In an effort to afford reluctant board members additional time to learn more details regarding a survey about a potential capital improvements school bond, Culver City Unified School District Board of Education President Katherine Paspalis is planning to call a special meeting sometime before Aug. 9.
Paspalis said she has spoken with CCUSD Superintendent David LaRose regarding the special meeting, but it might be for naught if at least two members cannot attend.
Karlo Silbiger has not indicated that he would be willing to attend any meetings or public hearings before the next scheduled board meeting, which is set for Aug. 29.
Board Vice President Patricia Siever has also indicated that she would not be available to attend any such meeting.
“I have certain family obligation over the next few weeks,” Siever told the News. “And I don’t really see the need for a special meeting.”
The trio of Siever, Silbiger, and Nancy Goldberg were unconvinced by a presentation by consultant Ann Noch of a survey July that indicated that almost two thirds of the 400 residents polled would likely vote for a school bond, an initiative that is supported by Papalis and board member Laura Chardiet.
Goldberg, Siever and Silbiger also support a capital improvement bond to help repair the district’s facilities, but they said the survey lacked specificity in some areas and did not prioritize the needs of the school district’s infrastructure.
“We have only had one public meeting/workshop to discuss what a bond is and why we are considering one and to answer community questions. That meeting felt rushed because it was scheduled for less than a two-hour period,” Silbiger said.
“The board has not had any time to speak with each other about our thoughts on a bond initiative until , just over a month before a bond initiative will have to be finalized and sent to the county,” Silbiger continued.
“No educational information has been created to distribute to the community regarding this issue and why it is important.”
Paspalis said residents would support the bond proposal and those who don’t would also have an opportunity to weigh in at a special workshop, but it would be primarily a chance for the other board members to get answers to any lingering questions that they have.
“My focus is really about providing them with an opportunity to have more information given to them,” she said.
“I’m more concerned about getting information to those who said they didn’t get it (July 1).”
The bond proposal has become a flashpoint of emotions among board members and the public. The Aug. 9 date is the last day that an initiative can be placed on the November ballot, the same month that Culver City will hold its elections for school board positions.
Paspalis said she understands what she calls “the level of upset” that has followed the July 1 decision whether residents are for the bond initiative in November or next year.
“I’m not really surprised at the (public) outcry,” she acknowledged.
“My bottom line is fixing the facilities for our students and faculty.”
Papaslis said Silbiger has indicated to the board that he does not plan to attend a special meeting and she still appeared upset about his decision to not move forward with the bond proposal at the July meeting.
“For him to stop this right now is a dereliction of duty,” the board presidents asserted.
Silbiger did not return calls for comment.
Siever said the bond proposal could go forward in June or November 2014.
Paspalis and Silbiger are up for re-election this year. Siever, who was elected in 2009, as were Silbiger and Paspalis, has yet to decide.
Asked if she thought the bond measure could become a topic of campaign discussion, Chardiet replied, “Unfortunately, yes.”
Paspalis said proponents of having a bond initiative in November would not lose hope.
“We might have lost the bale, but we will win the war,” she vowed.
LaRose did not return calls for comment as the News went to press.