Some would say Teachers Union President David Mielke struck the main match last night that ultimately set off the ugliest, most incivil row seen at a School Board meeting in recent memory. He reintroduced his by- now familiar claim that new Supt. Patti Jaffe’s contract has been mischaracterized. He said her $201,000 salary is too rich, a $16,000 raise over her predecessor, especially since teachers have been asked to take 9 furlough days and a portion of 19.2 teaching positions theoretically could be cut later in the spring.
Some in the audience would say the ignition was the fault of Board member Karlo Silbiger and his second-week-in-a-row attack on the compensation package for Ms. Jaffe, spotlighting an obscure category known as “statutory benefits.”
Fighting against all four of his colleagues who concur that Ms. Jaffe’s services were obtained at a discount rate, Mr. Silbiger purported to show that not only is the new Super not a bargain, her reported financial package of $217,000 is more than $50,000 south of the truth. He computed Ms. Jaffe’s compensation at $270,000 compared to $275,000 for her now much criticized predecessor, Dr. Myrna Rivera Coté.
Mr. Silbiger’s accusations — corrected later by colleagues — re-opened raw wounds of certain Board members, which brings the story around to the main event person, the principal accuser.
Nearly everyone who was in Council Chambers would agree that it was outgoing Board member Steve Gourley, a maven of acerbity, who poured blockbuster gasoline on flames that exploded into a raging, shouting bonfire that lay writhing on the floor in a swirling sea of vitriol.
The largely personal critiques threatened to dwarf what had been billed as the headline of the evening, a petition by the proposed Building Bridges Charter School. On the strength of a 23-page report from counsel (scant compared to the 356 pages filed by charter school organizers), the Board stoutly rejected the request, 4 to 1, essentially because members, except for Mr. Silbiger, deemed the plans too vague.
Withering Criticism
Far from a random, thorn-laden commentary, Mr. Gourley, who is leaving office at the end of the term, summoned his strongest language to criticize Mr. Mielke for several reasons, including for suing him last year for a rules violation in an unfair labor practice suit. When the ruling was handed down two months ago, the outcome appeared to be a dead heat, though Mr. Mielke claimed victory, which incensed Mr. Gourley.
He also accused the union president of numerous deficiencies, the worst of which he alleged are a remote relationship with truth-telling and lousy judgment about priorities.
Near the end of Mr. Gourley’s bitingly personal offensive against frequent rival Mr. Mielke, the often placid union leader suddenly arose from his third-row seat.
Desperate for relief, he turned toward Board President Scott Zeidman, raised his voice to ceiling level to be heard over Mr. Gourley, and pleaded to have “the Board policy against personal attacks” invoked.
However, Board member Kathy Paspalis rhetorically stepped between them. “You may sit down,” she said twice without making a dent.
Mr. Mielke did not budge and repeated his request.
Mr. Gourley didn’t stop talking, and therefore did not budge.
Ubiquitous Barbs
Neither did Mr. Zeidman — until his colleague had paused. Only then did he acknowledge enforcement of the little known, hardly ever invoked rule.
On one of the School Board’s first ventures into the spacious Council Chambers, bitterly rival factions almost instantly converted the political sanctuary into a down-carnival shooting gallery.
With many in the teacher community approaching purple-rage stage over Ms. Jaffe’s contract — which, they assert, not only has been constantly misrepresented but unfairly inflated, whatever the true figure — and Board members exasperated from months of listening to unrelenting volleys of anger over the identical storyline, combustion probably was inevitable.
To hear each side spew its gripes, the other side is populated only by unreasonable villains. With perhaps a portion of 19.2 teaching positions in line to be eliminated later in the spring, the roaring fire will not soon recede.
Crusty, lip-curling liar-liar, distortion, impingement of First Amendment rights charges flew around the room last night like an other-world invasion of nasty, skin-sucking birds.
Wasn’t This the Advent of Peace?
The irony of the free-falling hate-mongering is that Ms. Jaffe previously was viewed as a popular choice for leader of the School District, 41 favorably spent Culver City years monopolizing her resume.
But the Teachers Union, with a sturdy and reliable assist from their best friend on the Board, Mr. Silbiger, appears determined to make Ms. Jaffe’s base salary and the outlines of her disputed compensation contentious figures for the next three months at least, or until there is a denouement.
Pass the Condiments
Seldom short of salty opinions with which to pepper opponents, Mr. Gourley, who recently has been critical of the previous superintendent, lashed out again from the dais.
Fed up with assaults on Ms. Jaffe’s pay, he said:
“What ever we are paying Patti Jaffe, it is more than worth getting rid of Dr. Coté.”
Mr. Gourley did not need to warm up when it was his turn to speak, starting out in first gear at about 75 miles an hour. Here is a partial account.
“I tried not to interrupt anybody by sighing deeply when I heard Mr. Mielke up here talking about misrepresentation. I have read Mr. Mielke’s representations to his union members when he has included all the information. As I pointed out at the last meeting, he neglected to point out there were people who did support the idea of pink-slipping more administrators and more teachers. He also failed to mention over the last three years that I have supported a system where everybody takes less and everybody keeps their job.
“The union through Mr. Mielke — if he does represent the union — has always said no, they do not want tiered cuts. Last year when I mentioned it, in response to emails I received saying Mr. Mielke’s proposal was the best and the fairest, Mr. Mielke sued me. He brought a grievance using union money, using union labor, using union time and function and prestige to bring an action against an elected Board member who has the privilege of speaking under the First Amendment.
“That is what your union, through Mr, Mielke, did, and if he didn’t represent it like that to everyone, he did not tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. He left out everything that would be unfavorable to him.”
