What the Bond and a Yearbook Have in Common

Trust. It is a necessary prerequisite for a functioning government. We must be able to trust that our elected representatives are, in fact, representing us. When it comes to fiscal matters, we must be able to trust that our representatives are acting as good stewards of public funds. When it comes to protecting constituents, we must be able to trust that our representatives will take appropriate actions when incidents occur that put people in danger. Both of these issues were front and center at last night’s school board meeting.

The upcoming school bond measure, which should have been the headline from the meeting, was upstaged by over 3 hours of public comments regarding an editorial article about the war in Gaza published in the Palos Verdes High School (PVHS) yearbook last week. Here is a recap of events that led up to Tuesday’s meeting:

The PVHS Yearbook

Yearbooks were handed out on Wednesday, May 29th. The article was presented as a recounting of historical facts and did not have an obvious indication that it was an opinion editorial. Local outrage started immediately as people began to flood both the PVHS Principal’s and the Superintendent’s office with calls and emails. Later that day, the Principal and Superintendent sent out a joint email which, among other things, offered counseling to the students who were affected and asserted that the editorial did not represent the view of the district. A group of Jewish residents, including a Rabbi from the local temple, met with the Principal and Superintendent over the next several days and presented them with a list of actions they hoped the administration would take to correct the situation. One of those requests was for the administration to distribute a rebuttal, either through their official channels or via the Jewish Student Union (JSU), to students and parents. The administration denied that request. Meanwhile, the story began to gather national attention. The Anti-Defamation League put out a message denouncing the article and large social media pages began to highlight the story. The local Jewish resident group eventually published their rebuttal but could not get the administration to agree to send it out officially, even after the JSU requested it. On Tuesday evening, the district boardroom was filled to capacity and two overflow rooms had to be opened to accommodate the crowd that attended. Local news station KTLA was also present to report on the events.

Public Comments on the Yearbook

Tensions were high during the public comments. Many Jewish residents came to express their horror and outrage. Some retold stories of their relatives that survived the Holocaust or October 7th. Some wanted to shed light on why exactly the article was antisemitic because some people had expressed that they didn’t see it as such. Some told stories of their own children who had experienced antisemitism in school and the lack of response from the district. Some people, such as myself, highlighted the lack of leadership on the board to address similar issues that had occurred in the past, while others blamed specific individuals in the administration. On the other side, many people came to express support for the student that wrote the article, defending her right to free speech and condemning harassment against her. Some people also expressed specific support for Board Member Sara Deen, who was unaffiliated with the article. Speakers claimed that she was singled out because of her Muslim faith. Some people just wanted to express their desire to keep politics out of the yearbook entirely. The crowd tended to applaud for speakers that represented their point of view, much like what happens at the State of the Union address. There were a few speakers who (I would argue) went on objectively antisemitic rants, claiming that Zionists and Israel were murderers, among other things. Even those speakers earned applause. There were even 3 “professional protestors” from outside the district in attendance, who, in addition to expressing support for Board Member Sara Deen, praised the student for speaking truth to power and exposing “settler colonialism” in Israel. In the end, the rough count was:

• 42 speakers supporting the claim that the article was antisemitic

• 19 speakers supporting the student and/or Board Member Sara Deen

• 2 speakers denouncing war in general and/or advocating for general peace and harmony

• 8 speakers wanting to remove politics from the yearbook entirely

• 1 speaker who was there to talk about a different topic (sex-related books for 5th graders)

• 3 professional protestors

The Bond Discussion

After the public comment period concluded, the board continued with their scheduled agenda. The main topic for the evening was the second of three discussions about the school bond. For my summary of the first meeting, click here <link?>. The main purpose of this discussion was the specific language of the bond measure itself. Board members had a few recommendations for changes to wording, but most of that discussion centered around six safeguards that Board Member Julie Hamill wanted added. Those safeguards were:

• Contracts shall be awarded via sealed competitive bidding by pre-qualified bidders

• Specific prioritized project list with an estimated cost for each project and a commitment to build projects in the order proposed

• Commit 3% of the general fund budget to facility maintenance for the life of the bond

• Not more than 20% of funds can be spent on items with useful life less than bond term

• Not more than 33% of bond funds can be used for soft costs, such as bond issuance and engineering fes. The district will pay for anything in excess from 33% from sources other than bonded debt

• Bond measure must state the anticipated total cost of borrowing for the bond

The board concluded that some of these are already being done, and agreed to incorporate versions of the rest into the revision for approval at the next meeting.

Reopening Last Meeting’s Bond Terms Debate

After that discussion, the board re-opened the topic from the previous meeting regarding the tax rate and term of the bond. Recall that at the conclusion of the last board meeting, the decision was made to select a tax rate of $35 per $100K of assessed property value and a term of 25 years. My analysis and recommendation was to choose the options that would be most like to regain the trust of the community: the $29 tax rate at 15 years. So I was pleased to hear that after several other members of the community reached out to board members, they decided to change their direction toward a $29 tax rate with a term of 20 years. There was some discussion about how technically the only “locked-in” number is the total bond amount while the exact terms can shift based on conditions at the time of issuance. The financial consultant, Mr. John Isom, will be preparing some scenarios to present to the board at the next meeting.

What the Bond and a Yearbook Have in Common

I started off this newsletter by talking about trust and why it is necessary for a functioning governing body. The reason we need a school bond now is because the board could not garner enough trust in 2020 to pass a bond when interest rates were low. We are now in a worse position both in regard to the state of our facilities and in regard to our financial position due to higher interest rates. This is a direct result of a lack of trust in our school board.

The incident with the yearbook exposed two things: 1) the history of the board sweeping incidents under the rug in order to avoid negative public attention, and 2) the board’s tendency to conduct their business behind closed doors, arguably in violation of the law, and despite community outcry for transparency.

Our school facilities are failing. They are dangerous for our children and for our teachers. We NEED to fix them. But the community, rightly, will not sign on to a bond measure if they don’t trust the board to do their job. Over the last week, the board has had an opportunity to prove that they are worthy of that trust, and in my opinion, they are blowing that opportunity. I truly hope that last night’s board meeting was a wakeup call for them.

When I’m on the board, I will do everything in my power to promote full transparency so that we can regain the public’s trust and become an effective governing body again.