SR 02-08-2022 13C 13.C
February 8, 2022
Council Meeting: February 8, 2022 Santa Monica, California
1 of 1
CITY CLERK’S OFFICE - MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor and City Council
From: Denise Anderson-Warren, City Clerk, Records & Elections Services
Department
Date: February 8, 2022
13.C Request of Mayor Himmelrich, Council Member Davis, and Council Member
Negrete that the City Council join with and support the Santa Monica-
Malibu Unified School District (“SMMUSD”) in opposing a petition filed by
certain individuals with the Los Angeles County Committee on School
District Organization pursuant to SB 442 which became effective January 1,
2022. This petition seeks to compel SMMUSD to convert from at-large
elections, which are required by Section 900 of the Santa Monica City
Charter, to district based elections and to adopt a map of proposed
districts that was drawn by the petition’s proponents without any input
from SMMUSD stakeholders and which seems not to have been drawn in
accordance with the California Elections Code, which sets forth a
procedure for drawing such districts. This petition seeks to override the
Santa Monica City Charter without a vote of the people and without a
showing of any compelling interest that would justify doing so. In addition
to stating its opposition to the petition, the Council authorizes the City
Manager, including the City Attorney, to use City resources, as appropriate,
to support the SMMUSD and to publicly oppose the nullification of the City
charter in public media, at any hearing held by the County Committee on
School District Organization, and, if necessary, through litigation.
13.C
Packet Pg. 320
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Debbie Mulvaney <debbiemulvaney@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 6, 2022 10:43 AM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la
Torre
Cc:David White; councilmtgitems; 'Drati, Ben'
Subject:Item 13-C
EXTERNAL
Mayor Himmelrich and Councilmembers:
I am writing to you to support your 13‐C item in Opposing the petition filed to compel SMMUSD to convert from at‐large
to district elections.
There are many reasons why this petition should be opposed:
1) It undermines our own City Charter which calls for at‐large elections
2) It DECREASES the likelihood of diversity on the school board
3) The schoolboard has had more diversity than the demographics would suggest in its current form
4) The petition is full of misrepresentations
5) It allows 1 vote every 4 years instead of 7 votes every 4 years per voter
6) The map submitted is clearly political and not based on diversity or neighborhood or school locale
Any one of these reasons should be enough to oppose this petition, but together it shows a clear political motive by the
petitioners. Please support item 13‐C and Oppose the Petition.
Thanks.
Debbie Mulvaney
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 321 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Angela Scott <appointedscribe7@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, February 6, 2022 9:58 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Cc:Nicole Faries; Ted Winterer
Subject:Vote Yes on Item 13-C
EXTERNAL
Dear City Councilmembers.
I'm writing to you in my capacity as an active parent in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.
I have a deep concern regarding this issue of changing the election structure via district maps, which is not created
through a public process. This absence of the people's vote to amend the City Charter is undemocratic. Instead,
these petitioners should have pursued a ballot initiative to place before the voters.
The proposed district map is gerrymandering at its worst. We as voting residents will lose our voice if we're limited
to selecting only one school board member among a seven-member board. Sadly, petitioners frame their initiative
as one to increase diversity on the school board, while it's the exact opposite. If I'm not mistaken, there is no
violation of the CA Voting Righ Act in SMMUSD because the school board has been quite diverse over the years.
Going to districts would likely lead to less diversity in the future as no majority-minority district can be formed based
on the demographics of the two cities.
Most importantly, our low-income Title 1 schools could be financially compromised should district elections
commence. We could potentially see a reversal of the equity in district-wide fundraising, leading to our Title 1
schools receiving fewer private funds than schools in more affluent neighborhoods.
As you continue to make impactful, generational changes. Please, remember our youngest, most vulnerable
members of this community.
Warmest,
Angela
Angela D. Scott
"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make
progress by implementing ideas." - Shirley Chisholm
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 322 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Melissa Goodman <melissagoodman718@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 7, 2022 10:36 AM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la
Torre
Cc:David White; councilmtgitems
Subject:Please Vote Yes on Item 13-C
EXTERNAL
Dear Councilmembers,
I'm writing to urge you to vote yes on Item 13‐C. As an active community member in mid‐city and working parent with
an elementary student at McKinley, I believe changing the election structure for our school board should occur with
greater public participation, debate, and process. I'm also concerned that the move to district elections, particularly
with the maps proposed, will have the effect of actually decreasing racial diversity on the board and possibly reduce the
equity that results from district‐wide fundraising and spending, leading Title 1 schools like McKinley to have fewer
private funds than schools in more affluent neighborhoods in Santa Monica.
For these reasons, I ask that you vote yes on Item 13‐C.
Many thanks,
Melissa Goodman
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 323 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
2
Vernice Hankins
From:JENNIFER SMITH <jgks@verizon.net>
Sent:Monday, February 7, 2022 7:26 AM
To:Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Lana Negrete; Sue Himmelrich; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la Torre
Cc:councilmtgitems; David White; Christine Parra
Subject:Vote Yes on Item 13-C
EXTERNAL
Dear City Council Members,
As an SMMUSD School Board Member, district parent, volunteer, PTA member and education advocate I ask you to vote
yes on Item 13‐C, opposing the current petition to change the voting structure set in the city charter without consent of
the public.
Changing the election structure via district maps not created through a public process absent a vote of the people to
amend the City Charter is undemocratic. Petitioners should have instead sought a ballot initiative to place before the
voters Requiring voters to select only one school board member deprives them of their historic right to have a say in the
selection of the entire board.
The petitioners frame their initiative as one to increase diversity on the board based on misinformation about past
elections when in reality the board has been quite diverse over the years ‐‐ there is clearly no violation of the CA Voting
Right Act in SMMUSD elections.
