Karlo Silbiger
Yes I know that it has been just 5 weeks since the last local election and a week since our new school board members were sworn in. However, election season has returned to Culver City. Beginning this week, the Culver City Clerk has opened up the filing period for FOUR seats on our City Council. That’s right, 80% of our council members will be elected in just 4 short months and it is high time that this blog began to focus on the campaign ahead.
This is no ordinary race. The city attorney has been working overtime to research election law and the city charter, attempting to provide legal interpretations of sections that have never been used. The election has been pretty sleepy up to now, owing to the 3 relatively well-liked incumbents whose terms were up in April. However, with the recent resignation of Vice Mayor Scott Malsin (to my knowledge, the first resignation in the history of the city) and the news that former Mayor and current Council Member Chris Armenta is stepping down at the end of the term, this election has gotten interesting.
To date, there are 8 people who have either announced their candidacies or who are rumored to be considering a run. Let’s look at each, in as unbiased a way as I am capable of providing:
Jim Clarke: In little Culver City we are lucky to have so many people who are well-connected to the political establishment in this region (including staff people for elected officials and 1 of the 14 Redistricting Commissioners). However, Jim is probably the most well-connected of them all. He has served as the director of 2 state-wide non-profit organizations, as an officer for state and national political organizations (including Secretary of the California Democratic Party and Treasurer of Americans for Democratic Action), Chief of Staff for 2 members of Congress (including Diane Watson), and currently as the Director of Federal Relations for the City of Los Angeles.
Jim has a level of knowledge and connections that would certainly serve the city well and his connections to political officials should help him to run a legitimate campaign, should he choose to be a candidate. However, a lot of campaigning is who you know locally who can volunteer and it will be interesting to see what kind of a campaign organization Jim can put together at this late stage.
Saundra Davis: Sandra served as a school board member from 2001-2009, getting the most votes in each of her respective elections. She has been an activist in her Blair Hills neighborhood. She now runs a Workforce Development center, providing her with both management and economic development knowledge that could provide a platform for a council run. Saundra ran for State Senate in the 2009 special election that saw Curren Price take his seat. She came in a pretty distant 6th place and hasn’t run for or held office in the 2.5 years since.
Saundra has been rumored to be a candidate for city council repeatedly over the years that she’s been active and has never decided to take the plunge. What’s really going to be interesting if Saundra decides to run is to see who supports her. Saundra won overwhelmingly in her 2 school board elections thanks in part to strong backing from the progressive community, including the Democratic Club. She then supported other progressive candidates. In the days after the November 2008 election, an LA Times article came out quoting Saundra’s husband explaining why he and other African-Americans supported proposition 8 and opposed gay marriage. During Saundra’s 2009 Senate run, some progressives endorsed her opponents and since, Saundra has been endorsing more conservative candidates for local office. In this election, where will her base of support lie? That remains to be seen.
Micheal O’Leary: Micheal first came on the scene in 2004, when he attempted to run for city council. He had recently gotten his citizenship, but due to a technical error with his voter registration, he was unable to be a candidate. He tried again in 2006, placing third in a field of 3 candidates. While Micheal was a hard working candidate with the background of a successful business owner, his lack of community involvement or political know-how led to a somewhat substantial loss. Not giving up, Micheal continued to get more involved (most notably in the now-defunct Culver City Homeowners Association) and won a seat on the council in 2008, placing third in a field of 9 candidates.
As he begins his run for re-election, a couple of interesting analyses could be given for Micheal’s chances. He has generally maintained a visible presence in the community, attending many events (especially in 2011 as Mayor). He has tended towards a more civil tone on the council, working as an independent voice. He reminds me a lot of his political predecessor, Albert Vera, who was more interested in being visible within the community than of gaining support for any specific political philosophy. However,
Micheal’s third place finish in his last election would normally make him the easiest incumbent to remove from office. For him, the most pressing questions relate to what group will work on his behalf and whether his independent status will gain him a lot of 2nd (or 3rd or 4th) votes from those supporting his opponents.
Scott Malsin: Scott popped up on the political scene in 2001 when he was appointed to the planning commission. He quickly found roles in other community groups (such as the West Culver Neighborhood Association, the Culver City Democratic Club and the Ballona Creek Renaissance), leading many of us to correctly predict that he would run for City Council in 2006. In that same small field of 3 candidates, Scott placed second, winning a seat. He won a second term relatively easily 2 years ago. Of the current council members, Scott is definitely the most controversial. He is a lightning rod for those opposing over development, due to his vote in support of the Entrada project in 2008.
