Deasy Misled Public

February 20, 2004

Dear Editor,

At the February 19 School Board meeting it was revealed that of the several school districts that Superintendent John Deasy cited in public parent forums as precedents for his gift fund proposal, none have any such policy governing private donations.

Of the specific districts he has listed, every one confirmed either by phone or in writing that 100 percent of the private donations to an individual school remain with that school!

Mr. Deasy has misrepresented this important fact and misled the public on the issue of these precedents for his proposal.

Also in several forums with parents in the district, the superintendent has often cited the ease with which charitable foundations and corporations donating to non-profits will accept that their privately donated funds to specific schools will be subject to his equity fund redistribution.

Yet, he has offered no concrete specific evidence to the public substantiating that foundations and corporations would acquiesce to their donations being diverted to entities other than to those they designate for their gifts.

However, at the same board meeting on the 19th, the largest corporate and charitable foundation donating to non-profits in the Los Angeles region (and to at least seven schools in Santa Monica and Malibu) submitted a letter to the Board expressing their strong objections to the superintendent’s proposed policy of diverting private donations under his plan.

Again, without specific and concrete evidence supporting his broad general assertions, Mr. Deasy has misled the public on this issue of broad corporate support of his proposal.

While these lapses might be dismissed by some as just part of the public discourse of a controversial issue, they apparently are not sufficient for the superintendent.

On Thursday before the Board meeting at which an active and vocal Malibu parent was planning to speak opposing his gift policy, Mr. Deasy phoned the parent at home to express his strong displeasure with her personal writing of a letter to the editor. In her letter, she expressed her frustration at the lack of public engagement by the superintendent on the substantive issues put forth by opponents to his policy.

While a discussion of the issues in public is welcome and encouraged, the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Superintendent using his position to call a parent at home to express his displeasure with her is highly inappropriate and clearly over the line.

There are honest and passionate advocates for and against the superintendent’s proposed gift policy. Many of us have expressed our views and attempted to engage each other and the Board, publicly and privately in this debate.

Whether one agrees or disagrees with the policy, one would hope for a level of personal respect, academic honesty in the arguments, and a high level of civility in the discourse. With that, our representatives can better make an honest and fully informed decision on this gift policy and every other issue they are called upon to decide on our behalf.

Misrepresentation and intimidation have no place in the debate over the future education of our children.

We Santa Monica and Malibu parents deserve a higher ethical standard of behavior from this district’s chief executive responsible for our children’s education.

Sincerely,