The sparks-filled air at last night’s School Board meeting was clotted with so much bombast that you have your choice of stunning developments:
• Was it a plainclothes police officer, probably for the first time ever, being posted in a distant seat to make sure decorum was maintained? or
• Or was it when soon-to-depart School Board member Steve Gourley, the most colorful person to serve in decades, shocked the audience by committing an unexpected two-tiered mea culpa? Softly, he apologized to two of his noted rhetorical rivals, David Mielke, President of the Teachers Union, and Robert Zirgulis, a candidate for the School Board.
Mr. Gourley, only sometimes a hardboiled lawyer, felt constrained to step into a public confessional and admit two of his egregious sins — talking too roughly — after his closest ally on the Board had been drenched by a shower of criticism
On an evening when his leadership mettle repeatedly was tested, Board President Scott Zeidman delivered the most brilliant performance of his four-year term. For the past year, the unflappable Mr. Zeidman has run meetings as if he is double-parked. He arrives impressively prepared and navigates a path through quarreling, sometimes volatile personalities without ever violating his oath of strict neutrality.
A Campaign Boost?
He smoothly seized control of last night’s agenda, sought and quickly received approval for rearranging the order of the evening, and unblinkingly led the School Board through a dense wave of personalities, some of whom don’t care for the fragrance of those nearby.
As Mr. Zeidman seeks re-election in 55 days, and he is a favorite, his most effective campaign weapon may be a video of last night. He should carry a copy with him as he campaigns.
While this is not a Father Knows Best edition of the School Board, disparate members nonetheless swiftly closed ranks around their President when he was subjected to criticism. On the same day that all four colleagues on the Board formally declared re-election endorsement for their leader, they proved they meant it at the meeting.
Freedom of speech — who may say what about whom — was one theme of the Board meeting, stemming from a July 26 meeting when a speaker’s microphone was cut off over comments aimed at a School District officer.
Based on Board policy dating back to the last century, Mr. Zeidman temporarily silenced the speaker.
After weeks of discussion, initiated by Mr. Zeidman, Supt. Patti Jaffe, in league with the Board, said that all Board policies soon will be reviewed and rewritten.
As I Was Saying…
Meanwhile, the Board President issued the following 248-word clarification statement:
“In the last general meeting of the Board of Education, following our longstanding past practice, established many years ago, I asked that the power to the microphone be cut off as member of the public was speaking negatively about an employee of the District. It is now clear that she was rightfully addressing the Board of Education. It is also now clear that no one should be cut off when he or she is addressing the Board during the agendized period for community input, no matter the subject matter.
“I believe that this past practice was established by a prior Board of Education with only the best of intentions. We can assume that the Board that set this practice in place intended to protect employees from the embarrassment and humiliation of being criticized in public.
“Certainly, we can all appreciate that negative comments about an employee’s personality and or performance are more likely to be addressed productively in a less public setting than a general session of the Board of Education.
“However, it is also clear that people have a right to speak during the public comment period on any item under the subject matter jurisdiction of the Board.
“Like this particular policy, many of our Board policies have not been reviewed for years. I would like to ask the Board to join me in giving direction to staff to agendize all policies, regulations and practices related to public meeting communication, including meeting announcements, public involvement, and procedures.”
Meanwhile, two-term former City Councilman Gary Silbiger, one of the community’s best-known advocates of free speech, came to the meeting armed with a lengthy laundry list of free speech suggestions for the School Board.
“What we object to individually is not necessarily what the law requires us to do,” Mr. Silbiger said, re-introducing a principle he often forcefully spoke about during his eight years on the dais.
Turning to his list, he started with the notion of annual training for Board members and administrators in the contents and nuances of the Brown Act.
“Next,” he said, “talk with the School District’s attorney before any possible limitation of rights.
“Have each high school student participate in a practical free speech exercise.
“Rather than just studying concepts, have them get practical experience.
“Place information about free speech on the District’s website (ccusd.org)
“The law provides minimal free speech protection, but the School Board could expand those rights.
“People should speak up when they see violations of our Constitutional rights,” Mr. Silbiger said.
