School Board Gives Initial Nod to Gift Policy

By Juliet McShannon
Staff Writer

Feb. 27 -- The School Board voted 5 to 2 Thursday night to direct Superintendent John Deasy to "create his gift-policy with a mandatory component."

The board, however, did not give final approval to a “gift policy” drafted by Deasy, which critics argue fails to address concerns that it would hamper fundraising efforts because it mandates that schools give a percentage of their gifts to an “equity fund.”

"We want to make it clear that the Board has not passed or adopted a policy tonight," said Board President Jose Escarce. "Elements of this policy may not survive. We are here to give overall direction of an amended policy.”

The discussion, which excluded public comment, focused on the main tenant of the revised gift policy -- whether the equity fund should be voluntary or implemented with a mandatory component.

Escarce threw his support behind a mandatory equity fund, saying that if handled "in the correct way, (it) would be consistent with fairness and be a vehicle for fostering greater educational opportunities throughout the district."

Other board members enthusiastically supported a policy with a mandatory component.

Oscar De La Torre viewed a mandatory fund as an "economic necessity and moral imperative," while Vice-President Emily Bloomfield said she could see no other recourse "to make headway in closing the inequity gap."

Bloomfield went on to identify three main details of the gift policy that still need to be worked out -- in what form the funds would be collected, how to ensure the administration of the fund was transparent and fair and whether the method of distribution should be site-based or districtwide.

Board members Julia Brownley and Maria Leon-Vazquez, also supported a mandatory component to kick-start the policy, but wanted the board to be able to reassess the policy should fundraising drastically decrease.

"Our communication with parents and the community hasn't been perfect", Brownley acknowledged, "but I believe once a mandatory policy is in place there will be a natural acceptance by the current families in the district. If fundraising does go down, then we come back to the table."

Board member Mike Jordan disagreed with Brownley, saying it "would be easier to embrace a voluntary fund first.

"If effective then we could move to a mandatory fund,” Jordan said. “It doesn't work the other way around."

Jordan said he would not be running for re-election and so felt "free from political pressure and able to think clearly on what, as a steward, would be good for the district."

Jordan worried that a mandatory fund would be time consuming to administer and feared that corporate donations earmarked for specific projects would be withdrawn with ensuing litigation.

"We would expose the district to litigation and lose the leadership and political support of families in the district," he said.

Jordan was supported by Board member Shane McCloud who felt that there would be legal challenges ahead.

"It is inappropriate to alter someone's generosity," he said, adding that "without voter approval we will continue to have community backlash and litigation, especially for donations given for special programs such as sports and music."

The legal argument was dismissed by Leon-Vasquez who felt that the legal inconsistencies had been ironed-out and that the mandatory route was the only viable option.

"Challenges that such a policy is unconstitutional have been defeated," Leon-Vazquez said. "I hope that families don't litigate against it, spending monies that could be used for our children in the district. We have a strategic, legally enforceable plan."

McCloud acknowledged that a funding inequity existed in the district, but asked whether an alternative solution could be found, such as lobbying at State level.

Deasy replied, "There has been a lot of think-tank work in Sacramento, but it hasn't moved to policy consideration yet."

Many of the Board members, led by Jordan, applauded Deasy's courage in developing the gift policy in response to the urgent need to address inequality in district schools.

"Increasingly some of the anger has been pointed to the Superintendent in a negative way,” Jordan said. “This personal 'John Deasy' thing has had the potential to be a distraction."

Leon-Vasquez echoed the sentiment, stressing that the gift policy was not "the Superintendent's plan, but 'our' plan.

"One of the mandates the Board gave to Deasy was to be creative in providing excellent education to students and we asked the Superintendent to be aggressive,” Leon-Vazquez said. “Now we are implementing the plan."

Escarce concluded that the gift policy would be further discussed at future board meetings and re-iterated the need for greater refinement of the policy.

He prioritized the need for the district to collect data from its schools reflecting an accurate picture of the amount of funds received by district schools from all sources including fundraising.

The data is expected to be presented to the Board in two weeks.