Re “Silbiger Lays Down 5 Conditions on Bond Measure”
[img]1686|right|Ms. Chardiet||no_popup[/img]Returning this morning from a holiday, Supt. Dave LaRose will need his most comfortable running shoes, dashing from stress meeting to stress meeting over the limbo’d bond measure and its frozen campaign.
At least two School Board members holding opposing views – President Kathy Paspalis, who supports resumption of the campaign, and Karlo Silbiger, leader of Delay the Bond forces – have said they will seek Mr. LaRose’s counsel today on resolving a sternly unpopular stalemate.
It is within Ms. Paspalis’s purview, as president, to call a special School Board meeting to collegiately sort through the reasons for and against postponing the campaign beyond the optimal November ballot.
Calling a meeting may be easy. But what about gaining at least a four-person quorum? Will the three members who want to postpone the campaign – Prof. Patricia Siever, Nancy Goldberg and Mr. Silbiger – report for duty? Or would they boycott?
Mr. Silbiger told the newspaper:
“I will speak with Dave LaRose when he returns to determine how staff is doing on the work outlined in my letter. When there is new information to discuss and an acceptable time for all five Board members, I will look forward to attending a meeting.”
On the Other Side
Board member Laura Chardiet, siding with the overwhelming community view that the bond campaign should be pursued immediately and aggressively, drew an intriguing analogy.
She argues against those who demand that all details of financing and bookkeeping must be debated and determined before the Aug. 9 deadline for ballot measures.
An ardent advocate of forging through the next four months, she said the need for fixing facilities “is urgent” and “there are compelling reasons” for placing a bond on the next available ballot.
“Putting the bond measure on the November ballot,” Ms. Chardiet told the newspaper, “is like getting engaged. You get the ring when you get engaged. From there, you plan your wedding.
‘We Can Do That Later’
“Just because we don’t have a master facilities plan in place, does not mean we won’t be able to put one together by the time the bond money becomes available, maybe four to six months after the election.”
Twenty-five days before the deadline for submitting a November ballot proposition – which will not take a consultant long to compose – Ms. Chardiet says the goal she shares with Ms. Paspalis can be achieved “if the other Board members are willing to meet,” the critical part.
Four affirmative votes are required.
“If (the three holdouts) don’t feel they have enough information, let’s schedule meetings to try and get the information they want,” Ms. Chardiet said. “I am interested in a meeting that is productive, not negative. If the other members are willing to meet, we can do it.”
She said she was caught unaware, as many others were, two weeks ago tonight at the most recent School Board meeting when Mr. Silbiger read a prepared statement that was the single largest factor in stalling the bond campaign.
Ms. Chardiet was bothered by the timing. She pointed out that Mr. Silbiger declared his pivotal objection before learning the favorable results of the June community survey conducted by the School District’s bond consultants.
“My understanding was that we were all waiting for the results of the survey that would determine whether we would move forward or wait until another time,” Ms. Chardiet said.
“When other school districts do a bond campaign, they wait anxiously for the results of the survey. They are hopefully waiting to see that it is positive.
“That is why it is so odd,” Ms. Chardiet said, “that we got the green light, and our Board said, ‘Nah, nah, I don’t think so.’ They either don’t believe the survey results or they think the consultants we hired are charlatans.
“I am not sure which consultants will want to work for Culver City if we go through the process of hiring them, and then we accuse them of being liars.”