In fact, going to districts would likely lead to less diversity in the future as no majority minority district can be formed
based on the demographics of the two cities.
Thank you for your time.
Jennifer Smith
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 324 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:SM Renters Rights <smrrinfo@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 7, 2022 11:57 AM
To:Sue Himmelrich; Gleam Davis; Phil Brock; Christine Parra; Lana Negrete; Kristin McCowan; Oscar de la
Torre; Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 13-C: SMRR Letter In Support of Council Item 13-C to Support District and Oppose Petition
Attachments:220130 Final SMRR ltr to County Committee re Trustee District Elections - OPPOSE.pdf
EXTERNAL
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the Santa Monica City Council,
Mayor Himmelrich, Councilmembers Davis and Negrete have placed Item 13-C on your agenda for the
meeting of February 8, 2022 and it deserves your support. Item 13-C asks the Santa Monica City Council
to join with and support the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District in its opposition to a petition filed
with the LA County Committee on School District Organization seeking to compel the school district to
convert from at-large elections to district elections. The SMRR Executive Committee voted unanimously
to oppose the petition and SMRR urges you to vote in favor of this agenda item.
We have attached SMRR’s letter to the County Committee stating our position on this matter.
There are often compelling social justice and fair representation arguments for a change from at-large to
district elections in local jurisdictions. But that is not the case in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School
District and is clearly not the intent of the petitioners. The petitioners demonstrate their intent by
proposing a district map that is so preposterous that it would be laughable were it not for the fact that
similar anti-democratic gerrymandering is becoming all too real in some parts of America.
The proposed gerrymandered map clearly demonstrates that the petition is not intended to serve any
legitimate social or representational justice objective at all, indeed it targets the two SMMUSD Board
members who are people of color, but rather simply seeks to create a school board whereby Malibu might
have disproportional representation, possibly even a majority of allied board members.
This gambit can only be intended to serve the interests of the wealthy residents of Malibu who in other
proceedings seek to separate their community entirely from SMMUSD in a manner that would provide
dramatically disparate funding favoring the nearly all-white Malibu students compared to the much lower
funding that would remain for the far more diverse Santa Monica-based students. The petitioners hope to
win by gerrymandering what they know they cannot win by any other means – separation into two
districts and a boatload of money for Malibu students.
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 325 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
2
It would be shocking that any Santa Monica elected official would lend the stature of their office to such an
enterprise including by failing to vote for this agenda item.
Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights strongly urges you vote yes on this agenda item and to oppose the
district elections petition as requested.
Sincerely,
Denny Zane and Mike Soloff
Co-Chairs, Santa Monicans for Renters’ Rights
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 326 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
SANTA MONICANS FOR
RENTERS' RIGHTS
Serving the Needs of All Santa Monicans Since 1979
January 30, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization
9300 Imperial Highway Downey, CA 90242
Attn: Anna Heredia Heredia_ Anna@lacoe.edu
cc: Allison Deegan Deegan_ Allison@lacoe.edu; Octavio Castelo Castelo_ Octavio@lacoe.edu
Re: Opposition to Petition to Establish Trustee Elections in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District Hearing Date: February 2, 2022 Agenda Item No. XVII.B
Dear Committee Members:
Santa Monicans for Renters' Rights (SMRR), the foremost social justice organization in Santa
Monica, has a long commitment to supporting excellence in all the public schools of our
wonderfully diverse community. Throughout SMRR's 40-plus year history, education has been
one of the focal points of our membership. SMRR was in the forefront of advocating for School District-wide fundraising, which replaced the old inequitable approach where affluent schools receive a disproportionately greater share of privately-raised funds. SMRR has also worked with leaders from across the community to pass funding measures providing hundreds of millions of
dollars for capital improvements in all schools and to support teachers and innovative curriculum in all classrooms in the District.
SMRR strongly opposes the petition filed by attorney Kevin Shenkman on behalf of proponents
Oscar De la Torre, Jennifer deNicola and Tricia Crane to compel the Santa Monica-Malibu
Unified School District (SMMUSD) to replace its system of at-large elections for its Board of
Education with trustee district elections. As an organization committed to social justice, SMRR recognizes that district elections are sometimes necessary to address vote dilution, raciallypolarized voting, and the underrepresentation of minority communities on local elected bodies. However, this clearly is not the case in the SMMUSD.
For many years, SMMUSD's at-large elections have empowered minority voters who, in coalition with SMRR, and other progressive community organizations, have consistently elected a diverse and inclusive Board of Education. At-large elections have also elected school board
members with a District-wide perspective, rather than a narrow perspective focused on an
individual school or segment of the District. In addition, at-large elections allow every SMMUSD voter to cast seven votes for school board in a four-year elections cycle, whereas district elections would limit SMMUSD voters to a single vote only every four years.
SMMUSD's at-large elections are established by the Santa Monica City Charter pursuant to
article IX, section 16 of the California Constitution, which authorizes charter cities to establish the manner of electing their school boards. SMRR believes the County Committee lacks the legal authority to override the Santa Monica City Charter with respect to the at-large manner of electing the SMMUSD Board of Education. The County Committee would be violating two distinct
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 327 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 328 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Ted Winterer <tedwinterer@gmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 7, 2022 3:13 PM
To:Angela Scott
Cc:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems; Nicole Faries
Subject:Re: Vote Yes on Item 13-C
EXTERNAL
Excellent, thanks!
On Sun, Feb 6, 2022 at 9:58 PM Angela Scott <appointedscribe7@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear City Councilmembers.
I'm writing to you in my capacity as an active parent in the Santa Monica-Malibu Unified School District.
I have a deep concern regarding this issue of changing the election structure via district maps, which is not created
through a public process. This absence of the people's vote to amend the City Charter is undemocratic. Instead,
these petitioners should have pursued a ballot initiative to place before the voters.
