The dominant question in Culver City for the next two weeks is:

Will Interim Supt. Patti Jaffe be retained as the Permanent Super of the School District when the School Board meets on Tuesday, Feb. 8?

This is not a don’t-ask, don’t-tell matter.

Tell me. Please. I don’t know.

Ever since Kathy Paspalis joined Board President Scott Zeidman and his faithful companion Steve Gourley to “consider” amending the dynamite No Permanent Hire clause in Ms. Jaffe’s Interim Super contract two nights ago, I have wondered the obvious:

Will those three stick together next time and support Ms. Jaffe for Super?

Mr. Zeidman and Mr. Gourley are due to line up in her corner. But is there a third vote?

We polled the members not named Gourley or Zeidman. Here is what they said:

Ms. Paspalis — On why she joined the vote:

“I am not really supposed to discuss personnel matters. All we did was agree to discuss whether we are going to open up her contract or not. We didn’t even open up the contract.

“I am all for discussion. This is a Closed Session topic. I don’t have a problem with opening it for discussion and letting the public know that this is something we will be discussing in private. One Board member said, ‘We are not able to do this.’

“I want the most qualified person. We have interviewed, I have to say, some very qualified people.

“I don’t know who we are going to end up going with. But I feel confident we will pick the most qualified person. If it is Ms. Jaffe, then it happens to be Ms. Jaffe. If it is not, then it is not.”

Question: Did your action at Tuesday’s meeting indicate you are supportive of her?

“That is something I am absolutely not going to comment on.”

Question: Would you anticipate a vote on her status at the next meeting?

“I anticipate we will discuss whether or not to open up her contract at the next meeting. Beyond that, I have no idea.”

Karlo Silbiger — “My only comment: We have an obligation as a Board to follow our own regulations. That is what was communicated to candidates for this position and that is the information based on which we all made our decisions. I have confidence that my Board colleagues will join me in making the best decision for the District in a fair manner for all parties.”

Patricia Siever — “In answer to your enquiry about my thoughts: the Board's discussion regarding amending our Interim Superintendent’s contract at this late date:

“As a very involved and dedicated CCUSD Board member, I was quite surprised at the actions taken at last Tuesday's Board meeting. I thought that it was curious seeing that we are in the final stages of the process of selecting a Superintendent.

“We just finished our second interviews with three of the candidates last week, on Thursday, Jan. 20, and were to meet again, discuss and take some kind of action. We have not completed the agreed- upon process.

“Professionally, it is our obligation to complete the process with integrity — those finalists, who have been interviewed twice, need to know what happens from here on. They should not be kept in a “twilight zone” for over two or three weeks.

“It was good to see the active and wonderful audience filling the Board room last Tuesday night. The majority of the audience was supporters of our interim superintendent. Those who spoke before the Board did effectively relay their strong feelings and warm support of our current interim superintendent.

“I think it was interesting when a couple of our Board members asked the members of the audience to raise their hands (as one Board member said …” raise both hands…”) if they approved of our interim superintendent. Hands were everywhere in approval. It appears that, coincidentally, there was a copy of our superintendent's contract at this meeting and the Chair proceeded to read the contract and asked that we move to discuss amending it at our next Board meeting, in two weeks… the motion passed with a 3 to 2 vote.

“If, the contract is amended our acting superintendent can, indeed, become eligible to fill the permanent position.

“Fundamentally, I think and live by a principle that all people should be treated honestly, and with respect and dignity. If we had proceeded with the final part of the process (as had been agreed upon), that would have determined our future actions.

“But, at this point, little has been said about continuing with a process that we, as a Board, approved and started over six months ago. If Board members had wanted to stop the process, we could have voted on that months earlier and had a smooth transition, which would have saved our employees' concerns and saved the taxpayers both money and our time.

“If I were one of the final candidates, without being apprised of the outcome of the interviews, being made to wait for two or three weeks, and if I looked at Tuesday's proceedings and Board actions on TV (which one of the finalists told us that she does) I just might think twice about my chances in this District and withdraw my name from the process.

“To our parents and citizens:

“You've told me over and over that you respect my integrity, intelligence, care for the students and diplomacy. I want to thank you for your continued support. I will continue to be open, above board, transparent and committed to our children/youth (who learn much from example).”

Fellow tea leaves readers: Now what do you think?