The almost extreme courtliness that the five candidates for the School Board extended toward each other in the first community forum on Tuesday night finally — and suddenly — frayed at last night’s forum.
At precisely 9 o’clock at the Vets Auditorium, the highest-profile candidate Steve Gourley, evidently worn down, stunned the room with an entirely unanticipated declaration.
He decided the well-plotted, smooth-running, fast-paced, heavily informative program was over.
The clock and fatigue or possibly common sense told him so.
The Wrong Answer?
After asking moderator Robin Turner how much longer the program was scheduled to go on, and receiving an unsatisfactory response, Mr. Gourley provided his own imaginative answer:
Standing, as if to depart, he said crisply, “I think we have had enough.”
Nine o’clock is plenty late for anyone, he asserted.
It is time to go — and he was, Mr. Gourley abruptly snapped.
Deadly Serious
If curious voters wanted to know more than he already had imparted during 14 intense rounds of questions over a period of 80 minutes, they could telephone him, he announced.
“Huh?” was the initial response to the unscripted end of the evening.
While his peers and the Culver City Homeowners Assn. audience of 64 still were digesting the jolting turn of events, Mr. Gourley engaged in a sharp-tongued, not-kidding exchange with fellow candidate Roger Maxwell, debatably sparked by Mr. Maxwell.
How Flap Unfolded
Positioned in the fourth chair in the rotation of candidates at a table facing the stadium-style seats, Mr. Gourley was the first candidate to vacate his seat stand up when delivering his answers to questions.
Mr. Maxwell, in the fifth chair, also stood every time he spoke.
Saltiness, a needle and a sense of very permanent humor never far from the surface all have been personal and proud trademarks of Mr. Gourley’s public service career in Culver City.
At the very least, the kerfuffle gave voters something extra and enlightening to think about when they go to the polls on Nov. 6 to choose two new School Board members.
Stakes, and Voice, Were Rising
As Mr. Gourley was wrapping up a wide-ranging and hard-hitting closing statement, he once again elevated his voice.
For at least the third time in rapid-fire order, he hammered away at the purportedly uncreative, unmotivated manner in which the School Board and the School District are addressing key issues and carrying out perceived standard responsibilities.
Warming up, he had still more ammo to unload, detouring in a personal direction.
For the benefit of any skeptical listener who doubted his stone-faced sincerity in singlehandedly curtailing the program, he said with unmistakable pride:
Creating an Opportunity?
“I have shown leadership tonight by getting this thing over with.” By now he was practically shouting.
v
Then he could not resist jabbing a rival with a needle.
“I was also the first one to stand up — and now Roger will stand up, following my lead.”
This tingling and latest barb did not sit well with Mr. Maxwell.
Where Do You Stand?
In an aside that many audience members could not hear, the annoyed Mr. Maxwell chided Mr. Gourley right back. “You’re real quick with the quips, Steve,” he said.
Just as swift on the rebound, Mr. Gourley cracked, “It’s leadership,” an asset to which he overtly laid claim numerous times.
Upon reflection, the near-blowup had been building since the fore part of the program.
Rebuking Board and District
By far the most demonstrative, aggressive candidate, Mr. Gourley launched into a pounding condemnation of the School Board and the School District in the mid-1990s for flatly rejecting a “generous” offer by the city to shift their meeting site to the rebuilt City Hall, where they would have greater visibility, increased prestige and access to live television coverage.
In a soft-shoe campaign environment where the candidates have stressed gentility toward each other, Mr. Gourley was hard where his colleagues tended toward more pliable attitudes. “Don’t get me started,” Mr. Gourley began one response.
Long-Term Effect
Whether the dramatic ending and Mr. Gourley’s overall grousing, curmudgeonly performance will have a disproportionate influence on how the crowd of activists will react on Election Day was not immediately clear.
C. Scott Zeidman, Mike Eskridge, Alan Elmont and Mr. Maxwell enjoyed a few shining moments of their own.
Standing Apart
But no one even approached the volume, the thunder or the sheer historic breadth claimed by the financial lawyer, who has held statewide office as well as serving as Mayor of Culver City and two terms on the City Council.
The most closely watched answer of the night regarded the enigmatic Natatorium, the indoor swimming facility whose clouded future the School District has puzzled over since closing it down 16 years ago.
Getting Into the Swim of Things
Here is how the candidates stood on the white — or wet — elephant:
Mr. Eskridge:“I ran the first time for the School Board because the Natatorium closed. Now we have the money to open it but the District keeps sitting on the decision. If it is sold well, the Natatorium could be an asset to the community.”
Mr. Maxwell: “I would be unbelievably cautious about reopening it.”
Mr. Zeidman:“The Natatorium was great. We need to reopen it.”
Déjà vu Makes a Comeback
Sounding wearied by the question, Mr. Gourley said, as he did a few times, “We have been through this before.” He described a likely scenario: The School District would approach the city for financial assistance. The city would ask when the public would be given access to the pool. The answer would be “never,” which, he said, would squelch the chance of reopening.
Mr. Elmont: Since it takes $275,000 to $350,000 annually to operate the Natatorium, reviving the pool hinges on whether that kind of funding is available. “Show me the money,” he said, one of his favorite rejoinders.
Smooth as Peanut Butter
Up to the burst by Mr. Gourley, the Culver City Homeowners Assn.-sponsored program had been purring along spiritedly and far more efficiently than Tuesday’s complicated and confusing format.
Eschewing the arcane, indiscernible formula favored by the League of Women Voters on Tuesday, Ms. Turner popped one question, and all five gentlemen gave answers in a rotating order.
While the styles of the candidates vary, naturally, you still can throw a blanket over the field on most questions. There is little disagreement among them.
Hardest Worker?
Mr. Maxwell, a demon for detail, continued to stress how much more aggressively he has probed the main players in the School District and how thoroughly he has researched the District’s worst problems.
Mr. Zeidman, who invokes humor in a light, harmless manner, used this second of four forums to renew his call for significantly reducing permits throughout the District, especially in the Middle School and high school. Everybody seemed to concur with him, but Mr. Zeidman was the most persistent, most relentless advocate.
The Pillars of Elmont
Mr. Elmont, the activist parent who says he has a better record at School Board meetings than some Board members, perhaps unintentionally condensed his philosophy of officeholding into one of his answers. “Asking questions is the big thing,” he said, “and finding out where the money is coming from.”
Mr. Eskridge, who has won two and lost two previous School Board races, regularly returned to the useful experience and unique insights he acquired during eight years in office.
