The temperature in Los Angeles and the Westside is not the only thing that has steadily risen over the last several weeks.
The Nov. 3 Culver City Unified School District Board of Education campaign is provoking a series of reactions from groups that appear to have an ideological divide, with the supporters of two contenders blasting the endorsements from organizations that do not back their preferred candidate.
The latest round of criticism was launched on Sept. 29 when the newly reactivated Culver City Coalition, they describe themselves as “progressives organizing for change,” decided to endorse candidate Kelly Kent. The group sent out campaign questionnaires to Kent and her competitors, Ann Burke and Scott McVarish, for the two board seats. After McVarish and Burke did not respond to the questions, the coalition decided to endorse Kent.
Burke and McVarish are supported by United Parents of Culver City, which bills itself as a parent group, but has a political action committee to elect its candidates to the school board. The Culver City Coalition does not list their members or any of the organization’s hierarchy.
The organization was founded by former CCUSD school board member Karlo Silbiger, but now its primary leaders are Rebecca Rona-Tuttle and Claudia Vizcarra. Members of the coalition and the parents group, as well as their supporters, have often found themselves on opposite ends of the spectrum during municipal elections.
CCUSD board member Laura Chardiet is the campaign manager for both United Parents contenders. She said candidates often must prioritize which organizations they choose to respond to during a very short election cycle. “You receive a lot of requests to answer surveys and questionnaires during a campaign. Because [the Culver City Coalition] seemed like a relatively new organization, they decided not to respond to the questionnaire,” explained Chardiet, who acknowledged that Burke and McVarish received the questions.
Paul Ehrlich, a resident of Sunkist Park, defended the decision by McVarish and Burke not to respond to an organization that he described as a “sham,” a fake” and “bogus endorsement” on a local blog.
“Anne and Scott should be applauded for not opening their obvious spam email from this so-called deceptive ‘coalition,” he wrote.
Dismissing organizations that do not support one’s candidate is not a rarity in small cities such as Culver City, said Santa Monica-based political consultant Mark Galanty. “Some people can take things very personal and after all, politics is very personal,” said Galanty, who helped run both of CCUSD Board member Katherine Paspalis.
CCUSD Board President Nancy Goldberg said if transparency isn’t practiced from the outset, that candidate is suspect. I see this election as very strange in general. All the candidates are endorsed by present board members .and support is a good thing. But when an entire board is ‘sewn up’ by one organization, what happens to the voiceless who have no candidate?” Goldberg asked. “Much like the federal congress needs to represent all constituents, the UPCC needs to represent ALL of Culver’s students.”
Municipal leaders have also jumped onto the endorsement criticism bandwagon. Councilman Jim Clarke said he took issue with the Democratic Club endorsement because Kent had registered as a Democrat two weeks before the endorsement meeting and joined the club before she was a Democrat. “[That] should have been a concern for the club, but [it] does not diminish the fact she is a qualified candidate,” said Clarke, who earned the organization’s endorsement during his two city council campaigns.
Clarke also clarified a comment that he made on a local blog days after the Democratic Club endorsement where he used the word “stupid” to describe the endorsement process. “I may have said ‘stupid’ but what I was referring to was why the club allowed itself to be used this way and to only endorse one candidate when all three were qualified,” he explained.
Certain candidates might feel that a particular group might not give them a fair hearing and therefore they take the position they would not have received its endorsement anyway. “There are those that often take the sour grapes route and feel that ‘the fix is in’ in local elections, and they and their supporters can take it very personally,” he said.
Chardiet, who is not seeking reelection, acknowledged that there are other reasons why the backing of some organizations might be a higher priority for some candidates.
“Often you have to choose the groups that are near and dear to your heart. And some endorsements do come with a campaign contribution attached,” Chardiet said, meaning that certain organizations agree to contribute financially to the campaigns of those they endorse. “It might sound crass, but in elections cash is king.”
Clarke said he is also concerned about what he was told happened at the United Parents endorsement meeting.
“ I don’t know if it was billed as an endorsement meeting, but it is my understanding that about six people showed up and the president [UPCC President Jeannine Wisnosky Stehlin] brought along several dozen proxy votes to support their two candidates. I find this disturbing as well,” Clarke said. “Reminds me of how corporations solicit proxy votes from shareholders so board members can out vote those who attend… Not very democratic.”
Wisnosky Stehlin could not be reached for comment.
Galanty said it’s not clear in small town races if picking and choosing which groups a candidate chooses to respond to can carry adverse consequences. “In cities like Culver City, there is a small percentage of voters who are very active and very engaged, but lots of people don’t know how to vote for so they rely on their friends and on endorsements,” he said. “Endorsements can be very valuable at this level.”
Gary Walker contributed to this story.