Under normal circumstances (as was the case 2 years ago), Scott would tend to be a shoe in for re-election. He has strong supporters and a history of involvement with a lot of diverse populations. However, this is not a normal circumstance. Scott resigned his seat on the council last week in order to maintain city health benefits for himself and his family. There is a lot of disagreement over whether or not a part time council member who served just 5 ½ years in office should get such benefits. There is also disagreement over whether his retirement and subsequent re-election campaign will be seen as gaming the system, both the retirement system and the voter-approved term limit laws. Given that this is such an unusual situation, Scott’s prospects for election are anyone’s guess.
Meghan Sahli-Wells: Meghan has probably become the most active non-elected official in this community. After running for city council in 2010 and losing by just over 30 votes, Meghan dove deep into community involvement, currently serving as the Chair of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, the Vice Chair of the Culver City Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee, and the Vice President of the Culver City Democratic Club among other work. She has deep ties in her neighborhood and with school-age parents.
What’s most interesting about Meghan is her role as the runner up from the election 2 years ago. Over the past 7 city council elections, we have had 4 “runner up” candidates try again 2 years later (Carol Gross, Gary Silbiger, Micheal O’Leary, and Jeff Cooper), and all have won. I chalk it up to a mix of added name recognition and the value that voters place on continued involvement. Not only would Meghan fit right in the mold of the above candidates, but her first election was by far the closest.
Gary Silbiger: Obviously I have lots of insight into this particular candidate, but I am including my father on this list not because he is running, but because he has been rumored to be a candidate. Having been involved in the community for much of the 1990s, Gary won a seat on the council in 2002 and served for 8 years. He is beloved by many and vilified by many others, definitely the poster child for the progressive movement in this city. Under the city charter, Gary had to step down from his seat in 2010, but is eligible to run again next year. Since 1994, when term limits were added to the charter by the voters, only 1 candidate has attempted a comeback after sitting out the requisite time (Albert Vera’s successful third run in 2002).
During the past 3 city elections, 16 candidates have run for city council. Of those, Gary is the highest vote getter for his 2006 campaign. There is no question that he has a lot of passionate supporters. But given that he has been out of the news for 2 years and hasn’t been on the ballot for 6, a question remains as to how many people remember why they voted for him in the past.
Marcus Tiggs: Marcus began his political career by running for a seat on the City Council in 2004. A complete unknown, he placed a distant 6th place, but used that election as a spring board to get more involved in the community. He has been on the planning commission for almost 8 years now and chaired the Fiesta La Ballona committee. He has been rumored to be a candidate again in nearly every election since, but has always declined to run due to his military service that takes him out of town somewhat often.
What will be interesting about Marcus, should he decide to run, is that he is a republican running in an overwhelmingly democratic community (about 65% of voters in Culver City are registered Democrats). We have had Republicans in office (most recently Patricia Siever, Steve Rose, Mike Eskridge, Mike Balkman, and Jozelle Smith come to mind), but they are few and far between. Will Marcus’s community involvement be able to provide him with a way to get past potential ideological differences with voters?
Andy Weissman: Andy has been active in Culver City since at least the 1980s, when he made his first run for office. Although losing that bid, he remained active, serving on nearly every committee or commission available to him during the 20 years that followed. He tried again in 2008 and won. In that election, Andy had the support of practically every current or former elected official in the community (an amazing feat considering that he was not an incumbent and that there were 8 people running against him).
His nearly universal support may or may not be replicated next year. Andy had support from the Culver City Democratic Club and other progressive activists who may be unhappy with his successful bid to deny Gary Silbiger his turn as mayor in his final year on the council. However, thus far, he has received a lot of support from throughout the community and is the first candidate to officially kick off their campaign. He definitely has a head start over his likely opponents.
There are sure to be more candidates forthcoming, especially with 2 newly vacated seats. What will be interesting is to see how Culver City voters, who are far from predictable in local elections (as was shown in the recent school board campaign) will choose to capitalize on getting to pick 4 council members for the first time in history. One thing’s for certain, we can all expect to get a lot of political mail over the next 4 months!
Karlo Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog, the President of the Culver City School Board, and the President of the Culver City Democratic Club.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Tuesday, December 20, 2011
Using the Public Records Act
Michael Hersh
States with strong “freedom of information” laws generally are the best at detecting official corruption and preventing such corruption. In California, our Public Records Act, “PRA,” (Gov’t Code sections 6520 - 6270) assumes that all State and local government records are public, unless specifically exempted from disclosure by the PRA and provides a process to inspect or obtain copies of public records. (The Freedom of Information Act is a parallel federal law that requires agencies of the U.S. government to disclose records.) The purpose of this article is provide some general tips to making an effective PRA request and to steer you to useful resources. The process to request documents is relatively simple, but a successful request entails a bit of research to determine exactly what records you seek, an understanding the exemptions to disclosure in the PRA, and a willingness to enforce your rights.
