Peter Ostroff's Integrity Lecture Collides With the Record

In this week's Three Star Short Takes column, "We.Have.Had.Enough - Part Deux," Peter Ostroff urges voters to elect Jackie Kruger and Kimberly Lifschitz and reject another term for BHUSD Board President Judy Manouchehri. He attacks Manouchehri's character and management, citing school rankings, district finances and allegations involving student safety. Yet his endorsement leaves out Kruger's public disciplinary record, passes over the political material Lifschitz has publicly explained and fails to address BHUSD's substantial recent academic gains. His demand for accountability deserves the same scrutiny he directs at the candidate he opposes.

Those omissions matter. An argument about integrity loses force when the standards change according to the name on the campaign sign.

Ostroff presents Kruger's legal career as a qualification for responsible school governance. The State Bar of California's disciplinary summary supplies another part of that professional record: one year of probation for violating a court order and failing to report the imposition of sanctions on time. The discipline became effective January 27, 2023.

The California Supreme Court's December 28, 2022 order, in case S276433, imposed a one year suspension, stayed its execution and placed Kruger on probation for one year. The distinction is essential: this was a stayed suspension, not a year in which she was prohibited from practicing. Her current State Bar profile lists her license as active and describes the discipline as probation with no actual suspension.

Voters can decide how much weight to give that history. Ostroff can explain why he believes Kruger deserves their confidence despite it. What his column does instead is praise her professional qualifications without acknowledging the discipline at all.

He demands a searching examination of Manouchehri's character while giving readers an incomplete account of the professional record of the lawyer he endorses. That is selective accountability, and it deserves to be challenged.

Ostroff's endorsement of Kimberly Lifschitz deserves the same scrutiny. He praises her accountability and civility, but her own published campaign response gives voters specific matters to examine rather than simply accept those assurances.

In her October 8 questionnaire response published by the Beverly Hills Courier, Lifschitz acknowledged an Instagram post showing her toddler holding a book about socialism. She described it as a "joke for friends and family" and said she bought the book to understand a presidential candidate's positions. She also wrote:

"I am not a socialist or DSA member."

That denial belongs in the record. So does the post she acknowledges. Calling a political post a joke offers an explanation of her intent; it does not place the decision to publish it beyond scrutiny. Reading widely is a qualification voters may value. Sound judgment is a separate question, and a campaign explanation is not an automatic answer to it.

Lifschitz also acknowledged owning an "Antifascist Moms" shirt and discussed a circulating photograph of herself wearing it, which she said a board member took from the dais. She expressly denied being an Antifa member or supporter and explained the shirt as a statement that she is a mother against fascism.

The wording and her denial matter. The shirt cannot honestly be presented as proof of membership in a terrorist organization. But voters can still examine the political message, the setting in which she wore it and how that choice fits the promise of civility that Ostroff promotes. Opposition to fascism is not the issue. The issue is whether her conduct and explanations support the judgment and ability to bring people together that her endorsers claim for her.

Her response also attributed threats against candidates' livelihoods, homes and lives to actions by Manouchehri and David Cienfuegos, describing a situation requiring police protection. That is a serious accusation. The published answer does not identify the specific actions, messages or police findings establishing that connection. Voters deserve that evidence before accepting the allegation as an established fact.

Ostroff subjects Manouchehri to an aggressive character examination. His preferred candidates should face questions just as direct: why did Kruger violate a court order and fail to report sanctions on time, what judgment did Lifschitz exercise in the political material she acknowledges, and what supports her accusations against her opponents? Praise from an endorser does not answer those questions.

The academic argument has a similar problem. Ostroff cites a school ranking as part of his case against Manouchehri's leadership. The district's October 13 Education Services presentation contains newer evidence that any serious assessment must address.

In the district's Summative Data Growth & Comparisons report, mathematics proficiency increased from 57.74% in 2024 to 68.72% in 2026. Science increased from 42.68% to 56.44%. English Language Arts increased from 68.52% to 75.44%.

Those are gains of 10.98 percentage points in mathematics, 13.76 in science and 6.92 in English. They measure the share of tested students reaching the standards in each year's testing group, rather than tracking the same individual students.

Beverly Hills High School, the school at the center of Ostroff's ranking argument, also recorded substantial progress. English proficiency rose from 61.73% in 2024 to 74.70% in 2026. Mathematics rose from 48.20% to 60.31%. Those gains are 12.97 and 12.11 percentage points respectively.

Ostroff's accusation of incompetent management must be tested against that progress. His column does not do so. Students and teachers should not have their academic gains written out of an election campaign because they complicate an attack on a board president.

The timing of the ranking matters as well. The ranking publisher's August 18 announcement states that its current edition uses data from the school year ending in 2024. The 2025 and 2026 assessment gains therefore fall outside that period.

An older ranking can raise legitimate questions about past performance. It cannot supply a complete account of the current academic record. Readers deserve both the historical comparison and the subsequent improvement.

These results do not establish that Manouchehri alone caused the gains. Students, educators, administrators, families and the board all have roles in the district's work. They do establish that current leadership has an improving academic record to defend, and that Ostroff's broad condemnation must be tested against it.

There is still work to do. BHHS science proficiency reached 42.55% in 2026, leaving more than half of tested students below the standard. Recognizing progress and demanding more progress are entirely consistent. A credible critic should be capable of both.

Ostroff's financial argument also needs more than indignation. He cites deficits and spending controversies, then attributes the deficit to what he calls "presumably ballooning litigation costs" and other expenditures. His column provides no financial reconciliation showing how those items produced the totals he cites.

Presumably is doing substantial work in that accusation. If a columnist is going to assign responsibility for a deficit, readers should be shown the adopted budgets, actual spending and the connection between the disputed decisions and the claimed shortfall. Listing expenses alongside a deficit does not establish that those expenses caused it.

His language about a "putative President for Life" adds another dramatic accusation without establishing a permanent presidency. His column describes a dispute over bylaws and presidential terms. It does not demonstrate that voters are being asked to grant Manouchehri an office for life.

The allegations involving student safety deserve serious scrutiny. Families reporting bullying, racial hostility or sexual harm deserve answers and a proper review of what school officials knew and did. Higher scores do not resolve those allegations.

Equally, Ostroff's account of what a parent told him does not, by itself, establish a judicial finding against Manouchehri or prove his suggestion that her intervention would have avoided a later alleged assault. His column does not supply investigation findings or a court determination establishing that personal causal claim.

That distinction matters especially when children are involved. Their experiences deserve careful examination on the evidence. They should not be converted into proof of an election opponent's personal culpability before that proof has been established.

The strongest case for changing district leadership would explain why the proposed replacements would improve on the gains already being recorded. It would apply the same standards of professional responsibility to every candidate. It would substantiate financial accusations and distinguish allegations from findings.

Ostroff's column applies scrutiny to Manouchehri that it does not apply to the two candidates he endorses. Kruger's disciplinary record and Lifschitz's own explanations deserve examination alongside the promises he repeats for them. His treatment of academics and district finances likewise leaves substantial evidence unaddressed. Those are serious defects in an argument presented as a defense of integrity.

Peter Ostroff is entitled to support Kruger and Lifschitz. He is entitled to oppose Manouchehri. But Beverly Hills voters deserve the academic results he leaves out, the disciplinary history he omits, Lifschitz's own statements and evidence for the causal claims he makes. An integrity lecture that exempts the lecturer's preferred candidates does not meet that standard.