When it comes to transparency and accountability to the public, the present SMMUSD board’s mindset is “What the public doesn’t know won’t hurt us.” Here are three of many recent examples of that mindset in action:

• Last December the board refused to discuss publicly an item a Santa Monica city councilmember and a long-time school volunteer had placed on their agenda. At the board meeting the superintendent “cited” a nonexistent “board policy” prohibiting discussion on the item, and the present board—collectively having more than 60 years of experience with California’s open meeting law—went right along with him.

• In February two Samohi students threatened other students both specifically and generally, and brought daggers, a BB gun, handcuffs, rope, and black face masks onto campus. The district, which had just voted to place a parcel tax on a May ballot, did not acknowledge the weapons incident publicly until a day after the press reported the arrests in April. The full extent of the threats was not known until reported in the Santa Monica Daily Press on May 27. Students should have been given the opportunity in February to be more vigilant, to protect themselves. Parents had a right to know of a potential threat to their children. In this case the SMMUSD mindset of secrecy could have resulted in injury or death to students, teachers, or staff.

• Pine Street School, an important part of our special education program, successfully works with preschool autistic children, some of our district’s most challenged students. Just three months before the fact, parents were told that the class was going be split up and put into three elementary schools, because the district needs the Pine Street location to provide swing space for construction. At a July board meeting, district administrators admitted that they had planned the move a year ago but just informed the parents. The board told the administrators, “ Be more sensitive next time,” but the obvious strategy to keep parents from objecting by not informing them until the eleventh hour was treated as business as usual, which it is for this board. After threatening lawsuits and taking their case to the press, the parents were able to convince the board to keep the program intact at one elementary school, with both of the teachers who are serving the children so well.

On a budgetary note, Pine Street School last year saved the district $140,000 that was allotted but did not have to be spent for private preschools. Whether the program will be as effective now that it is part of a large elementary school remains to be seen. This fact should have been discussed with parents over the past year too.

This fact should have been discussed over the past year too.

As a board member, I will insist on turning this mindset of secrecy around by 180 degrees. It is not democratic or even ethical. The public schools’ business must be handled in public. Public input should be solicited, not avoided or merely tolerated.

How would I do this?

• I would attend a minimum of two meetings a month with school and community groups on their turf. Listening to people cram their thoughts into two or three minutes in Public Comments during board meetings is no way to communicate. There is no accountability. The format actually provides cover for a board that wants to avoid transparency, by limiting public input and not discussing anything they don’t want to deal with in public. Community meetings with informal give-and-take will be the antidote to present board meetings. This type of discussion would be especially important in determining budget priorities.

• I would insist that the district must produce a budget that people can understand. Power Point presentations are a start, but people need to be able to look at the details themselves. Palos Verdes Unified School District has a very understandable budget:(Click here to view the PVUSD budget). There is no reason SMMUSD cannot have one too.

• I will investigate the possibility of once again televising board meetings live.