Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District Officials Say BB Advisory Committee Erred on Measure BB Recommendation Procedure

BY BILL KOENEKER

A recent action at a Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District BB Advisory Committee meeting that was called into question by Malibu activists and parents has been characterized by school district officials as flawed by procedural errors and process.
The committee is charged with making recommendations about how Measure BB bond money is spent throughout the district for capital improvements.
The action, which was called political maneuvering by some, has also been seen by others as helping to support calls for separating Malibu from Santa Monica and forming a separate school district.
The action has provided fodder for those opposed to Measure R who contend the powerful contingent of Santa Monica leaders and parents needs to be taught a lesson by the Malibu electorate.
The matter in question involves a motion made by local committee member and parent Laura Rosenthal attempting to reallocate funding to Malibu High School’s campus, which was pushed aside for a substitute motion that essentially countered her motion. The substitute motion was voted upon, and a majority of committee members considered the matter settled.
Now, based on a written complaint filed by Malibu City Councilmember Andy Stern and an e-mail from a Malibu parent, the school district administration is calling the process a “procedural error.”
Stern said he sent a letter to the district’s Superintendent Dianne Talarico asking district officials to look into the matter.
“I am hereby asking for a formal investigation of the conduct of the chair in this regard and also asking for an opinion of the attorney that represents the school district to determine if this ruling by the chair was correct. I consider this serious and I hope you do too,” wrote Stern.
Rosenthal’s motion was seconded, but rather than the committee voting on the motion, there was a substitute motion, and the chair stated that the substitute motion must be voted on instead of the original motion. “My research indicates that is not correct,” said Stern, who added he had heard the Robert’s Rules of Order were invoked to verify the correctness of the substitute motion.
Consequently, Talarico said after consulting with the school district’s attorney and reviewing Robert’s Rules of Order, “It would appear that the [Stern] claim is correct. The procedural error was regarding the handling of the original motion and the substitute motion.”
Additionally, Malibu parent Colleen Baum told school district officials that the action taken at the committee meeting was also not in compliance with board policy 1220.
A decision of a district advisory committee can be made only upon an affirmative vote of a majority of its members in attendance. The vote taken on the substitute motion was seven yeses, six noes and one abstain, which does not constitute a majority.
Talarico said she talked to some committee members about what happened. “ I have spoke with Gleam Davis regarding this matter and she intends to make a statement during the committee’s report to the board. The statement will indicate that the procedural error and process issue will be remedied at the committee’s next meeting,” Talarico said.
However, the next regularly scheduled meeting is Feb. 4, the day before the presidential primary election, when the voters will decide on the district’s Measure R. Consequently, the meeting on the fourth was cancelled and the next meeting is Feb. 15.
Malibu board member Kathy Wisnicki said the matter was discussed at some length at last week’s board meeting.
“We can’t fault the committee for not fully grasping Robert’s Rules of Order,” said Wisnicki, who is currently running for Malibu City Council.
Wisnicki said the important aspect to the board’s discussion was its commitment to return the funding to Malibu. “We have given that directive to staff and recommended the committee consider its vote,” she noted.
When questioned about how the recent committee and board actions might impact Measure R, which needs a two-thirds vote, Wisnicki said, “It is two separate issues.”