The proposed district map is gerrymandering at its worst. We as voting residents will lose our voice if we're limited
to selecting only one school board member among a seven-member board. Sadly, petitioners frame their initiative
as one to increase diversity on the school board, while it's the exact opposite. If I'm not mistaken, there is no
violation of the CA Voting Righ Act in SMMUSD because the school board has been quite diverse over the years.
Going to districts would likely lead to less diversity in the future as no majority-minority district can be formed based
on the demographics of the two cities.
Most importantly, our low-income Title 1 schools could be financially compromised should district elections
commence. We could potentially see a reversal of the equity in district-wide fundraising, leading to our Title 1
schools receiving fewer private funds than schools in more affluent neighborhoods.
As you continue to make impactful, generational changes. Please, remember our youngest, most vulnerable
members of this community.
Warmest,
Angela
Angela D. Scott
"You don't make progress by standing on the sidelines, whimpering and complaining. You make
progress by implementing ideas." - Shirley Chisholm
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 329 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:jzhawk13 <jzhawk13@protonmail.com>
Sent:Monday, February 7, 2022 9:16 PM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:Medical freedom and Freedom of choice
EXTERNAL
One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, MD
"Unless we put medical freedom into the Constitution, the time will come when medicine will organize into an
undercover dictatorship…
To restrict the art of healing to one class of men and deny equal privileges to others will constitute the Bastille of
medical science. All such laws are un‐American and despotic and have no place in a republic…
The Constitution of this republic should make the special privilege for medical freedom as well as religious freedom.“
Freedom Wins,
Jill Hawkins
Sent from ProtonMail mobile
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 330 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Clara Romero <clarita615@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 8:09 AM
To:Council Mailbox; councilmtgitems
Subject:Vote
EXTERNAL
Please vote to oppose the petition to change the election SMMUSD Board.
Thank you
Clara Romero
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 331 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
February 7, 2022
Santa Monica City Council
1685 Main Street, Room 209
Santa Monica, CA 90401
Re: Your February 8th Meeting (Agenda Item No. 13-C)
Dear Mayor Himmelrich and Members of the City Council
We are writing as co-chairs of the Alliance of Santa Monica Latino and Black Voters, an ad hoc
coalition of Latino and Black residents of Santa Monica formed last year to join as an Amicus
Curiae in support of the City of Santa Monica in Pico Neighborhood Association v. City of Santa
Monica, currently pending in the California Supreme Court (Case No. S263972).
We are writing to ask that you vote in support of agenda number 13-C, which would put the City
on the side of SMMUSD in opposing the petition filed by attorney Kevin Shenkman with the Los
Angeles County Committee on School District Organization to impose district elections for
SMMUSD’s Board of Education. Attached is our letter that we submitted to the County
Committee last week explaining our position. Overall, we believe at-large elections have worked
well in SMMUSD in providing a diverse and inclusive school board, and that district elections
would be a giant step backwards. Latino and Black voters and candidates would be harmed
rather than helped by imposition of district elections.
SMMUSD’s at-large elections are established in the Santa Monica City Charter. As custodians of
the City Charter, we believe you have a legal and ethical responsibility to defend it. This includes
supporting SMMUSD in opposing the Shenkman petition.
Sincerely,
Antonio Vazquez Nat Trives
Co-Chairs of the Alliance of Santa Monica Latino and Black Voters
cc: Joseph Lawrence
David White
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 332 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
January 31, 2022
Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization
9300 Imperial Highway
Downey, CA 90242
Re: Petition to Impose District Elections on the SMMUSD Board of Education (February 2,
2022; Agenda Item XVII.B)
Dear Members of the Committee:
The undersigned, former Santa Monica Mayors Antonio Vazquez and Nat Trives, are writing as
co-chairs of the Alliance of Santa Monica Latino and Black Voters, which is a coalition of
Latino and Black residents of Santa Monica who share an opinion grounded in decades of
experience that Santa Monica’s Latino and Black voters have greater voting power and influence
in our community’s at-large elections including for the SMMUSD Board of Education than they
would have under a district elections system. That is why the Alliance opposes the petition to
impose district elections in the SMMUSD.
Both of us are long time Santa Monica residents and civic leaders. Antonio Vazquez served as
Santa Monica’s first Latino Mayor (2015-16), a member of the Santa Monica City Council
elected three times in at-large elections (1990, 2012 and 2016) and currently as an elected
member (and former Chair) of the State Board of Equalization. Nat Trives served as Santa
Monica’s first Black Mayor (1975-77), was elected to the Santa Monica City Council two times
(1971 and 1975), and is widely known as “Mr. Santa Monica” for his many years of leadership
in Santa Monica community organizations.
We have studied the petition recently filed with the County Committee and identified its many
misstatements concerning SMMUSD elections, especially with respect to Latino and Black
voters and candidates. There is no evidence of vote dilution or racially-polarized voting in
SMMUSD. To the contrary, both Latino and Black candidates have been enormously successful
in SMMUSD elections.
The success of Latino voters and candidates in SMMUSD elections was documented in an
Amicus Brief filed by the Alliance and others in the California Supreme Court last year in the
CVRA case involving Santa Monica City Council elections: Pico Neighborhood Association et.
al v. City of Santa Monica. (The Amicus Brief may be found at
https://www.santamonica.gov/Media/Attorney/Election/2021.6.7_Brief%20of%20SM%20Leagu
e%20Women%20Voters%20et%20al.pdf) Attached to this letter is Appendix C from the
Alliance’s Amicus Brief, which shows:
1. From 2002-2020, Latinos made up a disproportionately high percentage of school board
candidates: 25.8% compared to SMMUSD’s Latino voting population of 9.1%. Thus, at-large
elections have not discouraged Latinos from being candidates for the SMMUSD Board of
Education.
