A sizzling email last Friday from freshman School Board member Karlo Silbiger to School District Supt. Dr. Myrna Rivera Cote threatened to swell into a political thunderstorm before they appeared to ride off together into the gloaming yesterday afternoon.
Whether the peace is a cold or authentic one will be played out in the coming days. The first test will be tonight’s regularly scheduled 7 o’clock School Board meeting.
How easy will it be for them to look past Mr. Silbiger’s unremitting rebuke, “You purposely ignored my clear instruction twice”?
Dr. Cote’s relatively restrained response was, “I’m not attempting to frustrate or anger you.” She also indicated he had exceeded the boundaries of his authority.
District sources, not all of whom were in agreement, told the newspaper Mr. Silbiger’s “understandable” lack of familiarity with the Board’s communication channels and policies probably was the culprit.
“I think it is a matter of everyone getting a grasp on how being a School Board member works,” said Board Vice President Scott Zeidman.
In his email, Mr. Silbiger, who joined the Board last month, appeared to blame Dr. Cote, the Board’s lone employee, for causing “two huge problems” with tonight’s agenda. Missing were two of the activist Mr. Silbiger’s stoking-hot causes:
• Shifting meetings from the District headquarters to City Hall to accommodate television coverage, and
• Agendizing an elaborate discussion of a proposed cell phone tower in south Culver City.
Mr. Silbiger’s 370-word email was marked as sent at the dinner hour on Friday. Dr. Cote wasted little time responding. Her 430-word email was clocked two hours later. After correcting some of his assertions, she suggested the subject of Board-Superintendent protocol be aired more publicly, before all five members, in the “very near future.”
Mr. Silbiger countered by calling for a private meeting at 4:45 yesterday in the Superintendent’s office. They huddled for 15 minutes of presumed candor.
Calling the meeting “extremely productive,” Mr. Silbiger told the newspaper later that “both Dr. Cote and I found ways we could better communicate with each other.
“We developed systems to make sure that School Board meeting agendas meet the needs of the Board and community.
“Quite honestly, this is a minor issue of internal communication and procedures. Luckily, both of us want to work together, not find divisions.
“In fact, when we were done with that issue, we then moved on to talking about the budget process and how we could make it more inclusive and open to the public so as to further the systems of better communication within the District to the community overall.
“As far as I'm concerned, the issue is solved.”
Dr. Cote, a veteran of 11 years in a superintendent’s chair, was not available for comment. But a person who knows her said she found the meeting “worthwhile.”
It will be noted that in their separate emails, Mr. Silbiger opened casually and Dr. Cote more formally.
Mr. Silbiger wrote:
Myrna,
I was very disappointed to receive the agenda this evening and find 2 huge problems.
First, I asked in writing and then in person to act on sending a letter to the city council regarding the cell tower. You put it on the agenda as a discussion item. That was not what I asked for. However, I was alright with it as long as the action item ended up on this weeks agenda. I made it very clear per board policy that I wanted it on the agenda. I received no further communication from you regarding this issue. It required no work on your part, but you purposely ignored my clear instruction twice. This is very disappointing.
Second, I asked on December 15th that you have discussions with the City Manager and bring back a plan to move our meetings to city hall. Even though I did not need the support of my colleagues to get something agendized, I received it from at least 2 other members. I originally asked that it be placed on January 12th agenda, but Steve asked and I concurred that we provide you with more time given the holiday season and everyone's busy schedule. At the January 12th meeting, I again asked how it was going and you said that this item would be scheduled for the next meeting. Imagine my surprise when I found a 1 sentence staff report with no information about your meetings with Mr. Scott or the plan that was requested. I was even more disappointed when I found out that Mr. Scott sent you a letter offering support in moving the meeting location to city hall (a document that was not included in our packet) and is still waiting for a timely response.
This is becoming very difficult for me. I work full time and am unable to keep a close watch on the agenda. When a board member follows board policy and asks for something to be agendized and/or the board instructs staff to follow through with a task, it must be done without reminders, prodding, or frustration.
These are 2 major problems. Please let me know how you plan on rectifying them as soon as possible.
Karlo Silbiger
From her BlackBerry, Dr. Cote wrote back:
Mr. Silbiger,
In Steve Gourley's absence, I reviewed the Agenda before it was printed with Scott Zeidman, Vice President of the Board. He concurred with the Agenda as it is written. I do not recall the majority of the Board asking that the cell tower be agendized for action following the discussion at the last meeting.
With regard to moving the meetings to City Hall, Mrs. Siever also wants to discuss moving the meetings to school sites. This Agenda gives the entire Board the opportunity to discuss both options. With regards to a letter that you state I received from Mr. Scott, I have not received a letter from him regarding use of the Council Chambers or anything else. In fact I spoke with him today regarding an issue Mr. Gourley requested in December that has not yet been resolved and he did not mention this request at all.
At the direction of the majority of the Board I have agendized certain items for discussion, not for action. I will take my direction as I always have, from the Board President and/or the Board majority. It was not clear to me that you expected a plan to be developed by myself and Mr. Scott. If I misunderstood this I do apologize. On the other hand, I do not have a plan in place to move the meetings to school sites either. If the Board majority asks that I develop a plan or two plans I most certainly will do that.
The practice has been that clear direction for action items comes from the Board President and/or the majority of the Board. Individual requests are handled in the Friday Memo when time allows. In addition, I summarize all requests from Board meetings in a memo that I send to Board members the Friday after a Board meeting. In the memo I always ask that Board members contact me if I have missed anything. I was not contacted.
You can see that I have copied the other Board members with my response as your concerns as stated represent a completely different way of operating as the Superintendent of this school district. I am following the protocols and practices that have been satisfactory for the past three years.
I am not attempting to frustrate or anger you. This is obviously a much bigger issue than two meeting agendas. It would be preferable to review and discuss Board protocols/requests to the Superintendent (not staff) with the entire Board at some time in the very near future.
Myrna Rivera Cote, Ed.D.
