What Competitive Selection Process?

Jim Province

During the recent planning of Capital Improvement funding, attention has been focused on the School Board's and District Staff's absence of accountability, inclusiveness and collaboration, but a related issue has quietly slipped past the attention of many.

In these times of budget cuts and furlough days, clearly $400,000 is not an insubstantial amount of money. However, the apparent failure of the School Board to use a competitive selection process for choosing an architect to renovate the athletics facilities (one worth in excess of $400,000) has been largely glossed over.

This decision, made at the Board meeting on July 26, 2011 (with only the minimum three board members present) appeared innocuously on the Consent Agenda as “9.8 Approval is Recommended for the Contract Between Culver City Unified School District and Westberg + White."

No mention was made of the dollar amount of the contract or the nature of the project. Largely escaping the attention of the public, the item was quietly passed without public input.

This raises several issues of great concern:

• Why was such a costly project relegated to the Consent Agenda and not an Action or information Item?


• Why was it deemed urgent enough to make such a significant outlay of funds without the benefit of all Board members being present?


• Why did the District choose not to issue a request for proposals on a project of this size?


• Why did the District award a contract to a firm with which it had not used a competitive selection process in nearly a decade?

To assure future project quality, while controlling costs and avoiding any future appearances of impropriety, The Board must consider that the public has an expectation that The Board will use a fair and competitive selection process as it awards such large contracts.

Additionally, the District should ONLY enter into a contract after it establishes a proper RFP process that includes:

• Post notices advocating responses


• Request known, qualified companies respond


• Analyze all responses based on objective and fair standards in writing

Only if the above are enacted will the public feel the process has been a truly fair, ethical and open one.

Jim Province is a parent in the Culver City Unified School District and a regular attendee of School Board meetings.

The Need for Community Gardens in Culver City

Michelle Weiner

Community garden space is a rare commodity in Culver City, and the city needs more space to meet increasing demand. A little community garden already exists, just west of Veterans Auditorium, but falls short of the potential that a well-developed community garden holds. This 16-plot garden, managed by Culver City Parks Recreation and Community Services (PRCS) has a waiting list of 30 people and plots rarely become available. Nearby Santa Monica, a city of approximately 10,650 people per square mile (Culver City’s density is 7,500 per sq. mi.) has 110 garden plots, dispersed over a number of locations. According to Darren Uhl, the city employee who manages the garden at Vets, Culver City Council has no plans to develop additional community garden spaces, as they are not regarded as a necessity; however, last year at the direction of Culver City Council, the PRCS Commissioners formed a sub-committee to support community efforts to locate space for a community garden.

For those of us with home gardens, we might question the notion of a community garden that serves so few individuals and families, wondering what benefits are reaped by the larger community. Community gardens strengthen community on many levels: they provide space for exercise and recreation, open space for gatherings, outdoor classrooms where youth learn new vocational skills. Community gardens include residents of various ages, incomes and ethnic backgrounds. Community gardens have the potential to produce surplus food for food banks and shelters and are a valuable resource for low income families. According to the National Garden Association, garden plots can yield a $500 food value per year, considering costs and market value of produce. In general, they serve to increase urban food security and improve public health on a number of measures. In terms of environmental benefits, community gardens reduce greenhouse gas emissions and air pollution by absorbing carbon dioxide. Well-conditioned soil absorbs rainwater, reducing storm run-off, and replenishing ground water.

Community gardens need not be limited to the one-plot-per-family model. The Learning Garden on the grounds of Venice High School is a very different community garden model and it’s a hub of community activity. In addition to horticulture classes for Venice high school students, beginning gardening classes are offered to the public. Also, one can pick up vegetable starts for school gardens, participate in a Seed Library or enjoy a community potluck. Families drop by to water whichever areas need tending. Students and instructors from nearby Yo San University raise Chinese medicinal herbs and teach their uses. A California native garden attracts beneficial insects and other local critters, demonstrating that drought tolerant is its own kind of lush and lovely. This outdoor classroom provides hands-on experience in sustainability, health, nutrition, agriculture, sociology, science and math. It is a gorgeous eco-system…one to be emulated.

Although finding unused space in our 5+ square mile city presents a challenge, creative use of available space may produce a yield. Schools, hospitals, senior centers, abandoned or empty lots, and lanes along Ballona Creek all hold amazing potential and hidden opportunities. Councilmember Jeff Cooper has proposed to create portable community gardens in empty lots. “This would beautify the city while it serves as a community garden and people would keep the lots clean and beautiful,” said Jeff, during his 2010 campaign. Public accessibility is the key to keeping costs minimal. Volunteers provide labor and upkeep, freeing school and city employees from farm chores that community members are eager to perform.

While beautifying vacant lots with a temporary community garden may seem like a win-win, displacing the community members who invest time and energy to develop a garden erodes public trust. Finding permanent garden space is an investment in social capital that benefits the community as a whole. According to a report by Public Health Law and Policy (PHLP), funded by the California Department of Public Health, community gardens meet so many health and sustainability goals that cities across the country are developing supportive policies, resolutions and amendments to city general plans. Boston, Berkeley, Chicago, Seattle and Vancouver all have policies, resolutions, zoning codes, regulations and/or long-range plans to preserve open space for community gardens. PHLP has developed model zoning and planning language so that California cities, including Culver City, can begin to respond to this urgent community need.

Michelle Weiner is the Chair of Transition Culver City and a former member of the Culver City Martin Luther King Planning Committee.

A Blueprint for Disaster: The Saga Continues

Karlo Silbiger

(This posting is a continuation of the article that can be found here)

On Tuesday night, in the final meeting for outgoing board members Steve Gourley and Scott Zeidman, the School Board approved four projects for renovation, using the $12 million of Capital Improvement funding, which had been sitting untouched in accounts for far too long. These four projects should be of no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention to school district discussions since they were all first proposed almost a decade ago, and have been discussed ad nauseum by the current board since January. I wrote about all four in last week’s posting. It was time to approve them and the support among the board and audience was unanimous.

However, after taking that worthy vote, the board also approved a budget allocation for all four projects which added up to over $16 million of government funding. $16 million is a lot of money, regardless of the circumstances, and a vote like that should only be taken when all questions are answered and when all people are heard. It is always suspicious when a decision of this magnitude is made at the very last meeting of a lame duck board, especially when at least one of the incoming members has spoken publically about the inherent problems with the funding process.

Some members of the public, staff, and even elected board members have said that we have spent enough time on this issue, that a decision has to be made. I will give you athat, I am as tired of talking about this issue as you are of hearing me talk! However, the problem with this issue has not been time, but transparency. Last week, I took responsibility for how badly this school board, of which I am a member, has screwed up what should have been the most joyous of times in our community: surplus government money. The vote was tainted because of three M’s: Misinformation, Missed Opportunities, and Mistrust.

Misinformation
While the board has held numerous public hearings on these projects since January, giving staff a forum to update us of their plans and all in attendance a chance to ask questions, most of the requests for information have yet to be answered. One board member brought a file to the meeting Tuesday in order to demonstrate how much paper has been produced about this issue. However, all who work in project management know that the measure of readiness is not time spent or paper replicated, it’s questions answered. Had staff answered the questions posed to them by members of the public six months ago, we could have moved on at that point. Since they didn’t (and still haven’t), it is inappropriate to allocate government funds.

There are three primary questions that have been asked repeatedly and still have not been answered:

1. How are the $16 million in government funds allocated on Tuesday going to be used? Believe it or not, the Board allocated these funds with no budget, not even an outline of how the money is being spent. I compared it to a teacher assigning a student a grade of “B+” on the first day of school with no evidence yet of their academic performance. We have a responsibility to the taxpayers of this community to ensure that every dollar is accounted for and with not even a budget estimation, we have lost that trust.