2. Latino candidates for SMMUSD’s Board of Education won at an extraordinarily
successful rate (86.7%) compared to non-Latino candidates (51%). And Latino-preferred
candidates won at an even higher rate, 94.1% (16 of 17), substantially greater than the winning
rate for non-Latino-preferred candidates: 36% (9 of 25).
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 333 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 334 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
71
APPENDIX C: SANTA MONICA MALIBU UNIFIED
SCHOOL DISTRICT ELECTIONS DATA
1. Santa Monica Latino Candidate Success.
The chart below was prepared based upon School Board election
results as shown on the City’s website (https://smvote.org),
including its archives. This chart includes Latino/Latino-
surnamed candidates and winners.
Year Number of
Candidates
Number of
Latino/
Latino-
Surnamed
Candidates
Number
of
Winners
Number of
Latino/
Latino-
Surnamed
Winners
2002 7 1 4 1
2004 4 3 3 2
2006 6 1 4 1
2008 4 2 3 2
2010 8 1 4 1
2012 6 2 3 2
2014 7 1 4 1
2016* 3 1 3 1
2018 5 1 4 1
2020 8 2 3 1
Totals: 58 15 35 13
* Because in 2016 there were three candidates for three School
Board seats, no election was held. The chart includes the three
candidates as winners, including Latina Maria Leon Vazquez.
25.9% of School Board candidates were Latino/Latino-
surnamed (15 of 58), compared to only 9.1% Latino voters in
SMMUSD. Document received by the CA Supreme Court.Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 335 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
72
37.1% of winning School Board candidates were
Latino/Latino-surnamed (13 of 35), compared to only 9.1% Latino
voters in SMMUSD.
Latino/Latino-surnamed School Board candidates won
86.7% of their School Board election campaigns (13 of 15). In
contrast, non-Latino/non-Latino-surnamed School Board
candidates won only 51% of their School Board election
campaigns (22 of 43).
The thirteen (13) winning Latino/Latino-surnamed
School Board candidates are: Oscar de la Torre (‘02, ‘06, ‘10, ‘14,
‘18), Maria Leon-Vazquez (‘04, ‘08, ‘12, ‘16, ‘20), and Jose Escarce
(‘04, ‘08, ‘12).
The losing Latino/Latino-surnamed School Board
candidates are: Ana Maria Jara (‘04), and Esther Hickman (‘20).
2. Santa Monica Latino-Preferred Candidate Success.
The following chart was prepared based on expert evidence in the
record concerning the success of Latino-preferred candidates for
School Board and the City’s website of School Board election
results. See Trial Exhibit 1653A (which is reproduced in the
Addendum to the City’s Answer Brief) and https://smvote.org.
Document received by the CA Supreme Court.Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 336 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
73
Year Number of
Candidates
Number of
Latino-
Preferred
Candidates
Number
of
Winners
Number
of
Latino-
Preferred
Winners
2002 7 2 4 2
2004 4 3 3 2
2006 6 2 4 2
2008 4 2 3 2
2010 8 2 4 2
2012 6 3 3 3
2014 7 3 4 3
subtotals 42 17 25 16
2016 3 NA* 3 NA*
2018 5 NA* 4 NA*
2020 8 NA* 3 NA*
Totals: 58 17 35 16
* NA means not available.
According to the record, the sixteen (16) winning Latino-
preferred School Board candidates are Oscar de la Torre (‘02),
Julia Brownley (‘02), Maria Leon Vazquez (‘04), Jose Escarce
(‘04), Oscar de la Torre (‘06), Emily Bloomfield (‘06), Maria Leon
Vazquez (‘08), Jose Escarce (‘08), Oscar de la Torre (‘10), Ralph
Mechur (‘10), Maria Leon Vazquez (‘12), Jose Escarce (‘12), Ben
Allen (‘12), Oscar de la Torre (14), Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein
(‘14) and Laurie Lieberman (‘14). Document received by the CA Supreme Court.Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 337 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
74
For the years when Latino-preferred data is available
(2002-2014):
o Latino-preferred School Board candidates made
up 40.5% of total candidates (17 of 42), substantially greater than
the percentage of Latino voters in SMMUSD (9.1%).
o Latino-preferred School Board candidates won at a
rate of 94.1% (16 of 17), substantially greater than the winning
rate for non-Latino-preferred candidates: 36% (9 of 25).
o Latino-preferred School Board candidates won
64% of School Board seats (16 of 25), substantially greater than
the percentage of Latino voters in SMMUSD (9.1%).
The only Latino-preferred School Board candidate who
did not win, Ana Jara (‘04), testified in support of the City’s
position at trial. Ms. Jara is a board member of Amicus Human
Relations Council Santa Monica Bay Area.
Expert analysis of School Board elections is not in the
record for the 2018 or 2020 elections, so the record does not show
whether Latina Esther Hickman who lost in 2020 was Latino-
preferred. Document received by the CA Supreme Court.Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 338 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
January 31, 2022
VIA EMAIL
Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization
9300 Imperial Highway
Downey, CA 90242
Attn: Anna Heredia
Heredia_Anna@lacoe.edu
Re: Petition to Establish Trustee Elections in the Santa Monica Unified School District
Hearing Date: February 2, 2022
Agenda Item No. XVII.B
Dear Committee Members:
We are writing as Co-Chairs of Community for Excellent Public Schools (“CEPS”). CEPS is a non-
profit organization consisting of parents, teachers and civic leaders who share a commitment to
ensuring excellent public schools in Santa Monica and Malibu, pre-kindergarten through community
college. http://www.excellentpublicschools.org/. For more than 20 years, CEPS has advocated for
various funding measures at the state and local levels to support public education. CEPS also endorses
candidates for Santa Monica City Council, the Santa Monica Malibu Unified School District (“SMMUSD”)
Board of Education, and the Santa Monica College (“SMC”) Board of Trustees. CEPS is proud of its track
record of helping to elect racially-diverse candidates to local public office.
