The late societal pillar Roseanna Roseanna Dana used to tell sophisticated late-night audiences in the previous century, “Ya never know.”
That same dazed, punch-in-the-nose unpredictability befell two of the three School Board candidates last evening.
With ringing eloquence, steep and broad comprehension, contenders Scott McVarish, Prof. Kelly Kent and Anne Burke made spit-polish impressive cases for themselves before a strongly critical audience at the monthly meeting of the Culver City Democratic Club.
By the end of the evening, when members twice voted their endorsements, only one four-letter word in the above sentence was applicable.
The stunning surprise was not that Dr. Kent was accorded a blaring endorsement, but that Ms. Burke and Mr. McVarish were so forcefully rejected.
Nothing subtle here.
Dr. Kent, a neuroscience and education expert, overwhelmingly was the choice of the people.
But where was No. 2?
Plainly, the large Democratic Club turnout was in a salty mood.
Mr. McVarish, an attorney who specializes in immigration cases and aiding other noted underdogs, declared himself a proud and active lifelong Democrat.
Ms. Burke, a former professional in the tech industry, is remarkably involved in the student and adult portions of her two children’s educational careers. A first-generation college graduate in her family, and also a lifetime Democrat, she, too, made a forceful case for her candidacy.
The crowd dive-bombed a reasonable plea by City Councilman Jim Clarke. “Endorse two candidates,” said the former chair of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party. “Bullet voting is embarrassing.”
Mr. Clarke’s request promptly and blatantly was stuffed into wastebasket by the difficult-to-dissect crowd.
On the first ballot, 27 votes were required for endorsement:
- Mr. McVarish, 9.
- Ms. Burke 18.
- Prof. Kent, 30.
On the second ballot, 22 votes were required to win endorsement.
- Mr. McVarish, 6.
- Ms. Burke, 15.
- No Recommendation, 17.
No recommendation? Why?
In a 75-minute Get Acquainted with Us program prior to the balloting, Dr. Kent, Ms. Burke and Mr. McVarish – all bespeaking similar progressive educational policies – demonstrated they arguably are the three most richly articulate, widely informed candidates in the region.
They were posed 10 questions – top three policy issues facing the School District, how does your profession/occupation qualify you to serve on the Board?, what book would you add to a class reading list?, what are the prime duties of a School Board member?, would you accept money from an oil company drilling in Culver City?, state of the school improvements bond. Most responses were home runs.
After the candidates’ sparkling presentations, they stepped out of the Rotunda Room at the Vets Auditorium and audience members, some bearing axes, gave their heavily seasoned opinions.
A number were outraged because they said Prof. Kent was not as patriotic of a Democrat as they were because she had just registered “Democrat” a fortnight ago.
One teacher-type gentleman criticized Mr. McVarish, who formerly represented the California Teachers Assn., for a lawyerly attitude that often sparks instead of resolves conflict.
Councilperson Meghan Sahli-Wells said she not only is a neighbor of Dr. Kent but an avid supporter and donor.
When the parent-centric United Parents of Culver City was disparaged as adversarial and anti-progressive, UPCC President Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin, mother of a sixth grader, eighth grader and 10th grader, fired back, but in the spirit of collegiality. “We are a grassroots parent-funded, parent-run organization whose No. 1 goal is to advocate for kids.”
Finally
The final score, one endorsement, was disappointing, but not to enough people to make a difference.