2. What is the cost-benefit analysis for each project? Over half of the money ($8.5 million) was allocated for a new athletic complex at the middle school/high school. Originally, one of the incentives of spending this money was that it would make that area more presentable, and therefore more desirable to potential renters. Later on, members of the board suggested that renting this facility might not be worthwhile. Public schools in California are in a terrible budget crisis. Should the financial gain available with each project single-handedly determine its funding level? Of course not. But it is information that the board and community should have before making funding decisions.


3. For which projects can we legally use state modernization grant monies? Originally, our staff said that only some of our projects were eligible for state matching grants, and they encouraged allocation with that regulation in mind. We have since found out that this information was inaccurate. How can decisions be made when the basis for those decisions turned out to be false?

This is not fiscal conservatism, but financial common sense. We are not getting this much money for many more years, so we have to ensure that we spend it in the most fiduciarily responsible manner. We need accurate answers, ideally before decisions were made.

Missed Opportunities
I have become a strong believer in the idea that a good process will almost always lead to a good result, and that a good process is one that notifies and involves the most people possible. That doesn’t mean that the elected officials turn over decision-making power to the voting majority, but it means that they listen. We have a lot of passionate stakeholders interested in participating in this process, but they were only included in a meaningful way in October and November (when workshops were held for two of these projects), nearly a year too late. Neighbors in the Vets Park area surrounding the school were only notified of these projects one month ago and students, the beneficiaries of any project, still have not had a meaningful say.

There are two problems with conducting a process in this manner. First, it alienates those who should be supporters. Instead of working together to determine the best way forward, every meeting regarding these projects have become tense, mean-spirited, and angry. Parents have insulted each other and students have been brought in as props. Second, it causes us to lose an incredibly valuable resource in producing the best possible projects. Many of our stakeholders have knowledge that we don’t. We should be thanking them for their work, not discouraging participation. We can do better.

Mistrust
The final “M” is mistrust, a strong, but I think appropriate, word. On Tuesday, it became clear that our staff and board hired an architect for over $400,000 to design the new athletic complex with no formal bidding process, no request for proposals (to ensure that the most qualified candidate was hired), and no open discussion about the hiring process. They based their decision on a nine year old selection process, in which any and all paperwork illuminating this firm's qualifications has been lost or destroyed. It is unclear whether or not this is legal, but honestly it doesn’t matter. Ultimately, the purpose for the regulations related to the fair and open hiring of professional service contracts was put into place to preserve the public trust that their money was being spent on above board transactions. I don’t think we have a “Bell” type situation at CCUSD, but I know that it is just these types of questionable practices which lead honorable governments downward, a direction that I will fight vigorously in my community.

This is not over. A new board will take their seats on December 13th and I will insist that we work immediately to correct as many of these mistakes as is possible. We will gather answers to the above questions, hear from the public in a meaningful way, create a bidding process which restores public trust, and then use that information to allocate the public’s money in the most appropriate manner. It is time for us to clean up our collective mess.

Karlo Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog, the Vice-President of the Culver City School Board, and the President of the Culver City Democratic Club.

Why It Is Essential For Culver City To Ban Single-Use Plastic Bags

Andy Shrader

To see why Culver City and the greater Southern California community must actively address the growing problem of ocean debris, you need venture no further than what I call the Playa Vista Garbage Patch.

To arrive at the garbage patch, wait until a rainy day, climb aboard your bicycle, (skateboard, wagon, or tennis shoes), direct it to the Ballona Creek bike path and head west, toward the ocean. On your left, after you pass the architectural and environmental blight that is the Playa Vista development itself [living, vibrant wetlands are also important ingredients in healthy oceans] just beyond the Lincoln Boulevard bridge, you will find the reason (shown in the picture above).

If that does not convince you we have a problem, keep going until you hit the beach. There you will find another reason.

In April 2009, the Asian-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Marine Resources Working Group published the attached paper entitled, “Understanding the Economic Benefits and Costs of Controlling Marine Debris in the APEC Region,” which states on pg. vii that “In 2008, marine debris was estimated to have directly cost the 21 APEC member economies approximately US$ 1.265 billion” and that “6.4 million tonnes of debris reach the world’s oceans each year, and that around eight million items enter the sea every day. Plastics consistently comprise 60 to 80% of total debris recorded. Levels and rates of debris input are increasing despite measures to control the problem.” The paper also states that “Marine debris is an avoidable cost.” If we want to cut city and state budgets, why not begin here instead of, among other things, laying off teachers?

As of October 31st, according to the United Nations, there are 7 billion people on the planet. We are apparently expecting 9 – 10 billion by 2050. What this means is that every habit we human beings adopt is having a larger and larger impact on the planet. If the Los Angeles County Staff Report “An Overview of Carryout Bags in Los Angeles County,” dated August 2007 is correct and the average consumer uses 500-600 plastic bags per year, then Culver City’s 38,883 residents can use up to approximately 19 million plastic bags. Studies referred to on Heal the Bay’s website suggest that only 5% of those are ever recycled and that the rest end up in landfills or on our streets, where they cost our California cities millions to clean up out of storm drains and out of impaired waterways. Culver City’s location along the banks of Ballona Creek, one of two major watersheds in Los Angeles, gives the city an important responsibility as a caretaker of the creek, of Santa Monica Bay, and of the Pacific Ocean beyond.

There have been many apocalyptic films coming out of Hollywood lately, suggesting the world will end in fire, in ice, or by collision with another planet. This report from the International Programme on the State of the Oceans – a panel of ocean scientists who met at Oxford University last summer to compare notes – suggests that it may not be so dramatic. They found that our oceans are in “shocking” decline and they warn that ocean life is “at high risk of entering a phase of extinction of marine species unprecedented in human history.” These people are not Jerry Bruckheimer; they are world-class scientists. Since 70% of the oxygen in our atmosphere is generated by ocean-dwelling organisms, you can do the math as to what it is we face. Banning plastic bags is not only about saving the fish, it’s about saving the humans. And we need to be doing much, much more.

On the personal level, most people don't realize that they currently pay at least twice for plastic bags. The first cost they pay, according to the L.A. County Staff report, is $18 per year to use plastic bags, a cost that is embedded by the stores in the cost of their groceries. The second cost people pay is included in their taxes to help clean up plastic bag blight from neighborhoods and storm drains, which is estimated to total $25 million dollars in Southern California, $25 million dollars which could be much better spent on our schools, on job-creation programs, etc. Reusable bags, by comparison, are available at a one-time cost, some for less than $1 each. Even six to ten bags, for larger families, will still cost far less than $18.

Representatives of the plastics industry would likely dispute all of the above, of course, so I present it to you as my opinion. SavethePlasticBag.com disputes plastic bags having an affect on turtles, for one example, saying: “We have been unable to find another photograph of a turtle eating a plastic bag anywhere on the Internet.” Don’t take my word for any of this. I encourage you to walk along Ballona Creek to the beach yourself. Take a ferry ride out to Catalina Island, as I did last month. You will likely see what I saw, balloons, soccer balls, and, yes, plastic bags, floating in the ocean, lurking there in the waves, waiting to choke the life out of something.

Culver City’s proposed ban on single-use plastic bags may be a small drop in a giant ocean of problems that seem insurmountable and overwhelming, but it is a step we can take at a local level. Every time I use my reusable canvas bags I feel good that I’m doing my small part to ensure that my grandchildren’s grandchildren will have a healthy planet to live on. It’s not much, but it’s something.

Andy Shrader is a Marine Debris Activist.

