Whether the proposal to have a capital improvements bond on the November ballot comes to fruition or not, the topic that has generated a storm of controversy is likely to be one of the headline issues in the Culver City Unified School District Board of Education race.
A proposed facilities bond measure is in jeopardy for November, as three board members have indicated that they would rather gather more information before asking residents to tax themselves again and have suggested that next June or November 2014 would be an appropriate time to bring a proposal before the voters.
The deadline to have a ballot initiative for November is Aug. 9.
Board President Katherine Paspalis and board member Karlo Silbiger have tossed their respective hats in the ring as they seek to their second term in office.
Astrophysicist Steven Levin and substitute teacher Robert Zigulis are contenders who have also announced that they will be in the hunt for a seat on the school board in November.
Incumbent board vice president Patricia Siever is undecided on whether she will seek a second term.
Jewett Walker, Jr., a Culver City political strategist, says both camps- those who are for a November ballot measure and those who prefer to wait until next year- have potential advantages and disadvantages if they decided to campaign on the bond proposal.
Walker, who has run several statewide bond measures, said typically candidates seek to distance themselves from ventures that are not successful. “Whenever you have a controversial ballot measure, you try to separate it from your election if there is a chance that it won’t go well,” the political strategist explained.
Paspalis has been one of the most outspoken proponents of having the ballot initiative on election day, as has board member Laura Chardiet. Silbiger, Siever and Nancy Goldberg have also expressed support for a school bond but felt a July 1 bond proposal survey did not have sufficient information on the district’s facilities priorities, among other things.
Walker said those who support a November bond vote could attempt to gather support from like-minded voters who are more likely to be parents with children who attend Culver City schools, while those who have advocated for a longer timetable and more research before asking homeowners to tax themselves may be seen as more fiscally prudent to older voters and residents who feel they have been taxed too much. “I think both sides have a good argument,” he said. “It depends on how that argument is made and how it is sold to the voters.”
Levin, the brother of former Culver City councilwoman Sandra Levin, thinks the proposed bond measure will be something that the electorate will want to hear about throughout the campaign. “I do think that the school bond proposal is seen as an important topic by many voters today,” he said.
One of the organizations that is supporting Levin, United Parents of Culver City, has organized a petition drive to convince the school board to move forward with the capital improvements measure.
“If, as now seems very unlikely, the bond is on the November ballot, I will work hard to support it,” pledged Levin, who has signed the petition.
“I believe the students and community will be better served if we are able to vote on the bond in November. However, if Aug. 9 passes and the school board has not voted to put the bond on the ballot, then I will focus on other issues in this election and I will work to put the bond on the ballot in a future election.”
Zirgulis also backs the call for a bond initiative in November.
CCUSD Superintendent David LaRose released a letter to the public recently where he sought to clarify the current bond situation as well as other matters. In his letter, LaRose noted that incorrect information had been published in recent weeks about the bond proposal, with some claiming falsely that the campaign by proponents of having a ballot initiative in November had been abandoned.
“Due to the volume of inquiries, concerns and a bit of misinformation, the following is designed to bring clarity to our current status and shift our community-wide focus on moving forward. I am hopeful that this message instills confidence and offers assurances that our commitment to addressing our capital needs remains our top priority,” he wrote.
“The bond is not ‘dead.’ The full board has never wavered in their recognition that our capital needs are significant. The uncertainty and requests for additional information should not to be perceived as a lack of intent to pursue a future ballot measure.
“I am working with the full support of the board to find a time to host a work study session prior to our Aug. 27 board meeting to specifically address our capital needs, ballot measure options and shared commitments for next steps,” LaRose continued.
Silbiger and Siever have stated that they would not likely be available to meeting until after Aug. 9 and perhaps not until the Aug. 27 meeting.
Walker while parent groups have been vocal in their support for a school bond on the November ballot, a silent majority may exist among senior homeowners. “The idea that some candidates don’t want to saddle older voters with additional taxes without careful examination of all the facts can be an appealing argument,” he said. “They could argue that you can’t allow the county’s calendar to effect good decisions.”
Culver City has passed a parcel tax, Measure EE, a hotel bed tax and a sales tax measure within the last four years.
Pull quote: I think both sides have a good argument. It depends on how that argument is made and how it is sold to the voters.”
Jewwtt Walker