This letter is being submitted in opposition to the petition filed by attorney Kevin Shenkman on
behalf of proponents Oscar De la Torre, Jennifer deNicola and Tricia Crane to compel the SMMUSD to
replace its system of at-large elections for its Board of Education with trustee district elections. On
December 16, 2021, the SMMUSD Board of Education voted to oppose this petition. CEPS supports the
Board of Education for reasons of public policy and because it would be unlawful for the County
Committee to approve the petition.
As a matter of public policy, CEPS recognizes that trustee district elections are sometimes
necessary to address vote dilution, racially-polarized voting, and the underrepresentation of minority
communities on local elected bodies. However, this is not the case in SMMUSD. For many years,
SMMUSD’s at-large elections have empowered minority voters who, in coalition with progressive
community organizations (including CEPS), have consistently elected a diverse and inclusive Board of
Education.
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 339 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
At-large elections have also elected school board members with a School District-wide
perspective (not a parochial perspective focused on an individual school or segment of the school
district). Among other things, this has led the Board to implement district-wide fundraising in which the
dollars generated are shared equally regardless of the average household income of schools. In other
words, this approach to fundraising assures that our Title 1 schools operate on par with all others,
replacing the old system where affluent schools received a disproportionately greater share of privately-
raised funds.
Moreover, at-large elections allow every SMMUSD voter to cast seven votes for school board in
a four-year elections cycle. In contrast, trustee district elections would limit SMMUSD voters to a single
vote only every four years.
As a matter of law, SMMUSD’s at-large elections are established by the Santa Monica City
Charter pursuant to article IX, section 16 of the California Constitution, which authorizes charter cities to
establish the manner of electing their school boards. Last week, CEPS submitted a Memorandum
prepared by our all-volunteer Legal Committee to the County Committee’s staff and the County Counsel
explaining why the County Committee lacks the legal authority to override the Santa Monica City
Charter with respect to the at-large manner of electing the SMMUSD Board of Education. The County
Committee would be violating two distinct provisions of the California Constitution (article IX, section 16
and article XI, section 5) if it were to approve the petition.
The Memorandum also explains that the petition should be dismissed because it is based on
gross misstatements of fact about SMMUSD elections and school board representation that are
demonstrably false. Specifically:
• Fraudulent Misstatements Regarding Pico Neighborhood Representation: The petition’s
claim that the Pico neighborhood has had “almost no representation at all” on the
SMMUSD Board of Education is false. From 2002-2020, proponent and PNA resident
Oscar De la Torre (now a member of the Santa Monica City Council) served on the Board
of Education, having been elected in five consecutive at-large elections. Previously,
other Pico neighborhood residents have served on the Board of Education including
Peggy Lyons from 1984-1996 and Barry Snell from 2006-2010.
• Fraudulent Misstatements Regarding Malibu Representation: The petition’s claim that
Malibu has had “almost no representation at all” is also false. Malibu has typically had a
Malibu resident on the Board of Education for many years. Since 2014, Malibu resident
Craig Foster has served on the Board of Education. Previously, Malibu residents Kathy
Wisnicki (2004-08), Michael Jordan (2000-04), Todd Hess (1996-2000), Dan Ross (1986-
90), Richard Williams (1983-86) and Mary Kay Kamath (1981-96) served on the Board.
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 340 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
• Fraudulent Misstatements Regarding Latino and Black Representation: The petition also
falsely claims that the Latino and Black communities have been underrepresented on
the SMMUSD Board of Education. To the contrary, SMMUSD’s at-large elections have
produced an ethnically-diverse Board of Education for many years. Latinos have held a
percentage of board seats substantially greater than the percentage of Latino voters in
SMMUSD. And Blacks (who make up about 2% of the voting population of SMMUSD)
have often held a seat (or two) on the Board of Education. Keith Coleman, who is Black,
currently serves on the Board. Previously, Peggy Lyons (1984-96), Brenda Gottfried
(1990-2002), and Barry Snell (2006-10) -- all of whom are Black -- served on the Board.
The petition attaches a proposed trustee district map and claims the map will provide for
neighborhood and ethnic representation. This claim, too, is both false and made in bad faith. Indeed, the
petition’s proposed districting map has virtually no relationship to the reasons given for it in the
petition:
• The proposed map will harm rather than improve Latino representation because, at
best, it carves out what may or may not prove to be a safe Pico neighborhood district
(Latinos still appear to be a minority of the voters in the proposed district) while diluting
the Latino vote in all other districts. Moreover, the map targets Latina board member
Maria Leon Vazquez for defeat by placing her south Santa Monica neighborhood in a
Malibu-dominant district. Notably, Malibu’s population is more than 90% White non-
Hispanic.
• The map would likely deny the Black community the power to elect a Black
representative to the Board of Education, which under the current at-large system has
been enhanced through multi-racial community coalition building. In particular, the map
targets for defeat the Board of Education’s only Black member, Keith Coleman, by
placing him in yet another Malibu-dominant district along with three other current
board members.
• Although the petition gives lip-service to neighborhood-based districts and
representation, the proposed map tells a very different story. Instead of honoring the
integrity of long-standing neighborhoods, the proposed map splits neighborhoods in
ways that can only be explained by crass political calculation.
In closing, the County Committee should promptly deny the petition. If the petition’s
proponents wish to pursue trustee district elections in SMMUSD, they should be required to proceed
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 341 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
through the democratic city charter amendment process as provided in the California Constitution and
state law.
