School Board Places $225 Parcel Tax on Ballot After Agonizing Deliberations

By Jorge Casuso
Staff Writer

Jan. 31 -- It took three hours of intense lobbying, passionate speeches and conquering fear before the School Board voted Thursday night to place a $225 parcel tax -- instead of a perceived safer $198 tax -- on the June 3 ballot.

Fearing a split would divide the community, Julia Brownley, the board's longest-serving member, grudgingly cast the deciding vote at 1:25 a.m., after initially pushing for the lower amount.

But her last-minute change of heart was an agonizing decision that only came after dramatic deliberations, public soul searching and encouraging words from her colleagues on the dais.

"I'm not ready to vote," Brownley told the deadlocked board at 1:15 a.m. "There's part of me in the spirit of compromise that is compelling me to change my vote, but I'm going to have to live with myself.

"I thought I had weighed this coming into this meeting," said Brownley, who recently began her third four-year term on the seven-member board. "There's been so much fear and threats, but we need to be united."

The final vote came after a divided board defeated the $198 amount 4 to 3, with Brownley joining board vice president Jose Escarce and board members Mike Jordan and Oscar de la Torre in opposition.

The motion for the $225 amount then passed unanimously, with Board president Maria Leon-Vazquez and members Emily Bloomfield and Shane McCloud switching sides to form a united front.

"This is the most important call of action the board as been involved in decades," Brownley said. "We cannot walk away without any money in our pockets."

The final vote capped a dramatic meeting that began with Neil Carrey, who chaired the Save Our Schools committee, reporting on the panel's strong recommendation to go with a flat $225 parcel tax, instead of a $60 tax with a 7 cent per square foot on buildings on the parcel.

"There was a tremendous amount of give and take, analysis, discussion," Carrey told the board.

The analysis by the panel of some of the district's top civic, business and political leaders, Carey said, found that 84 to 85 percent of the renters would pay less under the flat tax.

In addition, everyone would pay $75 less than they would have under Measure EE, the $300 parcel tax that fell short of the necessary two-thirds majority in November, garnering 62 percent.

What's more, the flat tax -- which would generate $6.5 million a year for six years for the cash-strapped district -- had stronger support in Malibu, where a park measure could be also placed on the June 3 ballot, and among homeowners North of Montana.

Yes, Carrey said, the committee had briefly considered the $198 flat tax -- which would generate $840,000 a year less than the $225 -- and 70 percent of the members had rejected it. The district -- which faces a $3.5 million budget shortfall in the current school year and $11 million next year -- can use all the money it can get, committee members said.

"This is an election that is not going to be won or lost by $30, but by convincing voters that we need the money," said Rochelle Fanali, co-chair of the Lessons Learned Subcommittee. "No mater what we put up there, it's going to be a tough, tough campaign."

"There was nothing arbitrary about the figures and how we came about that," said Matt Dinolfo, a physician who chaired the finance subcommittee. "It's going to take political will and courage on your part, and it's going to take some faith.

"I think you have to go to this level ($225), and I hope you don't back away a this late hour," he concluded.

But Leon-Vazquez, for one, was unconvinced. Like her other six colleagues on the old board, she had voted for the $300 tax and saw what happened by shooting for the highest amount.

"I was looking more at the final outcome" of EE, Vazquez said. "That is one of the things I've been wrestling with."

Vazquez moved the $195 amount. Escarce went along.

"I think this is a very tough issue," said Escarce. "No one really knows. I'm certain we're going to get an opposing campaign. It's obvious there is a price response… I'm leaning towards supporting the lower number."

Bloomfield, who voted for the $300 tax when she was on the EE Committee before joining the board, seemed to be the third vote. "I do find this a very agonizing position," she said.

"We need the money so badly, it affects all of us," Bloomfield said. "It's like trying to perform surgery on our own children." Given a looming war, economic uncertainty and talk of more taxes, she said, "I'm inclined to lean towards the $198."

Brownley agreed with Bloomfield's prognosis. "It is my responsibility not to take this risk," Brownley said. "We can't walk away with nothing. We would fare better by going with the lower amount."

Even before Brownley tipped her hand, there was growing concern among members of the committee, who began murmuring in the audience. School Board president Harry Keiley was worried enough with the direction of the deliberations to make a plea for the $225 amount.

"This is not an economic crisis," Keiley said, "this is a crisis of conscience."

De la Torre was the first board member to push for the higher amount, beginning a discussion that would help turn the tide.

"I can't see many people being motivated to vote against the future of our community," de la Torre said. "I think it will be a different campaign (than EE), and I think we will win. We need all the money we can get."

The budget crisis, de la Torre said, "is real. Schools will be affected. Children's lives will be affected."

Mike Jordan, the only Malibu resident on the board, agreed. "I think it's a whole different kind of election," Jordan said. "It's he defining moment for education in our community.

"If we can't rise to that level, I don't know where we go," he concluded. "We have the responsibility to pass the higher amount."

When board member Shane McCloud said he too would "support a lower amount. We absolutely need passage," the push for a $225 parcel tax seemed a lost cause.

McCloud's motion to lower the amount to $192 failed, but by now, Carrey and the other committee members seemed to feel they were fighting a losing battle.

"I am very disappointed," Carrey told the board. "Other than fear, I have not heard anything that counters a lot of people that have a tremendous amount of knowledge… If you go forward at $198, you have to come up with much stronger reasons.

"When you talk about credibility, you have to make decisions on credibility and knowledge," Carrey said. "You have to answer for… a decision there is no basis for." And, he added, "Maybe you should have done a worse job appointing the committee."

Escarce shot back, though his voice remained typically calm, almost a whisper.

"Our responsibility is to take recommendations," Escarce said. "You conveyed a veiled threat that the committee would not support (the $198), and I think that's reprehensible."

"You're misconstruing (the comment) as being disrespectful," Carrey said.

Escarce was not swayed by the arguments for the higher amount. "Two twenty five was a fortuitous choice. Where do I want t err? I would prefer to be conservative."

That's when Jordan made a strong pitch that helped swing the momentum in favor of the higher amount. "None of us really know," he said. "The opposition will be just as opposed to $225 as $198. It's not the amount, it's the philosophical idea.

"Maybe now," he said, "it's time to have some confidence in who we are. I hope you change your mind."

Although not yet convinced, Brownley was no longer clearly supporting the lower amount. "I wish I could flip a coin," she said. "I'd give anything to look in a crystal ball."

Brownley was now concerned that the vote could split the board. She also worried that support from the committee, some of whose members had left the chamber and were gathered in the lobby, would dwindle if the board voted for the $198 tax.

"I worry that we could potentially walk away split, and that really disturbs me," Brownley said. "I understand your argument. I accept your argument," she told Carrey. "I'm getting more worried that the community is going to be split on this."

"I do agree that this is a crucial point in education in this community," Escarce said. "I will trust the campaign will convey it. I'm prepared to switch my vote to $225."

With Brownley sitting on the deciding vote, Escarce's encouraging words for his apparently distraught colleague seemed to have an effect.

"Vote your own conscience," Escarce said. "You should feel reassured the board will stand together."