Pamela Greenbaum Spells it out for Us

The Jewish Star runs a story this week in which they attempt to profile all 6 declared candidates in the upcoming School Board elections. Unfortunately, they could not get Pamela Greenbaum to sit for an interview, and this is the reason she gave:

Greenbaum, who has spoken to the paper before, would only say, "Quality education for all. That's my comment." She declined to elaborate,even after a reporter observed that her comment might better be described as a slogan. A day earlier Greenbaum responded to a question about why she changed her mind and decided to run again by saying, "I don't think I'm going to be talking to you very much." Why? she was asked. "I doubt that you're going to endorse me, anyway, so why should I waste my time?"

Eep. She actually told a reporter that she will not deign to discuss her views as a school board candidate with someone who is not prepared to endorse her??? That explaining her views and policies to anyone not committed to endorse or support her is, in her own words, a waste of her time? I guess we now have an idea as to why Pamela Greenbaum thought a lawsuit was an easier way to counter criticism of her actions as a board member than actually making a rudimentary attempt to explain her views. Are we to understand that she simply will not discuss her views with someone who she feels does not agree with and support her on every level? If the ridiculous lawsuit I face is not proof enough that Greenbaum is unwilling to tolerate any criticism or her whatsoever - even criticism as benign as that which she absurdly alleges to be defamatory in her court filing - then this latest admission of hers pretty much seals the deal.

In other local news, Larry Gordon has written some harsh but very accurate words regarding board members Pamela Greenbaum and Stanley Kopilow in light of their lack of support for the new, zero-increase budget as proposed by district 15 superintendent John Fitzsimons (Keep in mind that a zero-increase budget may be the only way for this district to finally approve a budget and end the unfortunate stretch of austerity the public schools have been facing):

As the board endorsed the newly proposed numbers by a vote of 4 to 2 (board member David Sussman was not present), it was interesting to note that both Pam Greenbaum and Stanley Kopilow who have been vociferous advocates of getting the district out of austerity mode voted against the new budget. It's an almost surreal turn of events, with those who have been advocating for years that a budget must be approved now opposed to it, and those who were opposed to the budgets of the previous four years now committed to getting the budget passed.

...The new proposed budget calls for a total increase of $825,000, with an unprecedented zero increase in schools administration and capital expenditures. It's important to understand that if the budget is defeated at the polls, education law calls for an automatic increase of almost 4 percent in the annual budget. That automatic increase, however, is accompanied by a series of restrictions on spending. Such austerity provisions prohibit the purchase of new equipment (computers, phone systems, etc.) or making non-emergency repairs on buildings.

Opposing this budget is really not much more than a public-relations ploy for the two board members, who have made an art of opposing their fellow board members just to be contrarian. By their past rhetoric, Greenbaum and Kopilow have in a sense boxed themselves into a corner, making it hard for them to do the responsible thing. For his part, Mr. Kopilow says that the new budget indulges in voodoo economics. Ms. Greenbaum challenged the board's counsel, who suggested in response that she submit her questions in writing so that they can be thoroughly researched and answered and also criticized her use of the board-meeting forum to promote her position on issues not at hand.

What Kopilow and Greenbaum objected to most was that the new budget would include funding of pre-K busing for private-school children. These two board members continue to talk about providing services for private-school children as though it comes at the expense of public-school students. Unfortunately, that is the picture being painted by those who want to create disunity and friction in our heterogeneous community.

...We can only be puzzled at how the two board members who continually express their desire to bring the district out of austerity so it can repair its buildings, update its computers, buy a new phone system, and make other improvements went ahead and voted to keep the district operating under the limited contingency budget.

Hopefully the above observations will serve to help voters appreciate the importance of participating in the May 15 elections.

Uh oh. Pamela Greenbaum has "made an art of opposing their fellow board members just to be contrarian"? Pamela Greenbaum is obstructionist? Pamela Greenbaum voting based not on principles, but as a "public relations ploy"? Larry, if I were you, I would watch your back. It seems that Pamela Greenbaum has a very loose interpretation of defamation, and judging by the standards she applied to my criticism, this would certainly qualify.