Re “She Calls Silbiger ‘Just Another Politician’”
I enjoyed reading Laura Stuart’s letter on Wednesday regarding School Board member Karlo Silbiger the politician. That essay got me to thinking, “Is it possible that Mr. Silbiger is more concerned with his re-election bid than he is with telling the truth?”
Mr. Silbiger said in his 1,854-word speech that the School District had not “collected the requisite information to date that would allow it to make an informed decision” about the bond. Mr. Silbiger commented that he researched things and that this proposed bond measure felt “rushed” compared to the previously successful Measure T bond, and that the District had not received enough stakeholder input.
This got me to wondering: Were things rushed? Or was this yet another “Silbiger stall,” a practice made infamous by Karlo Silbiger’s father, and perfected by Karlo the past few years.
I wanted to focus on the “rushed” statement. I put together a timeline for Measure T (taken entirely from Mr. Silbiger’s statement). In his statement, Mr. Silbiger favorably compares the timeline for Measure T to the “rushed” timeline for the current bond proposal.
Measure T:
• Aug. 10, 1995, the process began, a full 15 months prior to the election date, when the superintendent first mentioned at a School Board meeting that staff was beginning work to put a bond measure on the ballot.
• Nov. 21, 1995, nearly a year before the election, a survey firm was selected.
• Dec. 5, 1995, 11 months before the election, the superintendent sent a draft of poll questions to the Board, asking their suggested changes in anticipation of a Dec. 11, survey, also conducted 11 months before the election.
• December 1995, a bond advisor and bond counsel were selected, nearly 11 months before the election.
• Jan. 9, 1996, survey results were brought to the Board, 10 months before the election, recommending a $40 million bond to be placed on the ballot in November.
Mr. Silbiger says that this year, the Board is late in getting things done, and it is not appropriate to place the bond issue before the voters.
Here are the two relevant happenings for the currently proposed November bond election:
• March 2013, 8 months before the proposed November election, Mr. Silbiger and the other members of the CCUSD School Board approve sending a Request for Proposal (RFP) to potential bond consultants seeking a company to hire to “consultant services to the District for a possible November 2013 … bond election” http://www.ccusd.org/Business/RFP_ElectionConsultant_031113.pdf
• May 14, 2013, less than 6 months prior to the proposed November election, Mr. Silbiger and the other members of the School Board unanimously vote to direct the superintendent to sign an agreement with the Gafford Group, the bond consulting firm chosen by the district to consult for proposed bond for the November 2013 election. Reportedly, the Gafford Group is being paid in more than $25,000 for their consultation.
If you can answer two questions, you are smarter than I am.
• “Why did Mr. Silbiger and the remainder of the board unanimously vote on May 14, to retain and pay the Gafford Group if, by that time, by Mr. Silbiger’s own words, he realized the process would be rushed, and there wasn’t ample time for the necessary stakeholder input?”
• “Why did Mr. Silbiger waste more than $25,000 on School District funds on a consultant when it already was too late for the consultant to begin work on the bond issue?”
Ms. Richards may be contacted at marialuperichards@yahoo.com
