"I do believe that the public should have a part in the evaluation of the superintendent."
- Scott Schmerelson
As my Los Angeles Unified School District's (LAUSD) Board representative, Scott Schmerelson's timid leadership has increasingly frustrated me. In previous terms, he had stepped up to the plate by leading efforts to move students out of harm's way during the Porter Ranch gas leak and being the only vote to oppose the expansion of Granada Hills Charter School, but that courage has been absent in recent years. Too often he had acquiesced to a Superintendent who was failing and increasingly alienating the parents in the District he was supposed to serve. A low point in the term came when he was the sole vote to support the North Valley Military Institute's (NVMI) efforts to push an LAUSD school off their campus.
With an obvious need for change, voting to replace Schmerelson should have been easy. However, as the filing deadline approached, I was not satisfied with the options that were being presented. I considered throwing my hat in the ring until I was invited to meet with LAUSD principal Richard Ramos. While I was initially skeptical of his candidacy, I was impressed by what I saw during this meeting and decided he was a person who I could support.
Unfortunately, Ramos was not on the ballot in the March primary. He did pull nominating petitions but never turned them in. The deadline for submitting my name had already passed and I was forced to choose among a very flawed field. Fortunately, Andreas Farmakalidis showed enough growth in his view of the need for increased charter school oversight that I was able to vote for him.
Since Farmakalidis did not finish in the top two, my choice in November's election was between Schmerelson and the charter school industry's shill, Dan Chang. While the incumbent has been weak on accountability for charter schools, Chang campaigned for loosening regulation of these publicly funded private schools. He also refused to answer questions for my LAUSD Candidate Forum series, making it impossible to know his positions on important topics like Special Education and the budget. It was clear that there was no way I could vote for him.
The often used expression "choosing the lesser of two evils" was not applicable in this instance as there is nothing "evil" about Schmerelson; he just has not shown the capacity to be a fighter that the children of the District need. In comparison, Chang conducted himself throughout the campaign as though he had no moral center. The lies, obnoxious behavior, and personal attacks could all be classified as evil. A protest vote against Schmerelson would have brought chaos to the Board not only in policy but also in conduct.
Knowing what was at stake in this election, I sometimes found myself holding back my criticism of the incumbent during the campaign. He was already facing millions of dollars worth of propaganda, it did not seem constructive to pile on more negativity, especially when whatever the complaint was, the alternative would have been much worse.
Was it right to hold my tongue when Schmerelson was deserving of criticism? The fact that Rocio Rivas, Karla Griego, and Sherlett Hendy-Newbill will have access to a fourth vote as they try to enact change makes it seem that it was, but at what cost?
If comments on Facebook are properly attributed, I am concerned that Schmerelson has interpreted his narrow win not as a rejection of his opponent but as a mandate to continue along the same path. After I pushed back against the commenter's assertion that demanding a Board Member confront the bureaucracy was the equivalent of expecting that they "move a mountain," she posted this:
"Scott and I talked about this exact subject today and the limitations of power of the office. You and others seem to expect a board member to ride in on a bulldozer and mow down the current staff, rules, practices, and more for the better. Nothing could be further from the truth. Staffing etcetera is out of their purview, they can push behind the scenes, have meetings, push some more, but there is always the dreaded pushback."