Bringing Peace to the World, City by City, Student by Student

Barbara Honig

Today’s world is so much smaller than it used to be. I remember when we spoke on the phone long distance and either couldn’t hear each other or spoke over crackling noises. Now, we communicate with people all over the world as if they were next door whether via social media, skype, email or phone. When the concept of Sister Cities was developed in the 1950’s by President Eisenhower, I don’t believe he ever imagined the instantaneous connection we experience today. What he obviously did realize was that establishing relationships around the world through one-to-one friendships and communication can make a difference in the way people relate to one another. He realized that those personal links are very useful in a volatile world arena to fight against the threat of nuclear disaster and world war. And although I would say this world has not been very successful in our movement towards peace and justice, I believe that the Sister City model of citizen diplomacy still plays a very important role in making a global everlasting difference.

The mission of Sister Cities International is “to promote peace through mutual respect, understanding, & cooperation — one individual, one community at a time”. I think the old adage, “Think Globally, Act Locally”, is very applicable to Sister Cities. Perhaps more relevant would be the addition, “Affect both Globally and Locally”. The Culver City Sister City Committee is part of this international effort towards world peace. Our residents and our community gain tremendously through the work of this community based organization. Our focus for many years has been our youth programs. If young people are given the opportunity to understand different cultures and belief systems through sharing their own with youth their age, they will become adults who are more respectful and accepting of the differences among us. So we have sent many middle school students to our sister city of Kaizuka, Japan and many high school students to our sister city of Iksan, South Korea. Many Culver City families have also hosted students from those two cities who have visited Culver City as part of the exchange program. It is phenomenal how many lives have been affected in this process both here and abroad. Thinking through all the years of this program, it is amazing when you realize that the Culver City participants may have gone off to live elsewhere, attending college or just moving to another city, yet the influence on their lives and the way they respond in life continues.

Developing a relevant itinerary for a student delegation from another country is no small feat. We want them to learn about U.S. culture and life, relate specifically to life in Culver City, develop friendships among themselves and with their Culver City hosts and have fun. Just last summer when 8 middle school students from Kaizuka were in Culver City, they not only visited and learned about our city structure and government, visited Sony and our city historical archives, but spent time in Japan learning about Martin Luther King, Jr. and then toured Culver City’s Mayme Clayton library for more in-depth information about the Civil Rights Movement. They had a class on the environment and what we in Culver City are doing to protect our natural resources and shared with us what they do in Japan. The class was led by folks from the city and Ballona Creek Renaissance who gave up their time to present to our visiting student delegation. And when we sent our 7 high school students from Culver City to Iksan this past summer, they also were exposed to similar community information and locations relevant to Korean culture. It takes a lot of thought, time and energy to create such an itinerary and then carry it out, but this is the basis of the Sister City model. I am very proud to be part of such an all volunteer organization.

The Culver City Sister City Committee formed as a membership organization with support from the city of Culver City. We are currently a 501(c)(3) non profit organization and we continue to receive some financial support from the city as well. We welcome new members and offer the possibility of a lifetime membership which most people take advantage of so they never have to pay again, however, others continue to donate, continuing to support the work of the organization. Coming up on our agenda is the inaugural high school delegation coming on December 26th from our sister city of Lethbridge, Canada and the ongoing marathon runner exchange with Kaizuka, Japan in February (our runners go to Japan) and in March (their runners come to Culver City). We are also very proud to be the host city of the 49th annual U.S./Mexico Sister Cities Association international conference in early March 2012. Please check us out on Facebook and our web page: www.culvercitysistercitycommittee.org. We are looking for host families with high school students for our Lethbridge students. Please let us know if you are interested and pass the word on to others.

This article focused on the student exchange programs to be followed in December by a more in-depth discussion of the community/adult programs, specifically looking at my participation on the Culver City Sister City community delegation to our sister city of Lethbridge, Canada in July 2010 and refuting the rumor that all we are is a “travel club.”

Barbara Honig is the President of the Culver City Sister City Committee and a former President of the Culver City School Board.

New Sports Complex is Complex: Community Expresses Concerns

Nancy Gulish

On Thursday evening, November 17, at the CCUSD school board meeting, School Superintendent, Patricia Jaffe, introduced Paul Westberg, the architect whose firm prepared designs for the proposed sports complex, The complex is intended to replace the existing sports fields along Harter Avenue. Mr. Westberg aided by a labeled schematic of the changes presented the proposed plan to the 80-100 members of the community in attendance for, as he remarked, "its first vetting after numerous iterations."

In essence, the plan which is detailed in local newspaper articles, calls for movement of the existing football field 100 feet closer to the school buildings, the addition of a new practice field for a total of 2 practice fields, improvements to the existing baseball fields and overall improvement to the field coverings, lighting, bleachers and sound system. An elevator will be added in accord with American with Disabilities requirements along with a press box on the home team, or west side of the field. Jerry Chabola, the sports director of CCUSD, was adamant that the need for the complex was great given the present condition of the premises. The community present was in total agreement with the desire for an upgraded sports complex. But the community had a number of concerns and the item which was the most contentious was the proposed addition of 147 stalls of covered parking along Harter Avenue.

Some members of the community had no objection to the location of the new Harter parking structure given the District's statement that additional parking was necessary. But the residents of the area most affected by this proposed parking were united in opposing the addition of new parking on grounds that Harter was ill equipped to handle increased traffic and that the existing student parking lot was available if the District unlocked it when the public had access to the field.

A petition signed by residents of the area was presented to the superintendent prior to the meeting. Superintendent Jaffe accepted the petition and remarked during the discussion that the proposed plan was an attempt to remedy discontent with the existing resident issues of congestion and safety. It was her belief that additional off street parking solved the problem. It was obvious, however, that there were strong feelings against the plan.

A lively discussion followed where multiple ideas were proposed to alleviate the concerns of the residents. The following items were part of the discussion:

• Enlarging the student parking lot and making it available to the public when the complex was in use



• Moving the student lot to another area of campus and making it available to the public when the complex was in use



• Earmarking the proposed covered parking as disability only parking to in effect limit public use of the proposed parking



• Making parking on campus more attractive or easier for the public



• Restricting parking on Harter



• Red zoning portions of Harter



• Converting the three proposed Harter entrances/exit gates to the sports complex as entrance only/exit only gates



• Moving entrance/exit gates to the baseball field area of Harter



• Creating a landscaped berm in front of the proposed parking to solve the aesthetic impact of the proposed covered parking area



• Adding trees to the proposed plan

Some of these proposed ideas were feasible according to Mr. Westberg but he noted that existing law mandated that other aspects of the architectural plan could not be changed.

While the residents were interested in continuing the discussion of parking and other issues related to "green" concerns such as water use and reclamation given that the plan included artificial playing surfaces, the meeting was adjourned at 6:30.

Whether the District will amend the plan or provide other community input sessions was unclear.

Nancy Gulish is a resident of Culver City and a neighbor in the community bordering the new proposed CCUSD Sports Complex.

CCUSD School Board Meeting Preview

On Tuesday, November 22nd, the School Board meets at 7:00 at City Hall (9770 Culver Boulevard). The agenda will include:

A discussion about a no-bid contract issued by the school board to an architecture firm for approximately $400,000 to design the new sports complex. School district attorneys have written a legal memo outlining their views on the issue (see website below). Come Tuesday night to let the school board know whether they should be issuing large contracts without public bidding.

Changes to a board policy related to meeting conduct which includes most open meeting and brown act requirements. This policy is being reviewed because of an illegal section related to comments from the public.

Approval of the funding levels for the 4 capital improvement projects (elevators, athletic field renovation, robert frost auditorium, and solar power).

Approval of the 2012-2013 school year calendar with a start date of September 4th

Discussion related to the process for capital projects. This one is based on a proposal submited by an organization called ACE-Community (posted on this blog in an article by Jon Barton). The community organization is likely to want this process for the current projects and some members of staff seem to want it only for future projects. This should be interesting!

