Re “Board Election Proved Union Support Is Crucial”
David Mielke, the President of the Teachers Union, has a short memory and a lot of explaining to do.
If Hilary Corning is correct, and there is no reason to doubt her, then did the Teachers Union vote to support one candidate or did they vote to support two?
Why is it that the California Teachers Assn. Political Action Committee gave money to the campaign of Nancy Goldberg, but not to Laura Chardiet?
Was this at Mr. Mielke’s request?
Was this at the Culver City Federation of Teachers’ request by vote of the members?
Was this the teachers’ request by vote of the executive committee?
Or did the California Teachers Association Political Action Committee just decide, on their own, to support one of the two candidates endorsed by the local union?
As they say, inquiring minds want to know.
On the topic of money, does Mr. Mielke really think that the Teachers Union endorsement won the election for his two candidates?
Mr. Mielke must have a very short memory.
Just two years ago, his union endorsed Gary Abrams. Mr. Abrams received 499 votes, which might be a good number had there not been 10,937 total votes cast. Mr. Abrams finished sixth, even though there were only five candidates running.
Really.
Seems like the union’s endorsement wasn’t terribly effective back then.
Local elections are won and lost generally by three things. Money, money and money.
Just look at the total money spent in this election. Here is how the expenditures ranked:
1. Goldberg
2. Chardiet
3. Zeidman
4. Zirgulis
5. Abrams
Here are the final results of the voting:
1. Goldberg
2. Chardiet
3. Zeidman
4. Zirgulis
5. Abrams
Any other questions?
Ms. Burton may be contacted at BrianneBurton@gmx.com
