Re “A Closer Look at the Bond Team – A Golden Chance Blown”
I was not at the July 1 School Board meeting.
Rather, I reviewed the tapes last Friday.
This is in rebuttal to Jamie Wallace’s essay yesterday in this newspaper. Ms. Wallace contends a bond should be placed on the November ballot because the School District has a long and serious need for repairs and upgrades.
She dismisses, or ignores, the majority opinion of the School Board that a) there is not yet enough information for action, b) the vast majority of the voters, i.e. the citizens who have no children, have not been informed on the bond concerns, and c) the consultants made it clear that if it was placed on the November ballot, major education of the electorate is necessary for success.
i. Although there have been casual references by the School Board to the possibility of a bond for several months, a formal discussion only has taken place in the last few weeks. Typically, this discussion for the public takes at least a year to develop.
ii. Potential voters in the survey became more inclined to vote in favor of the bond after they were informed of the need for its passage. To date, the public generally is not so informed—especially senior citizens on fixed incomes.
iii. Any marketing of the bond passage is very difficult in July, August and part of September. Based on past Culver City initiatives, early November is too short a time span.
iv. The actual size of the bond (length, cost, interest rate, number of bond issuances) has never been discussed by the School Board.
v. The actual capital improvement projects and priorities never have been discussed by the Board.
vi. The effect of the existing long-term bond Measure T, the parcel tax Measure EE (and its possible renewal), never has been discussed. Also, the series of tax increases the public has been asked to approve: Hotel tax, sales tax increase.
vii. There is an elephant in the room: The massive new cost of the sewage treatment mitigation that Culver City taxpayers will be asked to bear.
viii. Ms. Wallace refers to “the” Campaign Committee. It simply does not exist. No campaign money, no volunteers, no brochures, no lawn signs, no theme, no marketing effort whatsoever.
ix. I would agree with Ms. Wallace that informed parents and PTA members are in favor of a bond to be placed on November’s ballot. However, they are the minority of voters . The majority of the voters are senior citizens, currently uninformed as a whole.
x. The consultant’s track record of 95 percent success is great. Each bond passage is unique to a different time and place. Caution is always advised.
Ms. Wallace believes the ends (capital improvements) justifies the means (ballot).
The majority of the School Board believes that in order for the bond to succeed, not just a minority group of parents must be educated and informed, but the electorate must be properly advised. If the Board is considering costs to our Culver City taxpayers of nearly a quarter-billion dollars, rushing is not a good option.
Mr. Ehrlich may be contacted at PMSHA@aol.com