Sincerely, Sincerely,
Nicole Faries Ted Winterer
Co-Chair of Community Co-Chair of Community
for Excellent Public Schools for Excellent Public Schools
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 342 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:diana hinek <diana.hinek@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 11:32 AM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Regarding today's City Council meeting
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am a homeowner, business owner and parent of students in the Santa Monica district.
I am writing to address a few issues about the agenda for tonight's meeting.
The California State Legislature recently passed a policy that lays out a process to address Santa Monica
districting issue. This legislation was supported by all of our State Legislators and was signed by Governor
Newsom into law. I firmly believe that the City Council should stay out of the school district issues and avoid
being involved in the school board matters that are at this point illegal.
Also, as a Santa Monica tax payer and resident, I do not appreciate the fact that our public dollars are being
used to oppose a legal districting process just to protect the political position of the current school board
members. Some of them have been on the board of education for years, with terrible consequences for our
children (Are you aware of the recent increase in drop outs and withdrawals?). It is time to start afresh with a
new and capable board of education!
Is it fair that 5 out of the 7 school board members live in one neighborhood? Who are they really
representing?
It's bad enough that the majority of the City Council continues to fight the CA. Voting Rights Act in order to
avoid district elections . This has already cost the City of Santa Monica millions of tax dollars in attorney fees.
Do you really intend to add to that cost by proposing to pay for SMMUSD's attorney fees to fight district
elections just to protect their seats?
This is not going to look good in court.
Thank you,
Diana
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 343 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:jon kean <jonkean@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 1:35 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Item 13 C
EXTERNAL
Dear Santa Monica City Council Members
As you deliberate Item 13 C tonight, I appreciate and support what I hope will be an easy decision for you,
namely that the City should defend its charter from a petition that seeks to usurp or deny the power of the
electorate in Santa Monica (and Malibu) and force a unilateral move to accept districts for school board
elections. While there are many elements of SB 442 and the petition submitted by Oscar de la Torre, Tricia
Crane, and Jennifer Dinicola that will be refuted and argued in the appropriate setting, I want my comments to
focus on something that is not being mentioned as much as it should be. That question is: would students
benefit from a move from at-large to district representation?
To me, and the super majority of the SMMUSD Board of Education, that answer is no.
Education cannot exist in silos. At-promise students do not live in clearly defined districts with distinctly drawn
boundaries. Professional development and teacher collaboration is not neighborhood dependent. A move to
districts would engender an increased state of tribalism and harm, perhaps irreparably, the work done by our
school district over the past decade.
Districtwide fundraising, a huge step in bringing equity of dollars to all school sites, would not exist with district
elections. A new school at Edison might not exist with districts. Important academic intervention programs that
are developed centrally at the district and play a vital role in addressing needs of English Language Learners,
Socio-economically Disadvantaged (SED) Students, and the needs of our students with IEPs would be
weakened if decisions cease to be centered about what is best for “all” students and become conversations
about what is best for “my” students.
When a program works, it works for all students. Our focus as school board members must remain diligently
trained on all students. To bring neighborhood politics into educational decisions is not a recipe for continued
success. Sadly, this current petition seems less focused on educational needs of nearly 10,000 students but
instead is another attempt to settle grudges, both personal and against our City. Let’s not just give lip service to
the tried and true “do what is best for students” but instead vote to approve this item. I wholeheartedly support
both this item and the partnership the city and the district share. Please continue to promote that partnership
and work with us as we strive to create the best opportunities for all students.
Thank you
Jon Kean
SMMUSD School Board Member, as an individual
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 344 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
1
Vernice Hankins
From:Coleman, Keith <kcoleman@smmusd.org>
Sent:Tuesday, February 8, 2022 1:57 PM
To:councilmtgitems
Subject:Fw: Item 13 C; City of Santa Monica: City Council, Regular and Special Joint Meeting 2/8/2022
EXTERNAL
City of Santa Monica
City Council
Regular and Special Joint Meeting
2/8/2022 5:30p
Re: Item 13 C. Support in opposing a petition filed by individuals with the Los Angeles County Committee on
School District Organization
Dear Santa Monica City Council,
I am writing in support of Item 13 C in opposing a petition filed by individuals with the Los Angeles Committee
on School District Organization.
There is clear historical evidence that gerrymandering is not a welcome public policy practice and serves to
disenfranchise communities. The present state of at‐large elections has been helpful not only to students but
highlights an equitable distribution of the entire Board of Trustees, which is representative of the whole of the
student body in the Santa Monica‐Malibu Unified School District AND not simply targeted geographic areas.
The petition would deliver irrelevant disruption for no particular purpose.
The City Council is empowered to protect the city charter and support the school district as our educator
family continues to assist, nurture and guide our students in their learning journey. In looking at the record of
at‐large‐districts over time in SMMUSD it is evident that racial and ethnic diversity has been represented,
characterized and brought to life. Unwarranted, gerrymandered division of at‐large‐elections in a politically
motivated way might well suppress many voters and fuel deeper polarization, weakening a long record of
common ground and diversified engagement.
Keith Coleman
Board Member
Santa Monica‐Malibu‐Unified School District
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 345 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA MONICA
P.O. Box 1265 Santa Monica, CA 90406-1265
Phone: 310.564.6946 www.lwvsantamonica.org
#MakingDemocracyWork
Page 1 of 3
February 8, 2022
Re: City Council Agenda Item 13C
Dear Mayor Himmelrich, Mayor Pro Tem McCowan, and City Councilmembers,
The League of Women Voters of Santa Monica has not yet taken a position on the
subject of districts for the Santa Monica-Malibu USD Board of Education. We
anticipate doing so within the next month.
As we have previously stated, we strongly believe in the purpose and intent of the
California Voting Rights Act. However, as you will see below, there is a need to
clarify a key provision of the Act and that question is currently before the California
Supreme Court. A review of SB 442 shows that the Court’s decision will potentially
impact the implementation of the new law, including as it relates to SMMUSD.
