Memo to Gary Abrams, who may or may not still be in the Nov. 3 race for the School Board:
By passing on last night’s Candidates’ Forum at El Marino Language Immersion School, you did not miss a thing.
(Your foggy, undeclared absence is a separate matter. It will be addressed later in this essay.)
If you are taking notes, Mr. Abrams, three of the five candidates who promised to appear and did, gave performances rated from solid to impressive.
And then there were the co-moderators, the question presenters, Judith Martin-Straw, editor of the Culver City News, and Roberta Mailman, assistant principal of Hamilton High School. Ms. Martin-Straw rated a star. She was spirited, entertaining, upbeat, keeping the program moving, for as much as one can push a reluctant elephant uphill.
Ms. Mailman, by contrast, peculiarly,deliberately, created an off-key moment that could have marred the evening.
No rookie, she appeared to badger candidate Robert Zirgulis.
She pursued the unfortunate Mr. Zirgulis as if he were an errant high school student over a single poorly formed question that should have caused her, or one of the organizers, to apologize.
A Head-Scratcher
The abstract question was:
“What specific steps would you take to promote our middle and high schools to Culver City residents?”
Any idea what the “correct” answer is?
A later poll of three persons produced three conflicting responses, including “I have no idea what the question means.” Still, Ms. Mailman did not relent, pressing Mr. Zirgulis until he calmly surrendered, saying meekly, “Okay, I misinterpreted it.”
Ms. Mailman may have been the only person in the room who thought that.
Stylistically, the 2-hour forum was a flat tire, an evening dedicated to arcanity, wonkishness and not a lick of spontaneity — although that is not necessarily a majority opinion.
Employing a format that must have been drawn by a person inexperienced with attracting crowds, 20 mostly strong questions were handed to the candidates in advance, 2 weeks ago.
The idea was for them to research the answers and present them coherently last night.
Did It Work?
But the scheme seemed to backfire. The generally well prepared candidates frequently read their answers from scripts or notes. The forum resembled an open-book test, a guaranteed not to fail — or inform — moment.
As popular entertainment, or as an opportunity to glean useful information about candidates, the forum was a washout, in one opinion.
Board member Scott Zeidman, one of the pillars of the evening, and candidate Alan Elmont powerfully disagreed. Endorsing the format, they concurred that it brought the desired, and designed, results.
Discounting the significance of spontaneity, Mr. Zeidman said:
“How often does a Board member have to respond to a question with no notice? Maybe a smart person could give a good answer with no notice. But if the smart person is not good at doing research, then he may not be a good and effective Board member.
“What is more important? A Board member who is smart or one who does research?”
Agreeing vigorously, Mr. Elmont said the format showed “who did their homework.”
To other persons, though, the evening resembled showing a dry documentary film on the social habits of a Tanzanian amoeba in a popular movie theatre. Who cares?
Or nerdy students reading their homework, by rote, in a monotone. Besides their parents, who wants to listen to them?
A snorer.
One more such candidates forum could drive No-Doz out of business.
Organized by the School Board, the whole thing was scripted, tightly plotted — like watching a rerun of a story whose ending you have known for years.
Most egregiously, the controlled forum was designed to be drained of candor, spontaneity.
Suspense left town before Mr. Zeidman called the program to order.
There is more drama in a movie you are watching for the 50th time, or when showing a silent film at the Braille Institute.
The candidates who were hemmed in by the restrictive format — Kathy Paspalis, Patricia Siever, Karlo Silbiger, Alan Elmont — had little wiggle room to succeed or fail.
This was kissing-your-sister night.
Reading answers to known questions written out days ago — what was there to learn?
No one — at least of the candidates — committed any gaffes. Nor did anyone help or hurt his case for election.
As for the absent Mr. Abrams, it was one more neon sign in a week that opened bizarrely and did not close on a very different note.
He objected, weeks ago, to the format. In the end, he probably was right. But if he ever intended to be taken seriously as a candidate — still a debatable matter — apparently stiffing the organizers of the highest profile forum to date was not the way to win back favor.