For the entire agenda and reference materials, please see http://www.ccusd.org/ourpages/boe//994%202011-12%20(Current)/001%20Agenda/001%20English/2011-11-22.pdf

A Blueprint for Disaster: The True Tale of the CCUSD Capital Improvement Projects

Karlo Silbiger

I sat through over an hour of impassioned speeches last night, as nearly 100 members of the community complained to school district officials and their contracted architect about a myriad of design aspects related to the proposed new sports complex. Should additional parking be created in a lot on site (and off street)? Should that lot be smaller and solely for handicapped guests or should it be larger with room for all? Should it be attached to an existing lot or separated with 3 new entrances? Should new rules be enforced for groups renting that space requiring them to monitor parking in the neighborhood? Should there be 2 practice fields or 1? Should part of the solar project be housed at this end of the campus above a carport rather than on roofs way down on Elenda?

As I listened silently, doing my elected official duty to hear from my constituents, I kept thinking, “How in the world did we get here?” How is it possible that we are only hearing from the community on these basic, central issues after nearly 1 year of discussing this project? How is it possible that so much time and energy has been spent on a series of projects with little discernable advancement in their road to completion? And most importantly, how can we fix a public process so backwards, so mangled, that it is the worst that I have seen in my years of watching Culver City government?

Let’s go back to the beginning. For many years, Culver City’s school district has been sitting on millions of dollars of capital improvement money, specifically designated for improvements to our facilities. Late last year, the school board asked our then Interim Superintendent to survey employees and parents about needed improvements at each site. Based on that list, the board decided to focus on 3 projects (in no particular order):

1. 2 new elevators at the middle and high schools to bring us into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act



2. Safety and cosmetic renovations at the Robert Frost Auditorium



3. The installation of a synthetic football field to address both safety and maintenance cost issues.

I also asked that we consider using the money to renovate the old natatorium in order to convert it from storage to a usable space (my idea was to move Culver Park High School over, creating more space for El Marino) and to install solar panels that would bring millions of dollars in energy savings to the general fund. While my colleagues rejected both ideas, they soon relented on the solar panels after repeated advocacy by myself and many district parents.

The community was thrilled. The athletes were getting a better facility, the performing artists were getting a better facility, the environmentalists were addressing a waste of energy, and the entire student body was receiving a respite from disastrous budget cuts due to the additional money coming into the general fund. However, we will soon celebrate the 1 year anniversary of that important first step and I’m both sad and mystified as to how almost no tangible steps have been taken to get these projects built.

Some of it is not our fault. The state bureaucracy (including the all-important Division of the State Architect) moves as an almost glacial pace. The need to hire a Superintendent and then take a short summer recess has taken everyone’s attention slightly off of this issue. And the fact that we are a small district with really no staff members knowledgeable enough to manage projects of this size and scope have forced us to hire consultants, a process that always slows down the pace, if done correctly.

However, that is only a part of the problem. The bulk of the blame lies with the school board and our staff. We screwed this up.

Check the Culver City Progress Blog next week for part II.

Karlo Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog, the Vice-President of the Culver City School Board, and the President of the Culver City Democratic Club.

City Council Causes Loss of Millions of Dollars in City Fees

Gary Silbiger

I consider myself a fiscal conservative always looking at ways of saving local government money so the city can increase jobs, services, and other basic needs. One source of revenue is city fees, yet they remain a hidden undercharged revenue item. Beginning in early 2006 prior to our current economic meltdown, I presented to the Council as a sitting Council member that Culver City should have all its city fees listed in one document and reviewed yearly to ensure that all fees are correctly calculated.

My suspicion of abuse was verified by the revelation of the small percentage of fees that applicants had been charged which directly affected the general fund. Is it a big deal? Definitely!

What are City fees?
Hundreds of fees are charged by Culver City including alarm systems, animal licensing, building permits, bus fares, business taxes, copying, curb painting, day camp fees, dumpsters, electrical permits, emergency transportation, environmental analysis, filming permits, fire prevention, GIS maps, mechanical permits, oil well permits, outdoor dining, permit for removal of street trees, plan checks, plumbing permits, police reports, preferential parking, refuse collection, swim fees, storm water pollution prevention plan, taxi permits, traffic impact analysis reports, and much more.

How are City fees calculated?
To find the cost of each of the hundreds of fees, the City calculates staff time (and gives it a salary and benefit dollar amount), departmental overhead, citywide overhead, and various additional staff costs.

What is the problem?
Once Culver City calculates the cost to the city for each fee, it then decides what percentage it will collect from the applicant and how much the city will pay from its general fund - the source of most of our city services - to make up the difference. It is illegal for a city to make a profit from a fee. However, because Culver City does not charge the applicant all of its costs (100%), the city has to subsidize that applicant by dipping into the general fund to pay the remainder of the fee. Although charging minimal fee costs to individuals and businesses benefits them individually, collectively it means less city revenue for needed services, programs and jobs.

The Beginning - 2006:
To try to evaluate Culver City’s fee schedule and to create a template that could be used in the future reports, the City Council hired a consultant, Public Resource Management Group (PRM) in 2006. For more than 15 years beforehand, Culver City had not raised City fees even though its costs increased. During all of these years, and through today, Culver City has charged the user far less than it costs the city for each fee, thus having to take the remainder from our under-nourished general fund. This has hurt us all.

In PRM’s 2007 study of Culver City, (found as an attachment to the May 7, 2007 City Council agenda) it reviewed the following departments and divisions that were responsible for the city’s fees: Planning; Building and Safety; Public Works; Parks, Recreation and Community Services; Police; and Fire. This fiscal year 2006/2007 report shows that 19% of all City costs - over $12,000,000 - came from User Fee Services, which is the topic of this article. In that fiscal year, only 45% of the costs for the City fees were paid by the user, resulting in a full 55% subsidized by the City from its general funds. Parks, Fire, Education, Social Services, Police and much more were robbed of the many services that would otherwise have been provided. Of course, the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department is expected to provide some services without being fully reimbursement by the community; this is a policy decision that most governments allow. But, why was Planning only collecting 15% of its costs, Public Works only 25%, Building and Safety 58%, Police 57%, and Fire at 60%? That came out to a whopping $6,638,000 - yes, that’s millions - that had to be taken out of the general fund for just that one fiscal year. Even if Parks, Recreation and Community Services are omitted from that year’s figures, the City still lost $3,711,790. And this policy was in place for at least the previous 15 years. No wonder Culver City is broke!

For the first fiscal year studied, 2007/2008, the City recommended only a $715,500 increase in city fees, still leaving millions of dollars paid for with our city money. Four of the five Council members - Alan Corlin, Carol Gross, Scott Malsin, and Steve Rose - voted to approve the minimal increase in City fees based on an out of date comparison-listing of 15 California cities, only 2 within Los Angeles County. My motion to increase the money paid by the applicants for their City fees was not seconded. Go to www.culvercity.org, click on “government”, then “meetings and agendas” then “meeting agendas”, then “City Council 2007”: See the May 7, 2007 City Council Agenda report.

For Culver City’s second annual City fee report made for the 2008/2009 fiscal year, City staff recommended only a 4% increase in fees because City salaries were raised 4% the previous year. This imprecise guess actually put Culver City further from collecting all the money due for each City fee because the cost calculation for each fee includes more than merely city salaries. And, the city was so far behind reaching the 100% recovery rate from the user that it resulted in a yearly loss of more than a million dollars. In that fiscal year, Parks, Recreation and Community Services charged 48% of its costs to the public, Fire 57%, Public Works 66%, Police 87%, and Building and Safety 92%. That left the City’s general fund to subsidize $1,241,549 that year. The Council passed the recommended resolution. (See the June 23, 2008 City Council agenda report).

