Stifling Dissent Contray to Pubic Interest

February 13, 2007

Dear Editor,

I share Jean Sedillos' opposition to the School District's forced silencing of Winston Braham as part of his severance agreement.

Mr. Braham served the School District and the broader school community quite well during his tenure as the District's Chief Financial Officer. As we grapple with the District's continuing financial challenges, Mr. Braham's insights and recommendations would be particularly valuable.

The language which troubles Ms. Sedillos, at least several City Council members, and me, as well as others with whom I have spoken, is labeled a "Non-Disparagement” clause. This label suggests that it simply prohibits the parties (Mr. Braham and the School District) from making disparaging comments about each other -- a common provision in such settlement agreements.

But the actual language goes much further, providing 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." Thus, Mr. Braham has been silenced as a condition to receiving his severance pay.

It is simply outrageous, as Ms. Sedillos put it, to "have the district paying a whole lot of the public's own money to keep us from finding out what we are entitled and need to know."

Of course, no one is required to agree with Mr. Braham if and when he is allowed to speak, but his silencing only serves to heighten public concern about the judgment of the District's leaders and the District’s financial condition.

The point is not to delve into whatever personality conflicts and power struggles ultimately resulted in Mr. Braham’s departure. Nor do I question Mr. Braham’s entitlement to his severance pay. Rather, the point is that the public would benefit from Mr. Braham’s opinion about the District’s financial condition, should he choose to share it with us.

Former governmental officials are often an invaluable source of insight. The public interest is best served by allowing such officials to speak openly and not have their views censored or suppressed by their former bosses. Stifling dissenting views, directly as in Mr. Braham's case, or less directly by fostering what Ms. Sedillos characterizes as a District culture which discourages dissent, is contrary to the public interest as well as the best interests of public education in Santa Monica and Malibu.

School Board member Oscar de la Torre quickly grasped this point when Council members raised it last week, indicating that he would support lifting the settlement agreement's "gag" provision and allowing Mr. Braham to speak if he so chooses. Hopefully, his Board colleagues and the Superintendent will quickly follow suit.

Chris Harding
Santa Monica