City Funds Don’t Belong to Council & "Can You Hear Me Now?"

February 17, 2004

Dear Editor,

Having a sound and viable school system is essential for our community. Your article on the debate on the merits of the City contributing a very small portion of its funds to our schools made the issues perfectly clear. (“Zane, Feinstein Face Off Over Proposed Charter Amendment,” Feb. 13, 2004)

Residents of our community, which include my family and me, are the ones who send their children to our schools, and we are the ones who live here, pay taxes here, shop here and make a contribution to our community.

Former Mayor Dennis Zane makes a strong argument for supporting City funding for our schools, reminding us that City funds do not belong to the City Council, they belong to the community, to all of us.

On the other hand, you have Councilman Michael Feinstein, who opposes City funding of our schools because he is concerned that City employees and the homeless won't get enough money.

It's the City employees' unions that support and help elect councilmen like Feinstein, no doubt giving their support in exchange for the promise of bountiful employment contracts.

Of course, you probably would be hard pressed to find many City employees actually living here in Santa Monica, and they certainly are not the ones who have a vested interest in seeing that community funds go toward our schools.

No. When City employees are not being rude or taking every other Friday off they only seem to want more money and more holidays off.

Katherine Marie Anderson
Santa Monica, California

February 17, 2004

Dear Editor,

In reading Superintendent Deasy’s First Revision of the Equity Fund policy, I am reminded of the cellular ad on TV. The distinct difference is that out there in the wilderness, someone actually does hear.

It has been well established that one of the biggest problems with Mr. Deasy’s original policy was that it was arbitrarily created without consulting the community, or as one person recently articulated, his customers.

How many thousands of hours are going to be spent going round and round on this issue according to Mr. Deasy’s agenda? I know my time could be spent more productively… wouldn’t Mr. Deasy’s and the School Board’s as well?

Mr. Deasy’s revised policy is now a three-tiered effort. First, the mandatory 15 percent tax on all donations. (No revision there…can you hear me now?)

Second, there will be a committee of parent volunteers to raise money for the same fund. This committee would be modeled after Santa Monica-Malibu Education Foundation’s “For the Arts” committee.

Third, a “sister school” program would be established to share fundraising successes. The revision also exempts non-monetary gifts from the fund and offers a paltry incentive (2 percent per $100,000 raised) in the form of a sliding scale.

Does Mr. Deasy actually believe that after imposing the demotivating, demoralizing first stage of the plan (15 percent tax), that “his customers” will even be around for the voluntary second and third stages? It seems to me that real results are not the main objective here, that the primary goal is to control the money.

Several school board members, after hearing public comment at their most recent meeting, expressed interest in trying a voluntary approach first. In addition, documentation of specific needs at each site was requested.

Mr. Deasy’s revision disregards the comments of his customers and his superiors and should not be introduced as another three-month exercise in futility and animosity.

Sandy Thacker
Webster Parent