For Culver City’s third annual fee report compiled in 2009/2010, the City recommended a small increase in cost recovery in Building and Safety, Engineering, Planning, Fire, and Police. The City Council passed a resolution changing the City’s recovery percentage while suffering another damaging blow to its economy. Once again the general fund had to pay, this time $344,360. (See the May 11, 2009 City Council agenda report).

In Culver City’s fiscal year of 2010-2011, still no department collected 100% of its costs for fees, the closest being Building and Safety at 95% and the Police hovering at 90%. (See the April 5, 2010 City Council agenda report). Once again, the Council voted to use its general fund money to help pay for fees that were owed by the applicants, this time at $379,531.

Now:
In our current fiscal year of 2011-2012, only the Parks Department increased its recoupment of fees, and that by 1%. The Parks Department is the one department whose fees should not be increased. What about the other departments? In partial figures, without information about the Public Works Department, the City’s general fund paid $338,400 to subsidize the low city fees paid by its users.

This leads to the conclusion that requiring each fee user to pay 100% of the City’s cost (other than certain programs in the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Department and preferential parking, for instance) is the only fair result. Of all the reluctant Council members, Scott Malsin most vociferously argued that it was unfair to require fee users to pay their full amount for the Planning, Building and Safety, Public Works, Police, and Fire Department fees. Yet, Council members have an obligation to protect our city funds so that it can be used for jobs and services, not to pay for city fees that businesses and individuals can easily afford. Now we know the reason why so many worthwhile programs and services have been rejected or cut.

But there’s still hope. Contact your 5 Council members and demand that they charge the full 100% of the fees where appropriate beginning now.

And, what suggestions do you have for Culver City to spend the additional $350,000 annually?

Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and a former Mayor of Culver City.

Who Is Responsible for a Child's Education?

George Laase

The quality of the teacher in front of a classroom, although very important, may not be the most critical of all factors in a student's learning. Other contributing factors include: (not ranked in any order) Parental expectations, parental involvement, parental education, home/family stability, older siblings, peers, socio-economics, ethnicity and culture, English-language proficiency, disability, motivation, political trends, and adequate state funding of Education.

Many of these cited factors cannot be addressed by a classroom teacher. Some, alone or in combination, even go well beyond the realm of the school community, itself; let alone, the influence of any single teacher.

Even skilled instructors, who are experts in their subject matter, have their own personal strengths and weaknesses and may not be able to achieve success with each individual student in their classes. In some cases, students may succeed, in spite of a teacher's personal shortcomings. Still, others won't achieve even basic subject proficiency, regardless of the herculean efforts made by intervening school staff and other teachers.

Despite all the other previous factors that can and do have significant effects on a student's learning, why the public still views the teacher's role as being "the one" that should be held ultimately accountable for a student's achievement is beyond me!

What about the student"s own attitude towards his or her education? That reminds me of the old adage, "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink." And its related spin on education, "You can make a kid go to school, but you can't make him think."

The role of the student's parent/guardian is of equal or greater importance than that of the classroom teacher in educating a child. Yet, it is still the teacher whom society is looking at to hold even more accountable for each student's success or failure in our educational system.

And that's just not right!

George Laase is a photographer for the CCHS athletic program, a graduate of CCHS, and the parent of CCHS graduates.

Value the Employees, Respect the Public

Debbie Hamme

I have been a member of this community for 28 years and in all those years, I have never seen a school board race with this intensity. It brought to mind the opening line from A Tale of Two Cities: "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times…” because while most of what we read or heard was constructive, supportive or appreciative, too much of it was not. We may have come to expect “politics as usual” on the national scene, but there should be no place for it in a local school board race. Name-calling, character attacks or other forms of disrespect directed toward any member of our small community is demeaning to us all. We are better than that.

Many people I spoke to during the campaign expressed how important it was to see a sense of decorum and mutual respect brought back to the school board, a sense that their input was important to the decision making process and valued. Perhaps the results of this election are most indicative of those desires.

When stepping into the voting booth, every voter had their own criteria for judging the candidates, and their own opinion about the qualities that make a good board member. Ultimately, people voted for the candidate that put forth a message or had a focus with which they could most closely relate. It wasn’t about how much money was spent on mailers or ads, how many signs were up in their neighborhood, or how much behind the scenes gossip they had heard, it was all about (or should have been all about) the candidate’s message and how well it resonated with them.

The results of this election were gratifying to some, surprising to others, and devastating to others still. Such is the nature of politics, and each of us sees things from a different perspective.

For the last four years the morale among district employees has steadily declined. That is partially attributable to the declining resources the district has suffered as a result of state budget cuts, but more certainly attributable to the fact that the employees of our district were constantly under attack in the last few years for comprising a 90% financial liability to the district. We were not made to feel that we were essential to or respected by the district, instead we were made to feel guilty for even wanting to protect some quality of life for our members by suggesting there may be other things to cut besides salary and benefits. It also didn’t help that with the elimination of support staff positions, we were expected to do more and more work for less pay.

It was clear to us just how under-valued we were when we were treated to anti-union sentiment on the part of specific board members in print and at board meetings. Imagine how disrespected one feels to stand at the podium, making an impassioned statement to the board, only to see board members rolling their eyes, making snarky comments to each other, or not even making an attempt to feign the least bit of interest—often staring into space or texting on their phone. And the saddest part of all is that this rude, bullying behavior was modeled for our students sitting in the audience.

That is why, as the president of the Association of Classified Employees—Culver City, I am both excited and relieved that there will soon be a new dynamic on the board--one that will most assuredly model the integrity, mutual respect and inclusion that has been sorely lacking on the board for far too long.

A.C.E. is anxious to be part of the process and is hopeful that a new spirit of collaboration between the board and the union will enable us to find solutions--together--to the challenges that still face our district.

Debbie Hamme is the President of the Association of Classified Employees-Culver City and an employee of the Culver City Unified School District.

School Board Election: By The Numbers

The best way to understand the school board election on Tuesday is to look at the results, which are included below.

A few highlights:

• Nancy Goldberg won first place in 11 of 13 precincts (and came in 2nd, 1 vote behind Laura Chardiet in a 12th). Laura Chardiet came in first in 2 precinct, second in 9 precincts, and third in 2 precincts. Scott Zeidman came in second in 4 precincts and third in the remaining 9.




• There were a lot of bullet voters this election (25% of those who voted at the polls,
  37% of those who voted absentee, and 32% overall).




• Turnout was slightly higher than expected (about 23% higher than 4 years ago), but still over 20% lower than the record high set 2 years ago in the school board election that included measure EE.

Here are the full results:

Total

3810 Ballots Cast (15% Turnout)

Goldberg - 2213 Votes (58%)

Chardiet - 1926 Votes (51%)

Zeidman - 1898 Votes (50%)

Absentee Total

1997 Ballots Cast (52% of Votes)

Goldberg - 1153 (58%)

Chardiet - 940 (47%)

Zeidman - 927 (46%)

Precinct (Election Day) Total

1813 Ballots Cast (48% of Votes)

Goldberg - 1060 (58%)

Chardiet - 986 (54%)

Zeidman - 971 (54%)

Precinct 1 (East Culver)

91 Ballots Cast (10%)

Goldberg - 49 (54%)

Chardiet - 45 (49%)

Zeidman - 39 (43%)

Precincts 2/22 (West Culver)

159 Ballots Cast (13%)

Goldberg - 94 (59%)

Chardiet - 77 (48%)

Zeidman - 74 (47%)

Precincts 3/4/6 (Rancho-Higuera / Downtown)

298 Ballots Cast (11%)

Goldberg - 182 (61%)

Chardiet - 148 (50%)

Zeidman - 116 (39%)

Precincts 6/7/8/55 (Carlson Park)

489 Ballots Cast (19%)

Chardiet - 277 (57%)

Goldberg - 276 (56%)

Zeidman - 246 (50%)

Precincts 13/16 (Vets Park)

