Peter Ostroff's Old Guard Doesn't Own Beverly Hills Schools

Peter Ostroff has had enough of Judy Manouchehri. Beverly Hills voters should have had enough of his assumption that a list of familiar names can do the work of evidence.

His latest column assembles former officials, repeats their accusations and presents their preferred candidates as the answer to everything allegedly wrong with BHUSD. The argument amounts to an instruction: these people used to hold important positions, they dislike the current board majority, and voters should follow their lead.

Former officeholders are entitled to opinions. Their old titles do not entitle them to obedience.

Ostroff identifies Myra Demeter, Mark Egerman, Eliot Finkel, Nancy Krasne, Myra Lurie, Virginia Maas, Noah Margo, John Millan, Lillian Raffel, Alissa Roston and Bob Wunderlich as signers of a letter supporting Jackie Kruger and Kimberly Lifschitz. He separately cites former Mayor Julian Gold's opposition to the current board.

Those names deserve to be examined as political endorsers. Their former positions do not independently establish the accusations Ostroff repeats.

The political connections are concrete. The West Hollywood Beverly Hills Democratic Club lists Noah Margo as its president, Lillian Raffel as controller and Virginia Maas as an executive board member. That same organization endorses Kruger and Lifschitz in this election. Three people presented as authoritative voices against the board therefore hold leadership positions in a political organization supporting the candidates the letter promotes.

Lifschitz's own campaign website also lists Egerman, Wunderlich, Demeter, Lurie, Maas, Millan and Finkel as endorsers. Their support is public campaign activity. Readers should assess their criticism with that political commitment in view.

Ostroff is asking those endorsements to carry the weight of a verdict.

They cannot.

There are overlapping civic relationships as well. Beverly Hills Rotary's official records identify Roston, Lurie, Raffel and Gold as past club presidents. Finkel has served as treasurer, and a published officer roster identifies Maas as executive secretary. A historical interview with a Rotary president identifies Krasne as a member.

Manouchehri has confirmed that she and Ostroff are also members. Ostroff himself has publicly described spending Mondays at the club. These relationships provide context about a familiar civic circle. Membership alone establishes neither agreement nor an organizational endorsement.

The issue is the authority Ostroff assigns to selected members of that circle. A shared history of public service does not turn their election preferences into the voice of Beverly Hills.

His treatment of the city's funding agreement exposes the weakness of his approach.

Ostroff calculates that the new Joint Powers Agreement provides $4.5 million less over three years than continuing annual payments at $14.5 million. The calculation supports a discussion about funding. It does not establish why the council approved the agreement.

Ostroff acknowledges that the council has not specifically attributed the reductions to dissatisfaction with BHUSD's management. He then invites readers to infer that explanation anyway.

The city's actual statements deserve more weight than his preferred interpretation.

Its May announcement describes an agreement providing $39 million over three years, transferring preschool, afternoon programming and camps to district administration. Mayor Craig Corman publicly described the arrangement as reaffirming the city's commitment to the district and its students.

At his September State of the City appearance, Corman again discussed the agreement as an accomplishment, calling it "a great agreement" and expressing satisfaction with the preschool transition.

Ostroff may challenge the mayor's assessment. He may question the financial terms. He needs to make that argument openly. Treating the agreement as a concealed rebuke of Manouchehri while leaving out the mayor's public praise gives readers a distorted account.

His use of Councilmember Sharona Nazarian's refusal to endorse any candidate is similarly thin. By Ostroff's own account, she declined to support or endorse anyone. That answer establishes her lack of an endorsement. It provides no basis for assigning her opposition to one particular candidate.

A columnist does not get to fill another official's silence with his own politics.

The academic accusations also require a serious accounting.

In June, BHUSD reported CAASPP gains of 4% in English Language Arts, 5% in mathematics and 9% in science. The district also reported gains over two school years of nine points in English and ten points in mathematics. Those are the district's published figures, and they belong in any assessment of its recent academic direction.

Those results deserve examination alongside other measures, with their reporting periods clearly identified. They do not settle every question about district performance. They do make a sweeping account of academic decline incomplete unless it addresses the improvements.

An endorsement letter cannot substitute for that analysis.

Ostroff's own involvement deserves equally direct scrutiny. In the column, he acknowledges providing legal representation without charge to Amanda Stern and Lisa Rubel during depositions connected to the board leadership dispute.

He disclosed that participation. Readers should take the disclosure seriously. He has personally participated in the dispute he is urging voters to use against Manouchehri.

His accusations therefore need evidence beyond his own conviction that she should lose.

Lawsuits, governance disputes and allegations about student treatment deserve careful examination. Readers need specific records, clear attribution and an account of what has been established and what remains contested. Repeating accusations beside a list of former officials does not answer those questions.

Ostroff's headline invokes a president for life while his own column discusses Manouchehri's bid for reelection. Voters are being asked to decide whether she continues in office. That is precisely where the decision belongs.

The old guard has a vote. It has a voice. It has every right to campaign for its preferred candidates.

It has no ownership claim over the district, and Ostroff has no right to present its political preferences as a substitute for the public record.

If he wants Manouchehri defeated, he should argue for that outcome with evidence strong enough to withstand scrutiny. He should address the academic gains, acknowledge the mayor's actual words and distinguish candidate endorsements from findings of fact.

Until then, his column offers a long list of names where a convincing argument should be.