Re “Did Upset Over Vote Drive School Board Member to the Hospital?”
Disappointed that her colleagues on the School Board last week sought to belatedly enter the Interim Superintendent into the stakes for Fulltime Superintendent, Board member Patricia Siever speculated the intention may have been to encourage the finalists to drop out.
“If I were a candidate for Superintendent in Culver City and the School Board had done this,” she said, “I might say, ‘I don’t need to go to that district.’”
On a motion by Board President Scott Zeidman, members voted 3 to 2 last week to reconsider next Tuesday the ineligible-to-apply clause in the contract Interim Super Patti Jaffe signed last June.
Coming “out of nowhere,” she says, after the three finalists already had been chosen, Ms. Siever contends is unfair to the last survivors.
She felt blindsided by Mr. Zeidman’s call.
When Ms. Jaffe — who already had disclosed her decision to retire — suddenly was thrust into the Interim Super’s role last June, the announcement was underscored by the note that she specifically was excluded from applying for the permanent position. A clause allowing that point to be reversed, at the Board’s discretion, went publicly unnoticed at the time.
“The only previous time Patti’s name had come up,” said Ms. Siever, “was two or three months ago. I think it was Steve Gourley (immediate past President of the Board) who said she might want to be considered for the permanent job. But that didn’t go any further. If she wanted it, why didn’t we have a motion and decide what to do? Do we want to stop the search?
“But doing it the way we did at last week’s meeting? What do you do with the three people we interviewed? The Board definitely has let them down. It’s a matter of respect and integrity.
Forecasting Next Week
“I don’t know what is going to happen at Tuesday night’s meeting” when the Board will consider dropping the ineligible clause and possibly even voting on Ms. Jaffe’s stature. “I was just blindsided,” she said.
Ms. Siever had asked for a special meeting, to sort out the feelings of the five Board members, but the request was not granted.
“Somebody called me to say that (fellow Board member) Karlo (Silbiger) and I were in the papers” for demurring on last week’s vote. “The caller said that everybody loves our Interim Superintendent, and that is fine.
“Now I have a strong nature. I am a warrior. But I can’t stand what I think is betrayal or conniving or manipulation.
“After the vote, it was so hard for me to sit there for the next hour and conduct business, which I did.
Thinking About Image
“We are supposed to be role models for our students. We are supposed to be the people who set the policy. And if you disagree, that is okay. You can disagree.
“But there has to be protocol. There has to be something. You can’t just leave people dangling like that.”
Ms. Siever was asked if she will raise her complaints before the full Board at Tuesday’s 7 o’clock meeting.
“I am thinking about it,” she said.
“I want to make very clear I am not against Patti. It’s that we work for the people not for ourselves. We have done a lot of work on this search. You don’t know how many special meetings there have been.
“I can’t believe it was all…
“It was just too easy the way it happened. That (Board President Scott Zeidman) happened to have the contract, that he happened to be reading it.
“I never thought this was coming. That’s how I was blindsided. I can’t speak for anyone else. I didn’t know. But I don’t think they kept it just from me.
“I think two people on the same wave length got together (Mr. Zeidman and Mr. Gourley). I don’t want it to be a conspiracy thing.
“It’s more to me about how a Board operates. You (Mr. Zeidman) interview three people, and then you lead the cheer (at last week’s meeting for Ms. Jaffe)? You lead the cheer?
A Partisan Call?
“People can say what they want. But then you say ‘Raise your hands if you want Patti,’ and then Gourley says ‘Raise two hands’!
“You would be surprised at the mail I’m getting. But I don’t worry about it. Some of it is critical, talking about how much they love Patti. Some mail I don’t even read. When it says in the beginning… It’s all very pro-Patti. I can’t counter that because I have nothing against her. She has worked well as far as I know.
“The point is, we work for the people. If someone was really serious about this, why not bring it up two months ago? Why didn’t you say, ‘Why don’t we stop the search?’
“It is very interesting that the subject came up when it did, right after we had interviewed the final three. That was the second interview they came in for.
“What happened was incomprehensible. I went ‘What? What?’ You have got to finish the process. I can understand you want to open it up. You can’t let those three people dangle. But some people don’t think that is an important issue. They just think we should move forward and elect the present Superintendent.
“I have nothing against Patti. I just don’t want people to paint me as the devil. This is not personal at all. Do we want our district to move forward? Do we want the best for our district. Are we role models for our children who watch our behavior and who watch us? Do we have integrity? All of that is important to me.
“Transparency is very important for me because I work for the people. I am not working on this because I want to be on the City Council.
“I am here because I have been in education since 1972, and I love what I do. I love what I do. The only thing I want to do is get the best for Culver City,” Ms. Siever said.