339 Ballots Cast (20%)

Goldberg - 190 (56%)

Chardiet - 188 (55%)

Zeidman - 175 (52%)

Precinct 14 (Blair Hills)

88 Ballots Cast (18%)

Goldberg - 51 (58%)

Chardiet - 45 (51%)

Zeidman - 41 (47%)

Precincts 11/16/17/18 (Tellefson Park / Studio Estates / La Ballona)

361 Ballots Cast (13%)

Goldberg - 218 (60%)

Chardiet - 176 (49%)

Zeidman - 173 (48%)

Precincts 22/24 (West Culver)

140 Ballots Cast (10%)

Chardiet - 89 (64%)

Zeidman - 79 (56%)

Goldberg - 51 (36%)

Precincts 27/28/71 (Sunkist Park)

403 Ballots Cast (23%)

Goldberg - 233 (58%)

Zeidman - 221 (55%)

Chardiet - 186 (46%)

Precincts 31/34/44/45/71 (Crest / El Rincon / Lakeside / Maytime)

552 Ballots Cast (19%)

Goldberg - 333 (60%)

Zeidman - 305 (55%)

Chardiet - 249 (45%)

Precincts 25/27/42/44 (Lindberg Park / Raintree / Tara Hills)

544 Ballots Cast (20%)

Goldberg - 344 (63%)

Zeidman - 279 (51%)

Chardiet - 275 (51%)

Precincts 71/74/75 (Fox Hills)

195 Ballots Cast (12%)

Goldberg - 109 (56%)

Chardiet - 92 (47%)

Zeidman - 87 (45%)

Precincts 73/75/76 (Fox Hills)

151 Ballots Cast (8%)

Goldberg - 83 (55%)

Chardiet - 79 (52%)

Zeidman - 63 (42%)

5 Lessons from the 2011 Culver City School Board Election

Karlo Silbiger

I have been watching elections now in Culver City for 18 years and I’m ready to make a confession: My name is Karlo Silbiger and I am a Culver City elections nerd. That’s right, I read all of the news, go to all of the candidates’ forums and campaign events, and have worked on or run more campaigns than I care to admit. While the vast majority of Culverites couldn’t even be bothered to vote Tuesday, I’ve been living and breathing this election every day for over a year.

What fascinates me most about our local elections is that each one is incredibly unique, providing its own set of lessons about how our community thinks, what we truly value. Some lessons are obvious from a cursory look at the results. Nancy Goldberg is beloved by the community that she has served for 41 years. She won 11 of the 13 precincts, polling first in nearly every conceivable corner of this community. She won those who voted by mail and those who voted at the polls. But some lessons take a little more analysis and thought, those are the ones that I especially enjoy discovering. Here then are my 5 lessons from the 2011 Culver City School Board election:

1. Like in all Culver City Elections, Every Vote Counts – This is the second consecutive Culver City election where the difference between the winner and the loser was fewer than 35 votes. Only 8 years ago, Stew Bubar and Roger Maxwell received the exact same number of votes, necessitating a marble game that still seems ridiculous to me. With such low voter turnout (in this election 15% of registered voters chose to participate), the problem is even further exacerbated.


2. People of all Demographic Groups are Getting More and More Busy – It used to be the case that elderly and disabled residents who had a difficult time going to the polling places would vote absentee, while the rest of us relished the opportunity to perform our civic duty on Election Day. Absentee ballots were both insignificant in number and skewed conservative. That is no longer the case. In this election, 52% of the ballots were cast by mail. For the second school board election in a row, the results from the absentee ballots and the polling places were nearly identical. A large cross-section of people are choosing to vote by mail and all political activists are going to have to alter their campaign style to meet the needs of this changing calendar.


3. Culver City Trusts Educators to Run the School District – For the first time in at least 20 years, an 80% supermajority of the board, 4 out of 5 members, will be educators. While all of us have different bases of knowledge and points of view, the past 2 elections have been clear signs to all of us that Culver City voters want educators running the school district. The message may be that it is time for the board to address not only the fiduciary and facilities responsibilities, but actually wade a little deeper into the important education discussions that will help to improve the instruction given to students in our district’s classrooms.


4. Incumbents are not Invincible – In my AP Government class, I always teach my students that the number one characteristic of a winning candidate at the state or federal level is their incumbency status. Often over 90% of incumbent members of Congress and state legislatures win re-election in any given cycle. However, that is not the case in our city. Over the past 21 years (and, therefore, 21 elections), 6 incumbents have lost re-election campaigns, which equates to about 1 incumbent loss every 3-4 elections. However, the data becomes even more stark when you realize that 5 of the 21 elections had no incumbents on the ballot. Therefore, in 38% of the elections with incumbents, they lose. Believe me that this is one of the lessons that I will personally be taking to heart!


5. The Political Elite May Be Out of Touch with the Voters – There were 9 Culver City local elected officials who endorsed in this race (5 city council members and 4 school board members not running for re-election). There were 4 county, state, and federal elected officials who endorsed in this race (Congresswoman Bass, Senator Price, Assemblywoman Mitchell, and Supervisor Ridley-Thomas). There were 7 political organizations that endorsed in this race (too numerous to list, but ranging from employee organizations to political organizations to business organizations). Of those 20 politically elite entities only 1 got this election right: the Culver City Federation of Teachers. This certainly points to the importance of the Teachers’ Union and the value that Culver City voters place on the opinion of their public employees. However, it also seems to suggest that those of us in the know (myself included) may not be seeing things the same way as the average voter, as important a lesson as can possible be told.

Elections are all in the past. Analyzing them like this make for an interesting intellectual exercise (and good conversation), but the real question is how do we as a community own the lessons of this election and address them going forward. How do all of us change our behavior to prove to our citizenry that we got the message? For that, we will have to wait a bit longer.

Karlo Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog, the Vice-President of the Culver City School Board, and the President of the Culver City Democratic Club.

Culver City Progress Blog Comments Policy

Hi Everyone,

We have so enjoyed reading all of the thoughtful comments posted during the 1st week and a half of this blog's existence. Thanks to everyone who has contributed. In order to maintain an open and civil dialog, we have 2 rules related to comment posting:

- All comments must be from named sources, no anonymous comments. If you do not have a google or blogger account and want to post, you can post as an anonymous user, but please include your name somewhere in the text of the posting.

- All comments must be civil in tone. You can disagree with the ideas of the authors or other commenters, but please do so without personal attacks.

Thanks again to everyone for their participation and adherence to these policies.

Gary Silbiger
Karlo Silbiger
Editors
Culver City Progress Blog

Election Results: Goldberg and Chardiet to Join School Board

In case you haven't heard, the results from yesterday's election are finally in:
Nancy Goldberg: 2213
Laura Chardiet: 1926
Scott Zeidman: 1898
Robert Zirgulis: 265
Gary Abrams: 115

Since the 2nd and 3rd place candidates are only 28 votes apart, the election results won't be finalized until all of the provisional and late absentee votes are counted (probably later this week or early next week). However, the chance of them changing is very slim.

Karlo Silbiger will have a posting on the lessons of the election tomorrow and Debbie Hamme will be writing on the impact that these results will have on the district going forward on Friday. But if you have an early analysis, feel free to comment.

Tuesday Is Election Day, GO VOTE!

Once a year, Culver City voters have a chance to have a direct input into the direction of our community. Tomorrow, we will select 2 members of our School Board. Please make sure that you go to vote between 7:00 am and 8:00 pm.

For more information on the 5 candidates, visit www.smartvoter.org (run by the League of Women Voters).

To find your polling place, visit www.lavote.net/locator (run by the LA County Registrar).

Come to the Culver City Progress Blog on Wednesday for all of the results with analysis to follow on Thursday and Friday.