We believe that one size does not necessarily fit all. Quoting from the July 12,
2021 Amicus Curiae Brief of California Attorney General Rob Bonta in support of
neither party as filed in the CVRA case against the City of Santa Monica and
currently before the California Supreme Court: “The Court should specify a standard
for vote dilution that requires a plaintiff show an at-large voting system has removed
the protected class’s ability to exercise meaningful electoral influence and that looks
to a variety of factors in making this determination.”
The demographic distribution of the Santa Monica-Malibu USD is not the same as
other school districts, nor are voting patterns of our electorate. To illustrate, I have
attached a listing of the composition of our school boards, beginning in 1990, a
decade before the Governor signed the CVRA into law.
The following are some comments, observations, and questions for you to consider
in your discussions on Agenda Item 13C tonight:
1. A petition from the City of Malibu to the County Committee on School District
Organization calls for separating Malibu from the current SMMUSD and
forming an MUSD, with its own governing body. This question is currently
before the County Committee and has yet to be resolved.
2. SB 442 states that a resolution adopting district-based elections shall (is
required to) include a declaration that the change in the method of electing
members of the governing body “is being made in furtherance of the purposes
of the California Voting Rights Act”. In fact, there has been no finding that the
district is in violation of the CVRA. Furthermore, election outcomes since the
adoption of the CVRA in 2001 show the opposite. Every school board
between 2001-2020 has included at least 2, 3 or 4 members of protected
classes out of 7. Going back 10 more years to 1990 shows the same (see
attachment). Interestingly, the petition that was submitted to the county by
attorney Kevin Shenkman on behalf of three proponents (Oscar De la Torre,
Jennifer DeNicola and Tricia Crane) does not claim a CVRA violation in
OFFICERS
President
Natalya Zernitskaya
Vice President, Program
Barbara Inatsugu
Secretary
Sharon Hart
Treasurer
Karen Carrey
DIRECTORS
Cathie Gentile
Jason Islas
Angela D. Scott
Ann Williams
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 346 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA MONICA
P.O. Box 1265 Santa Monica, CA 90406-1265
Phone: 310.564.6946 www.lwvsantamonica.org
#MakingDemocracyWork
Page 2 of 3
District elections.
Question: Given voting patterns and demographic distribution in SMMUSD
since the signing of the CVRA into Law (and for the decade before), would
breaking the district into seven parts result in more or less representation on
the Board of Education by protected classes (Latinos and African Americans)?
In other words, would dividing the school district into seven districts, each
represented by one person elected every four years (voters, therefore, having
one vote rather than 7) have the opposite effect in overall numbers?
3. As you all know, Mr. Shenkman is currently counsel for the plaintiffs in the
CVRA lawsuit that is currently before the California Supreme Court. The single
question before that Court is: “What must a Plaintiff prove in order to establish
vote dilution under the California Voting Rights Act?”
As noted by Attorney General Rob Bonta in his Amicus Brief in support of
neither party, “Since its passage, the statute (CVRA) has played a key role in
helping to diversify local governing boards and councils. Yet courts have had
few occasions to interpret the CVRA’s language. This case presents the first
opportunity for the Court to interpret this important statute and its “vote
dilution” standard.”
Question: Given voting patterns within the SMMUSD electorate and the
requirement of SB 442 regarding a “declaration that the change in the method
of electing members of the governing body is being made in furtherance of the
purposes of the California Voting Rights Act”, would it make more sense for
the County Committee to be asked to wait for the ruling of the California
Supreme Court as it applies to the issue of vote dilution?
Observation: Depending on the Supreme Court ruling on the question of
dilution, we could expect relevant legislation to be amended to clarify/define
dilution-related provisions.
Question: If the County Committee accepts the petitioners’ rationale and
votes to impose districts, how would the lines be drawn? By whom? Would
there be community input on the lines? The district map included with the
initially submitted petition was drawn by one group within SMMUSD. More
voices are needed to draw fair maps.
Question: This is a did you know question. Did you know that our current at-
large system and district-based voting are not the only two options? There is a
third provided for in existing law. The three are as stated in the staff analysis
of SB 442 for the Assembly Elections Committee hearing dated June 16,
2021:
a. Each member of the governing board is elected by the registered voters
of the entire district.
OFFICERS
President
Natalya Zernitskaya
Vice President, Program
Barbara Inatsugu
Secretary
Sharon Hart
Treasurer
Karen Carrey
DIRECTORS
Cathie Gentile
Jason Islas
Angela D. Scott
Ann Williams
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 347 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
THE LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA MONICA
P.O. Box 1265 Santa Monica, CA 90406-1265
Phone: 310.564.6946 www.lwvsantamonica.org
#MakingDemocracyWork
Page 3 of 3
b. One or more members residing in each trustee area are elected by the
registered voters of that particular trustee area.
c. Each member of the governing board is elected by the registered voters
of the entire district, but resides in the trustee area which they represent.
We thank you for taking this issue under consideration.
