Karlo Silbiger and Nancy Goldberg, what exactly were you thinking? Better yet, were you thinking?
There has been some question about how the newly constituted School Board will act. Under the leadership of Karlo Silbiger, “rogue” might be the best adjective.
Near the end of a long meeting last night, Board Vice President Kathy Paspalis dropped a bombshell. Mr. Silbiger and newly elected Board member Nancy Goldberg had a private meeting with an individual who is suing the Culver City Unified School District.
The District’s lawyers were not invited to the Silbiger/Goldberg private meeting. The other members of the Board were not invited to the Silbiger/Goldberg private meeting. Members of the general public were not invited to the Silbiger/Goldberg private meeting.
While such a meeting is not illegal, it is downright stupid. In the day and age of transparency, a term coined by Mr. Silbiger more often than most people change their underwear, a secret meeting with a person suing the District flies in the face of logic, even Silbiger-logic.
This meeting puts the District in a bad position. The district’s lawyers don’t know what happened at the meeting. They don’t know what was said. The other three Board members don’t know what happened at the meeting, or what was said.
The other Board members did not have the chance to hear the information directly from the person, didn’t have the chance to view the person’s body language, listen to the inflection in his/her voice, or even make a determination of whether the person was being truthful.
Mr. Silbiger and Ms. Goldberg constitute two of the three votes needed to approve any action on this person’s lawsuit, including any settlement. How can the Board make an informed decision as a whole when two of the members have information not shared with the others? While this is not a City of Bell situation, at least not yet, one has to wonder what else Mr. Silbiger and Ms. Goldberg have done, and what else they are hiding.
Despite having the opportunity to come clean, Ms. Goldberg failed to mention the meeting.
After being called on this private meeting, Mr. Silbiger admitted to having met. He was indignant, though, and adamant that he had the right to meet with anyone, whether or not the person was suing the district. Defensive, Mr. Silbiger accused an unnamed Board member of breaching the Brown Act for discussing some of the potential issues of the secret meeting during a “closed” session.
Mr. Silbiger’s reaction to being exposed is troubling. How much longer can the District afford to keep Mr. Silbiger on the Board? Can anyone spell r-e-c-a-l-l?
Mr. Williams may be contacted at ThePatWilliams@mail.com