CCUSD Stakeholders Call For More Participatory Process

Jon Barton

An open letter to CCUSD parents and interested community members:

We would like to introduce ourselves. We are Accountability for Culver Education (ACE), a growing group of involved parents and community members who are committed, like you, to making our schools outstanding.

CCUSD has a $12 million capital improvement fund that can only be used for construction-related capital improvements (restricted funds), and not education or salaries (unrestricted, or general funds). The Board has selected four capital improvement projects: 1) improvements to the athletic facilities at the high school; 2) solar energy; 3) improvements to the Robert Frost Auditorium and 4) elevators at CCMS/HS. We have become very concerned about the process by which the District and the Board have made decisions on the use of these funds.

We are seeking their accountability, inclusiveness and collaboration with the community in these efforts. Some examples are a lack of: publicly-available criteria for prioritizing projects, including those that can bring in unrestricted general fund money; active effort to inform citizens/involve them in discussion of these projects, until very recently, after preliminary budgets were set; public notice/ competitive bidding process to select an architect for the athletics facilities renovations; project budgets were set without a formal Board vote; misinformation regarding State Modernization Funds; establishing a budget and priorities for the Frost Auditorium by District personnel, not qualified experts, and without first resolving the question of whether asbestos containment is needed. Based on these concerns, we crafted the below set of requests. We sent these to current Board members and to the candidates for the Board of Education.

Their responses can be found at our website http://ccusdparents.tumblr.com/. Some Board members did not respond out of stated concerns about violating the Brown Act. For more information, or if you wish to join the growing number of parents and citizens in support, please visit the following website: http://ccusdparents.tumblr.com/. We ask that you refrain from posting any comments to the above statements on the Yahoo group, but rather, post them to the website that has been set up specifically to have an open dialogue with the community about CCUSD issues. This request is out of respect to Yahoo group members who do not wish to continue to participate in this discussion.

Proposal for an inclusive and collaborative community process in developing a comprehensive plan for CCUSD Capital Improvement Projects

We are a group of committed parents and community members that are interested in working in partnership with the Board and the District to ensure accountability and inclusion in our school governing processes.

Listed below are a set of recommendations to assist the Board and the District in developing a comprehensive plan for CCUSD Capital Improvements. We request that the Board and District to introduce these recommendations at the Board meeting on November 8 and approve them at the following Board meeting on November 22.

1. Establish an agreed-upon set criteria for all capital projects: Criteria may include health and safety, ADA compliance, educational mission/value and the viability of serving as a future revenue source. These criteria could be used to establish RFP guidelines and serve as the framework for prioritizing capital improvement projects and the components within each project.



2. Commit to hiring an expert architect, with demonstrated experience in theater renovations and construction, for the Frost project. This expert The would provide a feasibility study that evaluates all aspects of the Frost (health, safety, ADA, sound, electrical, etc) and with providing recommendations to the Board and District for comprehensive repairs, identifying repairs that are needed immediately and creating recommendations for staged renovations in stages, as additional funds become available. This expert should provide an estimated budget for the total project, and the components thereof, based on their experience.



3. Support the Establishment of a Robert Frost Work Group. This group will be charged with identifying specific needed improvements/costs for the Frost and with providing input from active users of the facility and community members. This group will be comprised of qualified volunteer parents, CCUSD teachers using the Frost, involved students, and performance and design experts. This group will provide CCUSD administration and the Frost expert architect with research and background information as well as their feedback on proposed plans throughout the life of the project. The work group will provide the Board with regular updates to assess progress. These updates should be posted on a public site.
   


4. Establish the following process for hiring experts, soliciting community input and public bidding process:

• The District and Board should make the experts' recommendations for each project available to the public, at least 1 week in advance of a public meeting (such as a Board meeting or special Board meeting) at which time the public will be invited to comment on the recommendations;



• Based on the experts' recommendations and public input, the Board and District should determine the final cost and scope of each project, which will be released publicly;
  


• Once all bids are received, the District and Board commit to re-examining their budget allocations to determine if they continue to be accurate or if they need to be changed or if plans for fundraising need to occur; and



• Once all bids are received and the District and Board have re-examined their budget allocations, the District and Board commit to share with the citizens of Culver City the final budget for each project (that includes all formal bids) for public comment.

Jon Barton is a member of the CCUSD Environmental Sustainability Committee and a member of Accountability for Culver Education (ACE).

Parcel B Deadline: Tell Council What You Want for Downtown Culver City

Meghan Sahli-Wells

Parcel B is the long-time empty lot between the Culver Hotel, Culver Studios and Trader Joe's in Downtown Culver City. Development proposals have come and gone throughout the years, the last project having been financed by now defunct Lehman Brothers. This acre of public land is slated for development once again, with the same entitlements as the former project: "Parcel B has entitlements for a three story, 118,000 square foot, office and retail development with 84 subterranean parking spaces" according to the 02/14/11 Redevelopment Agency staff report.

Along with many residents, I have taken issue with the fact that the Redevelopment Agency (RDV for short) has insisted on maintaining the existing entitlements - why would we need more office spaces when there are already prime downtown spaces that have been sitting empty for years? Since previous projects were unsuccessful, perhaps the public needs to rethink the space entirely, under today's circumstances? (See my previous post on entitlements and public input here.) But, the proverbial train has already left the station - the cost and time necessary to start the entitlement process anew is, according to RDV, not worth it.

What we have now is a choice between four development proposals: "Culver X" by the Tolkin Group, "Parc & Main" by Cardiff Realty Holdings, "Paseo" by Runyon Partners, and the "9300 Culver" Combined Properties Inc. proposal. After a rocky start with public input (see details in this article), RDV finally held a meeting where residents could see all four projects and speak freely with the developers on 10/24 (see staff report here). Furthermore, all five RDV Agency/Council members sincerely asked the public for their input, admitting it was a hard choice for them.

So, now it's up to us! Please review the projects online and let RDV know what you think would best fit on this prime piece of public land in the heart of our city:

Mayor Mehaul O'Leary: micheal.oleary@culvercity.org (310) 754-9787
Vice-Mayor Scott Malsin: scott.malsin@culvercity.org (310) 398-3183
Council Member Chris Armenta: christopher.armenta@culvercity.org (310) 384-1490
Council Member Andy Weisman: andrew.weissman@culvercity.org (310) 839-5217
Council Member Jeff Cooper: jeffrey.cooper@culvercity.org (310) 344-8033

To see the projects:
Curbed LA has a very succinct presentation of the four developments here.

To download detailed materials from each developer, city staff reports, as well as developers' contact information see Culver City's dedicated website page.

RDV/Council is expected cast their decisive vote on November 14th.

Meghan Sahli-Wells is the Chair of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, the Vice-Chair of the Culver City Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and a member of the Culver City Advisory Committee on Redevelopment. Please visit her blog at www.vote4meghan.com.

CCUSD School Board Meeting Preview

On Tuesday, November 8th (Election Day!) the School Board meets for a 4:45 early meeting at the School District Headquarters (4034 Irving Place). The agenda will include:

- A discussion about a no-bid contract issued by the school board to an architecture firm for approximately $400,000 to design the new sports complex. School district attorneys have written a legal memo outlining their views on the issue (see website below). Come Tuesday night to let the school board know whether they should be issuing large contracts without public bidding.

- A presentation from the Anti-Bullying Task Force on the work that they have been doing throughout the district to address bullying issues. Are you satisfied with the level of programs and the focus? Do you have ideas for how the district can better protect students? Should funding these programs be a priority during tough economic times?

