School Board Candidate Forum

On Thursday, September 19th at 6:00 P.M. at the Peninsula Center Library EdFirstPV, a group supporting education on the Palos Verdes Peninsula, sponsored a school board candidate forum. Their website is edfirstpv.com and readers are encouraged to visit it.

Two of The Four Candidates Were Absent.

Once the audience was seated the moderator Alan Barton announced that two of the candidates, Ami Gandhi and Eric Alegria, advised the sponsors that they would not attend the forum.  Barton then read the reasons that each gave for their non-attendance.  Gandhi said, “While I would like to meet with all community members, I’ll be unable to participate due to pending litigation against myself and the district.”  The sponsors asked Gandhi to clarify how pending litigation has impacted her ability to run her campaign, but she provided no response.

Neither of the candidates who attended the forum, Alexandria Blumer and Jeremy Vanderhal, nor anyone else in attendance, was aware of the litigation Gandhi referred to.  PVP Watch and others in the audience felt this was odd since Gandhi one week earlier, on September 12th took part in a candidate forum at the same venue sponsored by the League of Women Voters and the Chamber of Commerce.  Had litigation been filed that week?  Why could Gandhi have not simply deferred from answering questions she was not comfortable with?

Alegria responded to the sponsors, “Due to my planned participation in the League of Women Voters candidate forum, I will not be participating in this event.”  Evidently, he feels that he has reached enough voters and feels comfortable in ignoring the many of his constituents who took the effort to come to this event and hear his views.

The Forum continued...

The forum proceeded with Vanderhal and Blumer making opening and closing statements and in between answering 18 questions posed by the voters in attendance.  The questions covered various aspects of their backgrounds and their plans for the school district once elected.

PVP Watch feels forums like this are invaluable for both the voters and the candidates.  It allows residents to not only pose questions during the forum but interact with the candidates before and after the event.  Candidates normally try to attend these to express their views on the issues and meet their constituents.  The night before was a forum for candidates running for the Rancho Palos Verdes city council and one candidate could not be there but made sure he was heard by using Zoom to attend.  PVPUSD board member Julie Hamill did this when she was a candidate for the board two years ago and traveling at the time of a forum.

For an organization, whether the League of Women Voters, the Council of Homeowners Associations (CHOA), the Chamber of Commerce or EdFirstPV, to spend the extensive amount of time and effort to arrange and stage a forum like this and have candidates shun it is disappointing.

PVP Watch encourages candidates to attend forums like this for their benefit and that of their constituents.

We would like to hear from you.

If you have comments, opinions, or questions about this article, please tell us by sending your emails to info@pvpwatch.com.  Your input will help us improve our website and enhance your experience.

Donations

We are a group of volunteers and donations keep PVP Watch alive.  If you would like to help, please send us your check for $35 or more to PVP Watch, 5011 Rockvalley Road, Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90275.  Thank you.