Time for the community to relax with slippers, robe and a spot of steaming tea.
The pressure has been turned off.
It became official this morning that the bond measure, and by extension renewal of the parcel tax that expires late next year, are being put over, potentially, to next June’s election.
Too little time and too much still-needed information was the crisp, unequivocating message from Supt. Dave LaRose.
[img]1805|right|Ms. Paspalis||no_popup[/img]School Board President Kathy Paspalis told the newspaper:
“As disappointed as I am in what transpired at the July 1 Board meeting (when three members unofficially demurred at continuing the bond campaign), we must find a way forward to some level of consensus so that we can get a bond on the ballot.
“My goal has always been, and continues to be, doing what is best for our students.
“Given the vast and obvious capital facility needs, I see going forward, now that we’ve gotten out of the depths of the recession, that what our students, teachers and staff need is a serious investment in the very dated facilities they learn and work in every day.
“As such, Board workshops have been proposed to provide the information that some of the Board members stated that they needed to move forward.
“Obviously, the community will be able to have questions answered as well at that time.
“Once the superintendent finds a date when everyone is available, or will make themselves available, we will meet. That date will be announced as soon as we have it.
An Earlier Solution
“My thought was the sooner the better as we may have to have multiple workshops in order to address all of the various types of questions and information requests. This is something we’ve been working on for the past two weeks. As much as I would like to have a date certain at this time, I can’t give that to you because we don’t have one.”
[img]1686|left|Ms. Chardiet||no_popup[/img]From Laura Chardiet, Ms. Paspalis’s ally in ardently pursuing the bond campaign for November, came the most poignant and pointed response this afternoon.
“I an very disheartened,” she told the newspaper. “It is the wrong decision. Postponing it, I think, will end up costing us even more money.
One of Ms. Chardiet’s most jarring concerns – as she first noted last week – is the School District’s present and future relationship with bond consultants, the team that has been in place for months and any successor.
Chardiet Is Perplexed
“I don’t understand why we hired these consultants,” she said, “if we were not going to listen to them. I don’t understand. So I am questioning whether we should hire consultants again if we are not going to listen to them.
“Are we going to? Are we not going to? I don’t understand.”
It seems to Ms. Chardiet that the three members who have planted their opposition to continuing the campaign for this year – Karlo Silbiger, Prof. Patricia Siever, Nancy Goldberg – “are questioning the results” of last month’s community survey. Two-thirds of Culver City voters endorse the bond campaign, it showed.
Mr. Silbiger, she said, “is claiming how can we go forward when we have not engaged seniors while that was the purpose of the survey, finding out what people were willing to do. Then you engage them in passing the bond.
“I am so perplexed,” Ms. Chardiet said.”
The Next Meeting
Mr. Silbiger, the person at the nexus of the decision to formally delay the bond campaign, is traveling. He said he will comment when he returns.
[img]1551|left|Mr. LaRose||no_popup[/img]Mr. LaRose said this morning that he is working on a get-together date before the next scheduled School Board meeting on Tuesday, Aug. 27, which is 18 days after what once was a red-letter deadline for placing a resolution on the November ballot.
After the July 1 breakdown of the bond campaign, given the new 3 to 2 division favoring postponement, the most daunting question for the large number of parents opposed to a stoppage, was whether the No side would attend a special catch-up or catch-all meeting.
“There is interest from the full Board and recognition from the full Board that we need to get together,” Mr. LaRose said.
“Obviously there has been some emotional response to our last Board meeting, and that is understandable.
“I am thankful for it because it demonstrates the community’s level of support and involvement in our schools, particularly in addressing our many facility needs.
“I take that part of it as a positive. As a result, though, some of the communication has focused on perceptions, misinformation, such as ‘the bond is dead,’ or ‘let’s get together to see if we can emphasize who is at fault.’
“None of that does any of us any good. All along as we have proceeded, the collective Board has been driving this (bond measure campaign), supporting this, recognizing that we have the need.
“Granted that we are at a point of varying levels of disappointment, of which I share some as well.
“But I have not felt for an instant,” said Mr. LaRose, “that anybody is wavering on the fact we need to reconvene, clarify what we learned and what we need to learn more.”
(To be continued)
