Last November, Conejo voters had the first real chance in many years to vote for substantial change in leadership in Conejo Valley Unified School District. With the retirement of two longtime incumbents, there was finally an opportunity to move past the staid thinking and cronyism that had stifled the district for so long.

There was hope for keeping schools open, maintaining/creating revenue and mending broken relationships.

And vote you did! Sixty percent of Conejo voters jumped at the chance to vote for one of the "candidates of change."

Six out of every 10 voters expressed their discontent with "business as usual," hoping instead to install candidates with greater courage and creativity for addressing the district's problems. Unfortunately, as is often the case with multiseat positions, the dilution of votes across six "change candidates" negated any chance of even one of them prevailing.

The two proclosure "establishment candidates" enjoyed a comfortable victory, dashing any hope for reconciliation from the closure fiasco that's crippled the district for nearly two years.

In last week's board meeting, Superintendent Contini stated that the success of the two pro-closure candidates confirmed the public's desire for closing campuses.

While he's entitled to his interpretation, the data suggests otherwise.

With the board's recent decision not to reopen Meadows- and University as I encouraged- we can now look forward to an expensive lawsuit, more families leaving the district and a school board majority that lacks the courage to address some of its endemic problems. John Andersen Newbury Park Andersen was a candidate in the race for the school board.