By Madeline Ehrlich
Re “Paspalis Can Call a Board Meeting to Talk, Vote on the Bond”
After reading the entries in yesterday’s edition, I feel compelled to write.
On July 1, a special School Board meeting was called and convened at 6 p.m. at the District Offices. All five members of the Board were present. The purpose was to hear from the consultants, the public and then to discuss the proposed bond issue.
The consultants who have been hired were reporting their findings on a 400-likely voters survey conducted in June.
After members of the audience were given an opportunity to speak on the subject, the members of the School Board were called upon to give their input.
All Board members have the right to voice their opinions.
Prof. Patricia Siever spoke first. She supports a school bond, but felt that she needed more information. Thus, placing it on the November ballot would not be appropriate. The second Board member to speak was Nancy Goldberg. She, too, communicated that she is in favor of a bond but believed that more community input and more information was needed before placing it on the ballot.
The third person called upon was Karlo Silbiger. He spoke about the need for more preparation. He alluded to the Measure T bond that was successfully passed in the late 1990s.
Following him were Board member Laura Chardiet and Board President Kathy Paspalis. Both said that they favored putting the bond measure to a vote in November. No formal vote was taken. No further discussion ensued.
For this newspaper to say that “Once Prof. Pat Siever and Nancy Goldberg chimed in with me, too’s,” after Karlo spoke, is absolutely false.
To insinuate that Mr. Silbiger somehow is solely responsible for the postponement of the possible placement of the bond issue this November is not correct.
For this particular item to be placed on the ballot in November, the School Board would have to reconvene and take a vote. At least four out of the five Board members must vote in favor of putting the bond measure on the ballot.
The Board’s action would have to be completed and filed with the County of Los Angeles by Aug.9.
A tape of the Board meeting is available at the School District office.
Ms. Ehrlich, a former member of the School Board, may be contacted at PMSHA@aol.com
Ari Noonan responds: Ms. Ehrlich is partially correct. The story implies that Mr. Silbiger spoke first, his two colleagues later. However, in light of Mr. Silbiger’s comprehensive prepared statement against placing the bond measure on the November ballot, the order of comments by Board members was irrelevant. My point was, Mr. Silbiger’s argument was singularly persuasive, the pivotal act of the evening, the main reason the bond, at this moment, is not scheduled to go in November.
