[Editor’s Note: School Board member Scott Zeidman, on the organizing committee for last night’s Board candidates forum at El Marino Language Immersion School, responds to criticism of the program format.]
Which is a more important trait for a member of the School Board?
Being able to listen to a question and then provide a one- or two- minute opinion immediately thereafter?
Or being able to research the nuances of a question, ask staff for its input, seek the public’s input, weigh the available options, and then reporting an opinion to the public?
If you are looking for someone who thinks quickly on his/her feet, then, naturally, you opt for No. 1. However, thinking quick isn’t the only trait necessary for success as a member of the Board.
Indeed, the Board doesn’t answer or hear a question for the first time without notice or research and then immediately render a decision.
In fact, if that were done, then the words, “Brown Act Violation” would be appropriate.
Instead, the Board (and the public) is given at least 72 hours notice about an item that is going to be on a regularly scheduled Board agenda.
The Board members not only have a report from staff, but also time to research the particular issue before formulating an opinion.
In virtually all cases, a vote is not made on the subject during the first meeting, but instead the meeting is for informational purposes only.
During the informational purposes segment, the public is invited to give its opinion, reasons, research and thoughts. The members of the Board question staff and discuss the matter.
Thereafter, usually two weeks later, the matter comes up for a vote. But, before a vote, the public is again invited to weigh in; the members of the Board again can question staff; and again the members can state their opinions.
Then, and only then, is a vote conducted. That’s how it works now, and that’s how it’s worked in the past.
The vast majority of Candidate Forums are held in such a manner that a question is asked of the candidate.
Either the candidate shows his/her knowledge on the subject and renders an immediate opinion, or the candidate (not having a clue) meanders around the question speaking as long as he/she can until the time passes.
In the latter case, the candidate generally hopes that by the next question, no one will remember that the candidate didn’t answer the previous question in an intelligent manner.
The forum held at El Marino last evening was different (candidates were given a list of 20 questions and given a little more than two weeks to prepare their oral responses), and as such, is likely to draw the ire of traditionalists.
They would say:
• How dare they give the candidates the questions more than two weeks ahead of time?
• How dare they allow candidates the opportunity to research the answers to each question?
• How dare they allow the candidates the opportunity to question staff to help assist in getting the right answers?
• How dare they allow the candidates the opportunity to talk to the public and get the public’s input as to the correct answers?
• How dare they allow the candidates time to weigh the options and then report their reasoned thoughts to the public at a forum.
Put another way, how dare they allow the candidates to simulate, in a forum, what it might be like to be a member of the School Board?
Better yet, how dare they allow the voters the opportunity to get a peek as to how the candidates might act in a situation that more accurately resembles part of the duties of being a member of the Culver City School Board?
Was it an open book test?
You bet it was, but certainly no more of an open book test than each Board member takes on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of every month.
Mr. Zeidman may be contacted at scott.zeidman@laslots.com