Sincerely,
Natalya Zernitskaya
President
League of Women Voters of Santa Monica
Enclosure: SMMUSD BOARD ELECTIONS 1990 - 2020 LWVSM Public
Comment 2.8.2022 13C Attachment
OFFICERS
President
Natalya Zernitskaya
Vice President, Program
Barbara Inatsugu
Secretary
Sharon Hart
Treasurer
Karen Carrey
DIRECTORS
Cathie Gentile
Jason Islas
Angela D. Scott
Ann Williams
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 348 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
SANTA MONICA-MALIBU USD BOARD OF EDUCATION – 1990 – 2020
ELECTIONS 1990 - 2020
1990
Michael Hill (LGBTQ)
Pam Brady
Patricia Hoffman
Brenda Gottfried
1992
Margaret R. Franco
Peggy Lyons
Mary Kay Kamath (Malibu)
1994
Pam Brady
Julia Brownley
Brenda Gottfried
Terri L. Cohen
1996
Margaret R. Franco
Dorothy Chapman
Todd Hess (Malibu)
1998
Julia Brownley
Brenda Gottfried
Pam Brady
Tom Pratt
2000
Mike Jordan (Malibu)
Jose Escarce
Maria Leon-Vazquez
2002
Shane McLoud
Julia Brownley
Emily Bloomfield
Oscar de la Torre
2004
Jose Escarce
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Kathy Wisnicki (Malibu)
2006
Emily Bloomfield
Oscar de la Torre
Kelly McMahon Pye
Barry A. Snell
2007
Ralph Mechur (appt)
2008
Ben Allen
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Jose Escarce
2010
Laurie Lieberman
Oscar de la Torre
Ralph Mechur
Nimish Patel
2012
Ben Allen
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Jose Escarce
2014
Laurie Lieberman
Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein
Craig Foster (Malibu)
Oscar de la Torre
2016 (uncontested)
Jon Kean
Ralph Mechur
Maria Leon-Vazquez
2018
Laurie Lieberman
Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein
Oscar de la Torre
Craig Foster (Malibu)
2020
Jon Kean
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Jennifer Smith
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 349 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
SANTA MONICA-MALIBU USD BOARD OF EDUCATION – 1990 – 2020
OFFICERS OF THE BOE 1990 – 2000
Peggy Lyons (Pico Neighborhood)
• VP 1986 - 1987
• Pres 1987 - 1988
Brenda Gottfried (Sunset Park)
• Pres 1996 - 1997
Margaret Franco (now Margaret Quinones-
Perez) (Sunset Park)
• VP 1996 – 1997
• Pres 1998 - 1999
Maria Leon-Vazquez (Sunset Park)
• VP 2001 – 2002
• Pres 2002 – 2003
• VP 2012 – 2013
• Pres 2013 – 2014
Jose Escarce (North of Montana)
• VP 2001 – 2002 / 2002 – 2003
• Pres 2003 – 2004
• VP 2007 - 2008
• Pres 2010 - 2011
• VP 2011 – 2012
• VP 2014 – 2015
Oscar de la Torre (Pico Neighborhood)
• VP 2006 – 2007
• Pres 2007 – 2008
Barry Snell (Pico Neighborhood or Sunset
Park?)
• VP 2008 – 2009
• Pres 2009 - 2010
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 350 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
SANTA MONICA-MALIBU USD BOARD OF EDUCATION – 1990 – 2020
1990 – 1992
Patricia Hoffman
Connie Jenkins - Malibu
Pamela Brady
Brenda Gottfried
Michael Hill - LGBT
Mary Kay Kamath - Malibu
Peggy Lyons
1992 – 1994
Pam Brady
Michael Hill
Margaret Franco
Brenda Gottfried
Patricia Hoffman
Mary Kay Kamath. - Malibu
Peggy Lyons
1994 – 1996 (e-minutes missing)
Pam Brady
Julia Brownley
Brenda Gottfried
Terri L. Cohen
Mary Kay Kamath - Malibu
Peggy Lyons
Margaret Franco
1996 – 1998
Brenda Gottfried
Margaret R. Franco
Pamela. Brady
Julia Brownley
Terri L. Cohen
Mary Kay Kamath - Malibu
Todd Hess - Malibu
1998 – 2000
Margaret R. Quinones (Franco)
Julia Brownley
Pam Brady
Dorothy Chapman
Brenda Gottfried
Todd Hess - Malibu
Thomas Pratt
2000 -2002
Tom Pratt
Pam Brady
Julia Brownley
Jose Escarce
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Mike Jordan - Malibu
Brenda Gottfried
2002 – 2004
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Jose Escarce
Emily Bloomfield
Julia Brownley
Oscar de la Torre
Mike Jordan - Malibu
Shane McLoud
2004-2006
Jose Escarce
Emily Bloomfield
Julia Brownley
Oscar de la Torre
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Shane McLoud
Kathy Wisnicki - Malibu
2006 - 2008
Kathy Wisnicki - Malibu
Emily Bloomfield
Oscar de la Torre
Jose Escarce
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Kelly Pye
Barry Snell
2008 – 2010
Oscar de la Torre
Jose Escarce
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Ralph Mechur
Kelly Pye
Barry Snell
Kathy Wisnicki - Malibu
2010 – 2012
Ben Allen
Oscar de la Torre
Jose Escarce
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Laurie Lieberman
Ralph Mechur
Nimish Patel
2012 – 2014
Ben Allen
Laurie Lieberman
Oscar de la Torre
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Jose Escarce
Ralph Mechur
Nimish Patel
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 351 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)
SANTA MONICA-MALIBU USD BOARD OF EDUCATION – 1990 – 2020
2014 – 2016
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Oscar de la Torre
Jose Escarce
Craig Foster - Malibu
Laurie Lieberman
Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein
Ralph Mechur (appointed)
2016 – 2018
Laurie Lieberman
Ralph Mechur
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein
Oscar de la Torre
Craig Foster - Malibu
Jon Kean
2018 – 2020
Oscar de la Torre
Craig Foster - Malibu
Jon Kean
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Laurie Lieberman
Ralph Mechur
Richard Tahvildaran-Jesswein
2020 -2022
Keith Coleman
Craig Foster - Malibu
Jon Kean
Maria Leon-Vazquez
Laurie Lieberman
Jennifer Smith
Richard Tahvildaran-Jessein
Item 13.C 02/08/22
Item 13.C 02/08/22
13.C.a
Packet Pg. 352 Attachment: Written Comment (4975 : Support SMMUSD opposition re: district elections)