First bombshell of the School Board campaign:
What if a certain hometown political club staged a so-called Endorsement Party last evening for the three School Board candidates – and the outcome was pre-arranged, written in advance?
Anne Burke, one of two candidates pointedly snubbed at the Culver City Democratic Club’s allegedly scripted “Endorsement Party,” said this morning she was told last month – while traveling out of the country — that the club would endorse Prof. Kelly Kent and no one else.
“I am disappointed but not shocked,” said Ms. Burke, a first-time entry in the Board race.
She explained the circumstances in which she learned days ahead of last night’s voting what the final score would be.
“While I was in Mexico,” Ms. Burke said, “a friend, not even a close friend, texted me. The message said, ‘I am in the Dem Club, and they just told me they are endorsing Kelly Kent.’”
Ms. Burke was caught off-guard.
“I said, ‘Oh, really? They asked me to participate in a candidates’ forum to determine who they will endorse.”
Ms. Burke believes the outcome was pre-determined, that a highly suspicious number of so-called “No Recommendations” votes was not random, not coincidence.
“This is very, very, very disappointing to hear,” said the mother of 10-year-old Liam and 7-year-old Isla. “As a new person involved in this kind of political process, you come in hopeful, thinking you have a shot and you are going to do your best. Only then you find out that it doesn’t even matter.”
Ms. Burke, who is running as a team with Scott McVarish, does not stand alone with her convictions.
Laura Chardiet, who is leaving the School Board later this year, was a keenly interested observer last night.
She issued the following stern criticism this morning about the state of the Dem Club:
“The elected Democrats whom the voters of Culver City trust, already have made their decision. There are nine elected Democrats in Culver City. Six of them have endorsed Anne or Scott, and one has endorsed Kelly. This self-appointed Democratic Club represents no one but about 30 people out of approximately 15,000 Democrats in Culver City.”
Mr. McVarish told the newspaper this morning that he echoes the sentiments of Ms. Chardiet, his campaign manager.
“I am proud that six of the nine elected Democrats in our city and School District have endorsed me. I am hopeful to get the seventh shortly. This club endorsed someone last night who has received the endorsement of only one of those nine officials. I believe Anne Burke and I will be the choice of the majority of Democrats, Republicans, Independents, parents and seniors on Election Day.”
Was it coincidental last night when Dr. Kent outpolled Ms. Burke and Mr. McVarish 30 to 18 to 9 in the first round? Or when No Recommendation defeated the Ms. Burke and Mr. McVarish 17 to 15 to 6 in the second and final round of voting?
Bullet voting – as the targeting of a single candidate on a ballot is called – is not an unknown concept among Culver City Democratic Club veterans.
(To be continued)
As I have often stated before, our local Democratic Club is much more a club than it is democratic.
To most of us, 2013 is, by now, ancient history. But, to Mr Silbiger, his unexpected 2013 re-election loss to former UPCC President Steve Levin and Sue Robins is probably still fresh in his mind.
So it’s no real surprise that a club faction would choose to support a “Johnnie-come-lately” democrat over two life-long democrats who are also strongly linked to the UPCC.
After the meeting, Dr Kent was asked by a reporter about her previous political affiliation; but, she declined to state it. Legally, one has to be registered in order to run for the school board. Why would she would want to keep it a secret? Was she registered as something other than a democrat?
There is no love-lost between UPCC members and Karlo Silbiger. I remember a previous board meeting at Lin Howe when Mr McVarish–another founder of the UPCC–and then, board member Karlo Silbiger got into a very heated, personal argument over budgetary matters.
This time, not leaving anything to chance, Mr Silbiger made sure his “ducks” were firmly lined up in a row. This small personal payback has to taste pretty sweet. Strategically, though, the problem is that there are three candidates running and only two open seats. So that means one of the UPCC-aligned candidates will be elected to the board next term.
Is there any doubt which UPCC candidate Mr Silbiger will be rooting for next November?
