School district’s miscalculations

Of all of their strengths, the Newport-Mesa Unified School District Board of Trustees has mastered the art of asking for -- and receiving -- money.

First it was the $163 million in 2000, then it was the $282 million this year, and now, unbelievably, they are asking locals to contribute about $33,000 to wipe out the leftover debt accumulated by the Yes on F committee.

At last week’s board meeting, Board Member Martha Fluor requested that Measure F supporters send checks to Citizens for Quality Schools, the group that formed in September to campaign for the bond.

Fluor said the campaign team would send letters to all its supporters asking for contributions, although others in the community are invited to donate as well.

“If everyone could just send $15 to $20, we could pay this off in a very short time,” Fluor said.

So, let’s make sure I have this straight: The committee is way short of money. But in order to raise the money to cover the debt, they have to create and mail a letter campaign to a lot of “everyones,” which costs even more money.

In order to cover the debt of $33,000, plus whatever this new mailing costs, they will need about 1,650 donations of $20 each. The list of Measure F donors was a fraction of that.

Being in the marketing business, I know that you can’t send out 1,650 letters and expect 1,650 donations. To reach that number, it requires tens of thousands of letters and multiple mailings.

Case in point: To promote Measure F, the folks at Citizens for Quality Schools sent out at least five mailings, which, together, generated neither the number of donors they needed, or the funds they needed.

Oh, I wish it were as simple as asking “everyone” to mail in $20. As far as I know, only televangelists have had any success at that and their machinery took years to build and costs a fortune to run.

Plus, there is another factor. The public, you see, has already gotten theirs. With or without their $20, the district is going to get to tax us for $282 million dollars more. So there is less urgency now, but the delay in asking for the money is understandable.

Odds are that the Measure F committee knew it was in red ink before the vote (if they didn’t, there was some very sloppy accounting going on). But issuing a plea for funds to relieve their debt before the vote wouldn’t have looked too good, so they probably waited until after the election. I would have too. It wouldn’t have looked to good to lose and ask for more money too.

Prediction: Look for an angel or two to bail them out with the funds they need.

This miscalculation is one of two last week. The other is a serious lapse in judgment.

It strikes me as odd that a school district that has the power to expel a student for bringing a bread knife or Tylenol to school, could even remotely consider allowing the graduation of a student who has not met the requirements for graduation.

Apparently, there are two standards for zero tolerance. One is a tough love approach to drugs, weapons and alcohol that is supposed to take rational thought out of the disciplinary process and relieve the school board of any tough decision-making.

The other standard, the one for graduation, it seems to me, is a way to prop up graduation numbers. If that’s not the case, then any other reason is absurd.

Graduation is a zero-tolerance issue, no more or less important or easy to decide than the stake the district has driven into the ground with drugs, weapons and alcohol: If you don’t meet all of the requirements, you don’t graduate. When you meet those requirements, you do.

I am all for examining extenuating circumstances, such as illness or family issues. But that’s not the precedent this board has set. According to that precedent, there is no gray area.

The recent news is not all bad. Actually, the good news involves a retreat on my part for hastily misjudging a district initiative from two years ago.

At that time, the district received a technology grant which they spent to provide Personal Digital Assistants, or PDAs for sixth-grade students. The goal was admirable, but as I wrote then, the PDA program would fail because it involves 12-year-old kids.

Apparently, I was right -- the program has been halted. But what I failed to do then and what I am doing now is applaud the district for testing the program.

They tried -- at least they tried -- and in my book effort is everything.

* STEVE SMITH is a Costa Mesa resident and a freelance writer. Readers may leave a message for him on the Daily Pilot hotline at (714) 966-4664 or send story ideas to dailypilot@latimes.com.

20051130gzisd0ke(LA)