- A proposal will be made by parents and other members of the community to open up the capital improvement project process for more stakeholder involvement. Among their many suggestions is creating a list of criteria based on which all decisions will be made and the setting up of a task force to work closely with the experts on prioritizing funding for the Robert Frost Auditorium. If you support a more open process and have ideas for how we can ensure that the voices of all stakeholder groups (including students) will be heard, come and support these community members

For the entire agenda and reference materials, please see: http://www.ccusd.org/ourpages/boe//994%202011-12%20(Current)/001%20Agenda/001%20English/2011-11-08.pdf

City Violates Brown Act, Doesn't Care

Gary Silbiger

In 1953 California enacted the Brown Act which proclaims, "The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants their right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created".

For at least the last decade, at the yearly reorganization of the City Council in April or May, the Council (and Redevelopment Agency) choose 1 or 2 of its 5 members to sit on multi-agency committees and Culver City Council Committees. This article focuses solely on the Council Committees.

For instance, at the City Council meeting on May 9th of this year, the Council members apponted its own members to 17 separate committees, whose meetings are kept secret from the community. The public has absolutely no input into these secret committees, which simply prepare the full Council for its inevitable final recommendations. Some of these crucial existing committees include auditing, economic development, animal services, sustainability, regional development and traffic mitigation, oil, agenda formating, youth advisory committee, affordable housing, and committees for each of the redevelopment agency areas. A lot of important discussions take place during these exclusive meetings. Although there are community members who are experts in our City, we lose their valuable input.

The "Council Subcomittees" described above meet at secret times in City Hall - as if they were discussing foreign intelligence items or preventing terrorist attacks - with no public notification or public particiation. Only Council members and staff are privy to these meetings. After the conclusion of the meeting, no notes are taken or posted. The City calendar on its website never includes these meetings - as though they do not exist. This merry-go-round continues its circle at the subsequent meetings, again avoiding the participation of the very people who have the expertise and interest in making the work of the committees relevant.

Californians Aware, the leading Brown Act watchdog group in our state, challenged the 20 "ad hoc" committees used by the Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART), which then agreed in May of this year to either go public or be dissolved. Around the same time, Californians Aware approved filing suit against the Orange County cities of Costa Mesa and Aliso Viejo for their closed "working groups" made exclusively of Council members.

When I addressed the City Council of Culver City at a meeting a few months ago, I pointed out that standing committees of a legislative body that have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction (such as Culver City's), as opposed to a temporary purpose, are subject to the Brown Act. Although both the City and Council members were placed on notice that they were violating the law, no City follow up has occurred. Yet the Council agendas are generally very light with plenty of time for this discussion to happen. The public continues to be ignored

Until the Council instructs the City employees to always include full transparency, and at the same time learns that including the public leads to better proposals, the laws will continue to be violated. Laughing at the law is detrimental to Culver City - and illegal..

Culver City should immediately declare all of its Council Committees open to full public participation. Don't disband needed Committees; make them democratic. Agendize the topic of the best way to encourage Council/Public joint committees, including which committees are needed. The Council must trust its constituents to do the right thing. With this joint venture, the Committees listed above will become vital and exciting.

Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the Former Mayor of Culver City.

A Blood Transfusion for the "Heart" of Screenland

Darryl Cherness

As residents of Culver City, we take great pride in our city's motion picture and television heritage. This, more than anything else, defines our community and distinguishes us from other cities throughout the nation. After all, it was here, in Culver City, where the Wizard of Oz and Gone With the Wind were filmed. It is here, in Culver City, where Wheel of Fortune and Jeopardy are taped and broadcast throughout the nation, to be viewed by millions of American households.

Given our city's rich history as a motion picture and television center, you would think that our community would go "all out" to promote our history and let the world know about our past.
Unfortunately, this is not the case. We, as a community, have done very little to promote our heritage. We have the "Filmstrip USA" sculpture in front of the Veteran's Memorial Building, the Culver City Historical Society Archives and Resource Center (that is open 4 hours a month and is the best kept secret in town), and, of course, our city motto: "Heart of Screenland." That's all we have. We can do better.

Culver City needs a full time, full fledged motion picture and television museum. Such a museum would put Culver City "on the map" and bring thousands of tourists to our city: tourists who would patronize our downtown restaurants, stay at the Culver Hotel (thus generating bed tax revenue), and watch plays at the Kirk Douglas Theatre.

The beauty of the museum is that it would generate multiple sources of revenue for the city. Not only would it bring additional business to downtown, but it would also generate revenue on its own. For example, the city could impose an entertainment fee on the admission to the museum. If the museum had a gift shop selling motion picture and television memorabilia, the city would receive a portion of the sales tax revenue on each sale. There could be bus tours to the museum, and the operators of those tours would pay a business license fee to Culver City.

Where would the museum be located? Recently, the City Council created an ad hoc committee to explore the feasibility of establishing a motion picture and television museum in Culver City. The location of the museum would be an appropriate issue for the ad hoc committee to address.
However, given the multiple downtown attractions for local visitors and tourists, I would suggest that the museum be located within reasonable proximity of downtown.

Culver City has a vast, untapped resource. Let's use it!

Darryl Cherness is a member of Culver City's Motion Picture and Television Museum Feasibility Ad Hoc Committee and the former President of the Culver City Democratic Club.

The Value of Informed Dialog

Karlo Silbiger

Over a year ago I wrote an editorial for the local Culver City newspapers using the disaster in the city of Bell as an important reminder of how a lack of an involved citizenry almost always leads to horrible abuses of power by those in public service (http://www.thefrontpageonline.com/articles1-7953/ALessontoUsAllTheInextricableLinkBetweenApathyandCorruption). I pleaded with my neighbors to become active, or at least informed, so that we could ensure that Culver City did not hit such terrible lows. I used a perk-laden City Manager’s contract as proof that we as a community were not doing our job. I hoped that it would awaken people throughout the city at a level not seen for decades.

I’m sorry to say that in the year since, I have seen no real change in the level of interest within our community. The same 20-50 people come to City Council and School Board meetings. The same handful of gadfly’s (and I say that in the most positive of respects) read every public document to bring out any funny business that our elected officials or staffs are trying to pull. And the rest of us are content enough to sit back and hope for the best. It’s been a disappointing year.

Then it hit me that part of the problem might not be city-wide apathy or a lack of true investment in our local governments, but instead a lack of a real forum to share and discuss our common ideas for how to PROGRESS our community. Those who read the local media (both the print and online varieties) know that they are primarily a mix of:
- Writers unfamiliar with local issues
- Editors more interested in drumming up controversy than proposing real solutions and
- Publishers who want so much not to offend anyone (for fear of losing needed advertising revenue) that they report factual occurrences with no attempt at any real analysis.

The problem was not with the people in Culver City, it was with the forums for communication. It is unreasonable to expect people to watch a 4 hour meeting or read a 100 page agenda report. The only way that we are going to substantially improve the level of involvement is by creating easy access to information about the goings on within the community, but also by providing detailed analyses of those happenings. We need a real, legitimate place for conversation, with many voices and viewpoints. We need a communications outlet unencumbered by the overbearing editor, the out of town writer, or the money-crunching publisher. We need our own blog.

My dad, former Mayor Gary Silbiger, and I developed this idea last summer and have spent the past few months brainstorming how we can best deliver a forum for such a discussion. While both of us will serve as editors and contributors, this is NOT a place for us to overpower legitimate debate and discussion with our singular viewpoints (we are trying to increase dialog, not decrease it). Every week, we will strive to bring you postings from active members of our community commenting on the work that is currently being done in every facet of Culver City’s political and social life, while also suggesting ideas for how we can collectively make our community stronger, how we can PROGRESS. It is an exciting venture and I am optimistic of the impact that this forum can have. However, communication is only the first step. If 5 of us write every week and 40 additional people read and understand our writing, but no one actually changes their behavior, then this is all for naught. Remember that the ultimate goal is to use dialog as a catalyst for engagement, as a vehicle for social change. With that, let’s get started.

Karlo Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog, the Vice-President of the Culver City School Board, and the President of the Culver City Democratic Club.