Council Withholds School Funding Pending Policy Change

By Olin Ericksen
Staff Writer

June 14 -- If the cash-strapped School District wants more City funding, it must halt its policy of requiring parents of special education students to sign confidentiality clauses in their settlement agreements, a divided City Council decided Tuesday.

The move comes after District officials promised a full-scale evaluation of the unwritten policy, which they say has dramatically lowered legal fees, but which critics contend intimidates parents into silence.

After three hours of heated debate and testimony that included the long-awaited appearance of former District CFO Winston Braham -- whose settlement agreement included a confidentiality clause that mushroomed into the current controversy -- a divided council voted 4 to 2 to block City funding until the District places a moratorium on its current policy.

If the District fails to act, it could lose not only the $530,000 in additional City funding it expected the council to approve, it could also jeopardize as much as $1.6 million in additional funding over the next three years.

The money is part of a three-year-old contract with the District that will contribute $6.5 million in the upcoming fiscal year in exchange for the public’s use of school facilities and playgrounds.

The School Board must now decide whether to accept the moratorium or risk the much-needed funding. The District faces a long-term deficit of $11 million.

While some contend that the district’s use of confidentiality agreements with parents whose children require additional special education services fosters a climate of fear, others argue the council is tampering with District affairs.

Calling the current approach to Special Education negotiations "repugnant and inappropriate," Council member Bob Holbrook said he had the right to intervene.

"I'd like to point out that parents and students are also my constituents," said Holbrook, who sponsored the motion.

Mayor Richard Bloom disagreed.

"We are placing ourselves in roles of the School District to the detriment of our students and parents in Santa Monica and Malibu," said Bloom, who grudgingly voted against the measure after an alternative motion failed.

While acknowledging that the practice has been a "festering problem" for some time, Council member Ken Genser cast a swing vote for the moratorium.

"With some reluctance, and I want to say I think we could be embarking more and more on District policy… I'll support the motion," said Genser, whose vote after an initial 3 to 3 deadlock will allow the School Board to take up the issue, possibly at its June 28 meeting.

If Genser did not change his vote, the deadlock would have meant that the City could withhold the funding indefinitely, at a time when the District is hammering out a budget for the upcoming fiscal year.

The money is currently being set aside by the City, but District officials said it is not factored into the budget.

If council members had approved an alternative motion -- which school officials said they supported and included a key review of current practices, without a moratorium -- the issue could have been settled Tuesday and the funding released.

School District Superintendent Dianne Talarico -- who inherited the three-year old practice started as a response to ballooning special education costs -- said the school board last Thursday already began taking steps to order an independent review of special education procedures, which if launched, could possibly be finished by next April.

"I meant what I said about our commitment to review our current practice," said Talarico, who took over the District’s top post ten months ago. "I understand the issues and concerns. I ask for your support and patience."

When asked her personal opinion of the practice, Talarico answered: "I'll just let you know it's the policy I've been hired to follow."

Both Talarico and School Board President Kathy Wisnicki said the full board would need to discuss what would happen if a moratorium were put in place, because several agreements are still being worked out.

To do otherwise would be "awkward," Talarico said.

Of the 1,500 special education stundents in the District, 88 are receiving services under settlement agreements with the District this year, and more are expected, officials said.

The vast majority of special education children have education plans that are more standard and do not require additional services or a separate agreement, which includes the disputed confidentiality clause, according to officials.

State officials told The Lookout that such agreements are uncommon, but District officials disputed that assertion.

While unpopular, the confidentiality clauses were added to special education settlements as a way to lower legal fees, Wisnicki said.

"We would have preferred to spend the money on the students," she said.

Under the current policy, parents undergo a district evaluation and, if their child is determined to need more assistance than commonly provided -- as guaranteed, but not funded for, under federal law -- they are given the option of entering into a settlement agreement.

The other choice is to file a complaint with the State Department of Education.

Parents who sign a contract for additional services sometimes later feel they need additional services beyond what the district said they would provide, but worry they may breach their confidentiality clause and jeopardize the services.

Each year, the process starts again.

"I come here with great trepidation," said Craig Hamilton, a special education parent who sits on the volunteer Financial Oversight Committee.

"It's been a very difficult process and we go through it every year," he told the council "This is really about the District and what is fair and right for all students."