“I simply rise to make the point that democracy matters and it matters all day long,” said L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas. “Voters matter. They are important in this process.”
These words were uttered by our County Supervisor after the passing of LAUSD Board Member Marguerite La Motte, when the Board of Education was considering the matter of appointing her replacement to avoid a costly election. In the end, the Board decided on the appointment of Dr. Sylvia Rousseau for the remainder of the term. Dr. George Mc Kenna was eventually elected to represent Board District 1.
The Culver City School Board faced a similar challenge at the end of February of this year, when Board Member Sue Robins announced that she would be moving to Portland, vacating her seat. Both the Board of LAUSD and of CCCUSD are governed by this clause in the California Education Code (5091):
(a) (1) If a vacancy occurs, or if a resignation has been filed with the county superintendent of schools containing a deferred effective date, the school district or community college district governing board shall, within 60 days of the vacancy or the filing of the deferred resignation, either order an election or make a provisional appointment to fill the vacancy.
The two situations for filling a vacancy were similar, and the solutions chosen were similar, but the process by which each Board made their decision were very different.
Ms. La Motte passed away unexpectedly on December 5, 2013. Naturally, given that the Board had sixty days to act, it chose to allow a period of mourning. The Board didn’t take up the matter until January 7th, when a special meeting was held to take public input on the matter. The Los Angeles Times reported on the meeting and community members, including County Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas, spoke eloquently to the issues that an appointment raises in a democracy. After the meeting, community conversations took place, and the public at large was engaged and familiar with the matter of the appointment. A powerful letter to the editor written by two former School Board members, suggested a committee be created to “set criteria, review applications and provide three options to the school board, which would then make an appointment”. In contrast, the Los Angeles Times, through its editorial advocated for an election.
In the end, running up against the 60 day deadline, the Board of Education held a second meeting on February 5, 2014 and appointed Dr. Sylvia Rousseau for the seat vacated by Ms. La Motte.
While the debate in this circumstance points to the differences between the two situations, what is very different is the manner by which both Boards engaged the public in the process.
The LAUSD used practically every one of the 60 days allowed by the law to help the community mourn, dialogue and debate the issues. In contrast, on March 1, some in Culver City learned about the vacancy by receiving an email that invited interested community members to submit an application. Notices were posted on the website and in local newspapers. Interested applicants had 9 days (deadline was set for March 10th) to submit their paperwork and had to do so in person (one application was not accepted because it didn’t meet this requirement). The meeting was set for March 14th, only 2 weeks after Board Member Sue Robins filed her resignation to the Superintendent of Schools.
In two weeks, the issue was decided, despite the fact that the Board had until April 29th, 2017 to make this decision.
In the end, the Board decided on the appointment of Summer Mc Bride, an active PTA parent who was lauded by everyone who spoke on her behalf at the March 14th meeting for her leadership skills. Many also supported her because she has been an active leader at El Rincon Elementary, a community that has long needed a voice on the Board. And many spoke about the importance of our leaders representing the diversity in our community. The points I am about to make do not aim to detract in any way from Board Member Mc Bride, because I support her appointment.
It would be, however, wrong for our community not to reflect on the process, because it is highly likely that Summer Mc Bride would have been appointed anyway.
The haste of the appointment was only a part of the problem. The deeper problem was the issue of transparency. The Culver City community did not know much about the candidates that had submitted their applications until the day of the Board meeting, when they saw the names on the agenda . (Even if they had searched for the item online within the 72 hour period required for the posting of the agenda, they would have only found the applicants’ names). The applications, including their qualifications and their responses to the questions that Board members were going to use to evaluate them, were not made available to the public, unless individuals requested them. I was among the lucky that was forwarded an email with the applications the day before the Board meeting.
It seems that the Education Code gives a community 60 days for Governing Board to make an appointment because passing on a formal election is a serious matter in a democracy. If the assumption is that an election is too costly, we must not assume that keeping voters informed and engaged on the matter of their representation isn’t equally costly.
In a democracy, our representatives, through their election are given a sacred trust to act in our behalf. Honestly, the actions of this Board in this appointment made a mockery of this bedrock principle. Culver City voters deserve better. We matter, all day long.
Claudia Vizcarra 