Unfortunately, I’m not surprised by this. Before the school board candidate forum at the democratic club two years ago, I was warned not to participate, that the club would be biased. I ignored that advice, wanting to believe the democratic club would be fair and would listen to all the candidates. We were invited to submit statements for the newsletter. I submitted essentially the same statement as I used for the ballot, a couple of hundred words in bullet-point form. It was rejected, and the explanation I was given was that it needed to be shorter, and written as a paragraph. I complied. When the newsletter came out, I was then shocked to discover that Karlo Silbiger’s statement in the newsletter was much like my original, a couple of hundred words, in bullet point form. At the time, I decided not to make a fuss about it. The voters would decide, and I hoped that eventually the Democratic Club would see that supporting me would have been good for the community. I did quietly ask the club president to print an explanation and include my original statement in the next monthly newsletter. He said he’d think about it but nothing ever came of it. I don’t necessarily believe that this year’s result was “fixed”, but I certainly think it likely that the club leadership had formed opinions in advance. That appears to be the norm for the Culver City Democratic Club these days.
I suggest we all respond at the ballot box. Please vote for two good candidates for the two open seats.
I love election season in Culver City. It’s like having a full moon every night! Let the drama begin!
Controversy involving the Culver City Democratic Club – the gift that keeps on giving!
George L. you haven’t changed a bit. Always support the home grown candidate and attempting to discount any new blood in the tired old no vision Culver City Politics. The rest of the world has passed Culver City by as it tries to maintain its hold on being the last of the Historic Preserved 1950 model. The school board has been commandeered by a group of like thought folks with no vision or creativity.
They never attempt to bring long term solutions to chronic problems. There was an attorney (3) lead majority that had the worst relationship with it’s Teacher’s union president and actually called him a liar in public school board meetings and the others stood by in silence. Chased off a highly qualified Superintendent with a PhD. because they thought they were smarter. Then spent over $20 thousand dollars on a replacement search only to select recalled from retirement assistant super which lasted only a couple years. Wasted how many thousands of dollars (attorney fees) fighting to not to accommodate special needs students. Raised five million dollars (which was not nearly enough) in Measure EE because they thought that would pass. What ever happened to that money. The previous Bond Tax on the citizens for capital improvement back in 1997 (still being paid for) which include funds to restore the Natatorium (indoor swimming pool) never done thanks to another Super. The school boards have historically been a bunch of mostly inept gatekeepers of the Culver City property, with a few exceptions which a couple names come to mind. Karlo Silbiger is one. He was very thoughtful in his responses and was well prepared with fact to support it. It was unfortunate for the Culver citizens because it now totally in the control of a not so super pac the UPCC which the lone remaining attorney Paspalis is a member I bet. Now the UPCC wants to have total control of the board’s selection by way of default. That is way too much power to just hand over to a bunch of like thinkers. Now they have $125 million which is not enough, but they want to piece meal the capital improvements with a large chunk going to El Marino’s air pollution problem. Isn’t it time for Culver City schools to have a totally new makeover. Look around at every other school district’s (even Inglewood) new construction. We have only one high and middle school. Stop patching up these antiquated 1950 barrack like buildings. Maybe they should leave the city once in a while. The football field could have been done better, but was underfunded, typical Culver City style. Since there are no large swatches of land thanks to the CC city council’s addiction to the conversion of city owned property to private hands. Maybe they might purchase the ice skating rink’s property for the district. Oh I forgot it’s each one for it’s self and” in God we trust” for us all.
I’d always thought that as people age they become wiser. It’s refreshing to learn that Gary Abrams is the Dorian Gray of Culver City
Anne Burke didn’t get the Dem Club’s endorsement because she is a whining UPCC parent. The vote was fated (a more accurate word then prearranged, or deranged, Ms. Burke) because she has no place on a school board but instead should look after her “family.” Voter can trust Kelly because she will follow Karlo Silbiger who was the only honest school board member in the past decade. Solidarity with the Dem Club is what we need now.
Pat Sievers and Nancy Goldberg were honest but overwhelmed.
Dear Mr. Bert Grubb it’ spelled Gary Abrams
Wow! Mr. Levy has drank the kool aid. This is typical rhetoric – “Anne Burke didn’t get the Dem Club’s endorsement because she is a whining UPCC parent. The vote was fated (a more accurate word then prearranged, or deranged, Ms. Burke) because she has no place on a school board but instead should look after her “family.”
Whining UPCC Parent? Should look after her family? Sounds misogynous and cult like in my opinion.