Dear Editor – Clarification

In Alan Elmont’s letter yesterday, he states that I “disavowed” School Board member Karlo Silbiger soon after he took office. I would like to clarify that statement.

Yes, after Mr. Silbiger had been in office for two years, I did state publicly that I was withdrawing my support for him, based on his reasoning regarding the adjunct program.

However, I have, after much thought and consideration, changed my opinion, which I have a perfect right to do.

Today I fully support Mr. Silbiger in his re-election bid for School Board. One of the biggest issues facing our District today is the passage of a bond.

I totally agree with Mr. Silbiger, and the majority of Board members. It was in the best interest of our community and School District to delay putting the bond on the Nov. 5 ballot until we have done all our homework and preparation necessary to have the best shot at passing the bond.

When I speak of homework and preparation, I mean that the following questions and concerns should be addressed before putting this bond measure to the voters.

• What will be the size of the bond? We need to prioritize the spending of the bond monies. We need to reach out to the entire community, as was done with the passage of the last bond in 1995.

The formation of a bond campaign committee needs to be addressed.

A decision on Measure EE, the parcel tax, must be made whether to extend or sunset it.

Failing to plan is a plan to fail.

In my opinion, before Mr. Silbiger spoke to this major issue, he did his homework. He looked at what was historically done in Culver City for the successful passage of a Bond. He spoke to people in the community. He listened to the other Board members.

For these and other reasons, I am supporting his candidacy for re-election.

Madeline Ehrlich

Ms. Ehrlich may be contacted at [email protected]

The Actors' Gang

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.