By Jonathan Friedman
Lookout Staff

June 04, 2010 -- Final statistics of the precinct breakdown for the failed school district parcel tax measure will not be available until Friday afternoon, but preliminary numbers show that had the election taken place only in Santa Monica, Measure A would have won.

The results from election night on Tuesday of last week show 66.7 percent voter support in Santa Monica, a little more than the two-thirds needed for passage. Meanwhile, support in Malibu was a little more than 51 percent. Approximately 3,300 of the nearly 22,200 ballots were counted last week on Friday to bring the overall support to 64.25 percent. The Registrar will provide a precinct breakdown of the late-counted ballots Friday afternoon.

“I was surprised it was so low,” said Malibu resident and former Board of Education member Kathy Wisnicki of the voter support in Malibu. “I was actually devastated. I knew that it was going to be pushing it to get to two-thirds. We always struggle in parcel tax elections. But we usually get close. This time the Malibu vote actually did damage.”

Many people in Malibu think of the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District (SMMUSD) as a Santa Monica organization that does not give enough attention to Malibu. The sentiment has grown since 2008, when Wisnicki declined to run for reelection and Malibu was left without a school board member for the first time in nearly 20 years. Wisnicki said by voting against Measure A, some voters were making a statement that Malibu has a voice.

“I think that there are other more constructive ways to raise that voice than by causing the District to have to cut almost $8 million from next year’s budget,” she said.

Last week, the Board of Education tentatively approved $7.1 million worth of cuts for the 2010-11 school year. The board will vote on a final budget on June 18. (See story: School District Funding Measure Loses, May 29, 2010.)

Measure A would have generated an estimated $5.7 million annually for the District for the next five years. Although budget reductions would still have been needed even with its passage, a successful Measure A would have meant fewer cuts.

There have been three other SMMUSD parcel tax elections since 2002, and Malibu has failed to reach the two-thirds threshold in all of them. The $300 Measure EE in 2002 was approved by 55 percent of the Malibu voters, although that measure did not have enough support in Santa Monica as well and failed overall.

Less than a year later, the $225 Measure S was approved by District voters, but received a little under 60 percent support in Malibu. In 2008, Measure R, a $346 tax that was a combined renewal of two other taxes nearing expiration also was passed. It received just 55 percent support in Malibu.

“For some reason there’s a belief we’re the poor stepchild, and that translates to a lack of community support,” said Mike Sidley, a lifetime Malibu resident whose wife, Wendy, headed the Malibu end of the Measure A campaign. He said this belief is not correct.

Conflicts between Malibu and Santa Monica residents over SMMUSD issues have come up several times through the years.

Two years ago when the head of special education, Tim Walker, was forced to resign, this move was applauded by many in Santa Monica and overwhelmingly rejected in Malibu.

Also around that time, the Board of Education temporarily took away some bond money dedicated to a Malibu High School project while it added money to projects in Santa Monica. The money was eventually put back toward Malibu High following vocal opposition from Malibu residents.

Board of Education President Barry Snell said some Malibu parents told him they think there remains animosity in Malibu about the bond issue, and that was a reason for the significant opposition to Measure A. But he said he does not think that is the reason. Snell looked to the fact that support in Santa Monica was also down from what it was for previous parcel taxes, and it was sign that fewer people wanted a tax passed in a poor economy.

“Not having enough representation on the board from Malibu also might attribute to the lack of responsiveness,” Snell said. “I’m trying as much as possible to spend time in Malibu and make relationships there. I think it’s a constant thing that board members need to do.”

But Snell said it is a two-way street, and that Malibu leaders need to make an effort to get to know the SMMUSD leaders.

While some council members have done this, he said others have not. Snell said he was disappointed on a recent visit to Malibu when he ran into a council member, and the person did not appear to know who he was.

“For some reason there’s a belief we’re the poor stepchild and that translates to a lack of community support,”
            Mike Sidley

"Not having enough representation on the board from Malibu also might attribute to lack of responsiveness,"            Barry Snell