding Agreement; Ballot Measure Unlikely

By Juliet McShannon and Jorge Casuso

May 7 -- A controversial school funding initiative will likely not go to the voters after the School Board Thursday night unanimously supported an alternative agreement hammered out by City and District officials that would pump between $6 million and $8 million a year into the cash-strapped school system by 2009.

The vote came one day after members of the Community for Excellent Public Schools (CEPS) -- which was poised to submit the signatures needed to qualify the charter amendment -- voted unanimously to accept the agreement pending approval by the School Board and the City Council, which will take up issue on Tuesday.

School Board officials praised the agreement, crafted by Superintendent John Deasy and City Manager Susan McCarthy during several months of negotiations that had seemingly reach an impasse as the clock ticked towards an early May deadline to qualify the CEPS measure for the November ballot.

“We have tried to find ways of providing predictable, reliable funding,” School Board President Jose Escarce said. “This agreement will help us to maintain the excellence that we have achieved and also strengthen our relationship with the City.

“Once again the Superintendent has demonstrated that he is an incomparable leader for our district,” Escarce said. “I would also like to thank Susan McCarthy for her goodwill and her open-mindedness and constant professionalism she exhibited during negotiations.”

Vice-President Emily Bloomfield expressed her support by thanking Mayor Richard Bloom and reiterating that the contract “provides much appreciated stability going forward and predictability for both the city and the district.”

Board member Shane McCloud went as far as to say that acceptance of the terms of the agreement by the board and council would have historic significance.

“The City Council will be remembered as the most education-supportive elected City Council ever in Santa Monica history,” McCloud said.

The unanimous vote prompted applause from members of the audience which included Mayor Bloom, McCarthy and CEPS members, who did not speak at the meeting.

A day earlier CEPS had paved the way for ratification of the agreement, which would have been nullified if the group submitted to the City Clerk the more than 15,000 signatures gathered since January, nearly double the 8,200 signatures needed to qualify the measure.

“We carefully considered the terms of the agreement, and if it is approved and executed as presented, we will withhold turning in the signatures,” said CEPS co-chair Shari Davis.

The votes, cast on Wednesday by most of CEPS’ nearly two dozen representatives came after a “very, very careful consideration of all of the work that went into the agreement, the measure, getting signatures and some of the fine points of the agreement,” Davis said.

Although the initiative calls for the same base of $6 million as the agreement, its formula for triggering additional funding would likely result in double the amount of additional funds.

The group was expected to meet again Wednesday at noon “to continue discussing strategy, what we can expect Tuesday (from the council) and what we should be saying,” Davis said.

“If this is indeed the end of our quest, we want to be careful about making some things happen,” she added.

The five-year agreement -- which allows public use of district facilities -- calls for the City to boost the $3 million to $5.25 million it has given the district in each of the past few years to at least $6 million annually starting in July.

The amount would then increase with a cost of living adjustment of between 2 and 4 percent a year, or between $120,000 and $240,000 a year. District officials estimate the cost of living increase would likely reach about $500,000 in the fifth year.

Additional increases of as much as $1 million in 2007/2008 would depend on the fiscal health at the City’s “Big Eight” revenue streams, comprised of taxes and fines that currently total about $125 million.

If the revenue streams falter, City payments could be held constant or reduced by no more than $1 million.

After five years, the agreement could be renegotiated for two 2½ year terms that could further boost the amount the district receives to between $10 to $12 million a year after ten years, according to district officials.

Board member Mike Jordan expressed support for the contract but felt that it was not specific enough.

“Specificity is important, as it will bind a lot of people for a lot of years,” Jordan said.

Jordan also felt that the overall contract would interfere with the right of the community to engage in the normal political process of lobbying the City Council for other funds.

“I really believe that it is important for any progressive community, especially our progressive community to bring new ideas and initiatives forward, and so it is my basic concern that that basic right be preserved,” Jordan said.

Deasy responded by saying that he would not support any petitioning once the contract was in place.

“I personally won’t be part of any such group and I would advise them not to petition,” the superintendent said.

Board member Maria Leon-Vasquez asked Deasy whether a community group petitioning for funds for a single event, such as a school trip overseas, would be an exception.

Deasy replied, “I cannot see how a one-off funding petition would violate the contract.”

Board member Julia Brownley felt that the essence of the contract would dissuade education advocates from petitioning for more funds.

“I think we need to remind ourselves that what is being proposed here is a potential contract which is an exchange of access and use of our facilities” Brownley said.

“In my mind I concur with the Superintendent that this contract eliminates the process of going down to the City, because we have a mechanism which we will evaluate,” Brownley said. “We will evaluate our level of services and the city, their level of payment.”