|
By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer
April 27 -- At a time when the local School District
is facing a serious budget shortfall, $750,000 in expected
City funding could be threatened, unless the District's former
Chief Financial Officer is allowed to speak publicly about
district finances, The Lookout has learned.
Winston Braham -- whose $190,000 settlement
with the District in December bars him from publicly discussing
fiscal issues -- could be asked to speak publicly by three
of the six Santa Monica Council members expected to vote on
the annual adjustment to the nearly three-year-old agreement
between the City and District.
While the council on Tuesday postponed the vote needed to
boost the $6.5 million the financially strapped district currently
receives, Council members Bobby Shriver, Bob Holbrook and
Herb Katz said Braham’s silence could impact their decision
when the item comes back to the council next month.
"My persistent concern is that the District should alter
their severance language, if Mr. Braham is in agreement, to
allow him to speak," Holbrook told The Lookout.
"It's important, because I'm being asked to support
giving money to the school district…and I'm concerned
that there is some revelation that is not being revealed,"
he said.
When asked if the issue could influence his vote, Katz responded
simply, "It could."
Meanwhile, Shriver -- who last February called on the District
to lift Braham’s legally imposed silence, but missed
Tuesday’s meeting due of an illness in his family --
said the matter would definitely affect his vote.
"I think that what I'm interested in is the 'gag' (clause)
and having the School Board remove it," said Shriver.
"I believe transparency is a critical thing for government."
If all three council members vote against the adjustment
-- and Council Member Kevin abstains, as expected, because
he works with the School District -- it could indefinitely
block the annual increase as the June budget sessions loom
for both the City and District.
District officials -- who recently approved a 5 percent pay
hike for teachers – said the public schools could certainly
use the money.
Last week, the School Board discussed the possibility of
eliminating as many as 31 full-time teaching positions in
an effort to balance the District’s budget, which could
face a deficit of as much as $11 million over the next three
years.
According to the City Attorneys office, a majority vote would
be needed to pass the recommended $750,000 increase to the
joint use agreement, which allows the public to use school
facilities after hours.
If the council is deadlocked or the majority votes against
the increase, the matter could be reconsidered at any time
by those who cast the prevailing votes in a two-step process.
First, the matter would need to receive a majority vote for
reconsideration, then another vote would be taken on the issue
itself.
Members of the public or council members who cast a losing
vote could ask that the council reconsider the issue, but
only after one year has passed, the City Attorneys office
said.
A game of brinkmanship could be looming, as negotiations
continue over whether to require Braham to speak publicly,
according to council members.
At the heart of the debate is a common clause, known as a
"non-disparaging clause,” in the $190,000 settlement
agreement between Braham and the District that effectively
silences the former CFO’s views on the District's finances.
The specific section at issue states that Braham "agrees
not to make comments to any third party concerning the financial
condition of the District, unless requested to do so by the
Superintendent or Governing Board of the District."
While a common clause used to avoid slander or libel, the
provision in Braham’s contract goes further than usual
by completely silencing the CFO of an organization, said Shriver,
who holds a law degree.
"In my sense, I've never seen that sort of thing before,"
he said.
At least one council member, Ken Genser, said he would vote
for the contract adjustment, despite reservations over how
Braham’s departure was handled.
"I think very clearly this is a personnel matter,"
Genser said. "I see no reason for the City to withdraw
from the funding agreement… I don't think this rises
to the level of concern."
Genser said he feels he is being pulled in two directions
on the issue.
"As a community member, I would be looking at it and
saying, ‘I don't fully understand it,’" he
said. "I don't think (the non-disparaging clause) was
a wise thing to do."
Genser, however, agreed that the provision barring the CFO
from speaking publicly is a seemingly unusual step for the
District to take, and called it an "asterisk" and
"blemish" for local schools.
"The City does not enter into these kinds of agreements,"
he said.
Still, Genser said he would take District officials at their
word when they say Braham’s departure stems from a personal
disagreement, rather than a case of financial mismanagement
within the district. (Braham’s departure
came after he refused to sign off on the proposed teacher’s
pay raise without a plan in place to fund it.)
"If there was some kind of indication of widespread
corruption, and he (Braham) had the key to it, the testimony
would be important," Genser said. "What's possibly
being hidden is one person's point of view.
"I don't know all the facts, because it's a personnel
matter, and it's supposed to be that way," he said.
Council member Pam O'Connor, who reluctantly approved the
school funding agreement in 2004, has called for greater accountability.
"I don't know if (Braham's settlement) will affect my
vote, but it all comes down to transparency and oversight,"
she said. "I have similar concerns."
Calls to Mayor Richard Bloom and School District President
Kathy Wisnicki were not returned by deadline.
Meanwhile, negotiations appear to be ongoing between the
District and City to arrange for Braham to speak publicly.
"There's an underlying rumor that this could get resolved
in the next couple weeks," Katz said.
Holbrook and O'Connor said they both would be satisfied if
Braham is allowed to speak publicly, rather than requiring
him to appear before the full council, as Shriver called for
in February.
Braham’s consent would obviously be needed, all parties
agreed.
As informal talks reportedly move forward, several council
members want the matter to be resolved before it returns to
council.
"I hope this thing gets worked out," O'Connor said.
| 
