Second of two parts
[Editor’s Note: In separate sections below, the author responds to three different incidents.]
As I said earlier, my campaign for the School Board was all about restoring the Natatorium. I personally delivered more than 8,000 fliers, entitled “Common Sense,” going door to door to individual households in Culver City.
I personally collected close to 2,000 signatures supporting the “fixing of our school pool” campaign.
We posed the question, “Does it make sense to spend $10.7 million to demolish the school pool and replace it with a multi-purpose room that would accommodate 80 students when it would only cost $3 million to fix the pool that would serve 6,500 students?”
The overwhelming community response was almost unanimous. They would, of course, support fixing the school pool. I have even put that question before School Board members. They agree with the logic. However, the political commitment is not yet there.
That is something that I am trying to encourage.
There is going to be a broad survey polling the support for an upcoming school bond. Many questions will be on the survey. It is only fair that the common sense issue of fixing the pool be included in the survey. What is wrong with that? Isn't that what a survey is about?
We need to fix our bathrooms, air filtration systems, the Robert Frost Auditorium and other school sites as well as the Natatorium swimming pool. That should be part of the survey.
George Laase attempted to twist the facts and say that I'm trying to manipulate the bond survey. Again he gets it all wrong. I want to make the survey transparent, inclusive of the master facilities’ needs which includes the Natatorium.
What is Mr.Laase’s problem? I'm not running for office again. I want to do something productive for our students. Why does he hold such a negative viewpoint?
All I can ask him is, “Do you think that it makes common sense to spend $10.7 million to demolish the Culver City school pool and replace it with a multi-purpose room that would accommodate 80 students vs. fixing the school pool for $3 million and giving 6,500 students use of the pool?”
I put it to the public. If Mr. Laase can't agree that it would be better to fix the pool, then I only can conclude that common sense is lacking.
In regards to Gary Abrams’s essay yesterday,
I confess. I must give credit where it is due. It was Gary Abrams’s idea to restore the Natatorium in the 2009 School Board election. I have been trying to keep hope alive since then.
Mr. Abrams wrote an excellent response to George Laase’s critique of me and the Natatorium with detailed links to many articles showing widespread support for fixing the Natatorium, which I will now refer to as our Aquatics Center.
Re “Laying the Groundwork for Bond Campaign”
On Wednesday afternoon, the School District had a meeting with hired District consultants for the upcoming general obligation bond measure campaign.
George Laase wrote that community members and stakeholders were invited to the meeting. I assume he was invited because he wrote the article.
Even though I asked to come to the meeting, Supt. David LaRose said I could not. I was being snubbed.
I am not making any personal attack against Mr. Laase. I think he should have been invited to the meeting. It's just that I think I had just as much right as he did to attend, if not more. I consider myself a stakeholder in the community because I am an advocate for the Culver City Aquatic Center. I have collected more that 2,000 signatures advocating the fixing of our school pool. I am a former candidate for the School Board and know quite a lot about the District by attending many Board meetings and helping out with Measure EE in the past.
I have voiced my support for a general obligation bond from Day One. All I ask is that the option of “fixing our school pool” be included in the Master Facilities Plan instead of just having one option, to demolish the pool and put up a $10.7 million multi-purpose room for 80 students.
I thought the purpose of having a meeting with stakeholders was to hear from all sides. Evidently this did not happen. So much for transparency in the School District.
Thank goodness we have a free press that can shine the spotlight on the sham of District “transparency.”
Mr. Zirgulis may be contacted at zirgulisr@yahoo.com
