At the dinner hour last evening, with three eager candidates for the School Board critically monitoring every move and utterance, the soon-to-be-broken-up School Board surprisingly rescinded a little-noticed decision made a month earlier.
By a 3 to 1 margin, the shorthanded Board sought to extinguish yet another growing controversy over the most volatile subject to hit the School District in years, the proposed transfer of hundreds of Ladera Heights students into Culver City.
More Smoke Than Fire?
The whole late-flaring flap sparked plenty of drama and a loud clap of thunder. But that was all.
For Culver City parents who may have missed the incident or the fiery meeting, there is good news. No fumes from this rather bizarre two-step affair will trail to Sacramento, where the final verdict rests.
When the fallout from the latest Ladera flareup was assessed, there appeared to be little fire or actual collateral damage. Neither the first vote nor last night’s vote will have any effect on the state’s long-awaited ruling, which is due next Wednesday, Nov. 7.
Duck, and Duck Again
It probably was a good thing that what was designated a “special” meeting last night lasted barely 45 minutes.
The four Board members present spent the entire time ducking barrages of withering criticism from the tiny audience. The three School Board candidates — Mike Eskridge, Alan Elmont and Scott Zeidman —along with several angry parents leveled numerous charges against the Board, not least that the present meeting deliberately was shaded from full public view.
Mostly, they fired the same bullets.
They complained virulently that the 6:15 meeting, while technically legal, was called at a family-awkward hour, with scant public notice when the School Board knew it was the hottest subject in town that many parents would want to comment on.
Genesis of the Story
Two and a half years after Ladera Heights families petitioned the County Board of Education to transfer hundreds of its students from the Inglewood district into Culver City, here is how the latest dispute started.
It was late at night, about 11 o’clock, in the School Board meeting of Sept. 25, when a momentous decision was reached with only three Board members present and the Board Room itself nearly deserted.
Since the state’s final decision on the Ladera transfer was and is still pending, President Marla Wolkowitz, Dr. Dana Russell and Stew Bubar agreed to send a letter to Sacramento declaring Culver City “neutral” on the transfer. In fact, two years ago the Board voted “no.”
Question About the Brown Act
The Board may have violated the Brown Act by calling for the vote when only 60 percent of members were present. School District lawyers advised them to tack the re-visited item onto last night’s agenda, which originally was to include only approval of a scheduled raise for first-year Supt. Dr. Myrna Rivera Cote.
Under those unusual circumstances, and with Mr. Zeidman, Mr. Elmont and Mr. Eskridge breathing down their necks, the Board may have felt squeezed.
Why Bring up Ladera?
The criticism from the audience was unrelenting. Board members were lectured for involving themselves at all in the messy situation since the Ladera verdict never has been Culver City’s call, and because they already voted two years ago.
But, said parents and Board candidates, if they just could not resist bringing up the transfer, they should have taken two other steps:
They should have had the decency to wait until after next Tuesday’s election, so that the two new Board members would have a voice, and to schedule such a session at either the Robert Frost Auditorium or Lin Howe School, both far roomier than the cramped Board Room.
Changing Their Minds
In the re-vote, Ms. Wolkowitz and Dr. Russell both reversed themselves. They joined Dr. Jessica Beagles-Roos, who was not present on the now infamous night of Sept. 25 in overturning the vote.
Mr. Bubar stood alone in remaining loyal to his first vote.
After long years of service, Ms. Wolkowitz and Mr. Bubar will be surrendering their chairs after the election.
Why She Switched
The September vote appeared to be at least an unorthodox action, belatedly altering a decision already in the record books. Ms. Wolkowitz said she changed her vote last night to conform with two years ago because she did not realize last month that she had voted “no” the first time.
The September decision was not publicly reported at the time. It took several weeks for momentum to build, and then warm into rage and fury.