Slavkin Recall Effort

* In your April 19 editorial you say that the effort to recall Los Angeles school board President Mark Slavkin was a single-issue campaign that sought to “abuse the electoral process.” Wrong. There were more issues than the school board lawsuit and the real impetus behind the recall of Slavkin was his abuse of the electoral process.

During the fall campaign, anti-Proposition 187 propaganda was sent home with children over Slavkin’s signature. In it he claimed that the passage of the initiative would lead to the cancellation of school breakfasts and lunches and the layoff of 10,000 employees, among other horrors. Gov. Pete Wilson, on the other hand, said that these things would not happen.

Slavkin is free to hold whatever opinion he wishes and to express it publicly. State law, however, as established by California Supreme Court decision Stanson vs. Mott (1976), says that he may not use taxpayer funds to try to influence an election.

Not only did Slavkin knowingly violate state law, he lied about Proposition 187 in publicly aired school board meetings and he is now using taxpayer money to sue the people knowing that others had planned to do the very same thing using private funds.

The recall fell short due to the inexperience of Voice of Citizens Together and terrible weather. The Times had said that the recall would cost $25,000 and that we fell 20,000 signatures short. If true, we were able to reach 60% of our goal with 28% of the budget. The people wanted to recall Slavkin. We just failed to give them the vehicle to do it. How can the gathering of signatures on a petition openly and freely be an abuse of the electoral process?

GLENN SPENCER, President

Voice of Citizens Together

Sherman Oaks