Stage One: Before your PRA Request
Whenever possible, work with others who share your interest in an issue and in pursuing public records related to that issue. Your request will benefit from the different perspectives you find, and public employees, officials and the Courts will see your request as one with a significant public purpose. An official PRA request starts a formal legal process that is likely to be reviewed by many government officials, attorneys and possibly Superior Court judges. Before starting down that road, if you have a good idea of a particular department or work site that might have the specific information you are seeking, study up. You may find an organizational chart of the particular agency you are dealing with on-line, or learn from press releases which officials are responsible for a particular public project. It does not hurt to visit a specific public office and speak to the people who work there to discuss your need for information. It will not likely result in an employee handing you want you are seeking (though you may get lucky), but the employee may provide a particular form number used in that department to keep track of particular matters or explain that the department issues reports about the matter of which you are concerned, or give you the name of a particular administrator or employee who audits, manages, or works in the specific areas of your concern. That person may also live across the street. Always be polite, friendly and honest with government employees at every step. For an informal chat, avoid a time of day when that office is busy. Absolutely nothing is gained by bullying employees or officials, using the phrase, “my taxes pay your salary,” making empty threats about litigation,or throwing a tantrum, and you quickly lose the cooperation of people who might otherwise be willing to help you. We have local taverns that are ideal for such rants. Another informal route, depending on the specific issue you care about, is to work with the staff of your local State Assemblyperson, Senator or Congressperson, Councilman or School Board member, union leader, or journalist to see if they cannot obtain the documents for you, or help you make and enforce a PRA request.
At this step, you also want to identify the “Custodian of Public Records” who has been appointed by your City, School District or County to receive and respond to PRA requests, and check to see whether that particular government body has its own policies about public records. In Culver City, for example, the City Clerk maintains most public records, but there may be particular records, such as criminal records, for which the Culver City Police Department has a custodian from whom to request those records. At home, write up detailed notes of your communications with particular employees, including the date and time and what was said to you.
Stage Two: Making the PRA Request
Draft the request not only for the Custodian of Records to whom your request initially will go, but thinking about how particular public employees would comply with your request and how a Superior Court judge might understand your request a year from now if your request requires legal action to enforce it. You want to show, briefly, that you seek particular records and that a public purpose is served by providing you or your organization with these records in a timely manner. You do not want to make requests that are vague or overly broad, insensitive to the privacy rights of other people, disregard the time of public employees to gather the information for you, or demonstrate that you are on a fishing expedition or pursuing a personal grudge without a clue as to what you are looking for. Also, because you may need to pay fees for copying of the records you request, a “broad” request may be expensive and bury you in unhelpful documents.
A “shot gun” request is rarely as effective as a simple and specific request that shows you are knowledgeable, serious and understand how the process actually works. If you know the particular name or number of a government form that has the information you need, request all such forms by name for the specific time period you are concerned about and any summaries or periodic reports prepared by that agency about the forms or documents in question. If you know a particular office or administrator who has actual control over the records, state that in the request. You can always follow up a narrow request with an additional request as you learn more about other documents you may want to obtain. The request should A) reference the Public Records Act and any local public record policy of that government body; B) provide a concise and accurate description of the public records you seek; C) the months or years for which you seek the documents; and, D) an invitation for public employees to contact you to clarify the request Though not required, stating the purpose for which you make the request, if it shows a positive public purpose, may encourage public employees to be more helpful than required by law, and make a Superior Court judge view your request as reasonable and important should you need to go to court. It can also help public employees better identify records that are part of your request. You do not need to provide legal citations or explain the agency’s legal duties under the PRA. If you are emotional about the issue, have someone who is not emotional about it and who will be candid with you, read the request to make sure the request is not confusing and makes the requestor appear in a professional and positive manner.
When you file your PRA request, if possible, obtain a file-stamped copy showing the date the request was received by the Custodian of Records. If not possible, note the filing date and to whom you sent it for your records.
Stage Three: Enforcing Your Request and Understanding Exemptions to Disclosure
When a copy of a record is requested, the agency should determine within ten days whetherto comply with the request, and promptly inform the requester of its decision and thereasons for the decision. Where necessary, because either the records or the personnel that needto be consulted regarding the records are not readily available, the initial ten-day period tomake a determination may be extended for up to fourteen days. If immediate disclosure is not possible, the agency must provide the records within a reasonable period of time, along with an estimate of the date that the records will be available. The PRA does not permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. When a written request is denied, it must be denied in writing.
The PRA allows agencies to withhold certain records. These “exemptions” generally include confidential material in personnel records, records related to an ongoing investigation, advice from attorneys to public officials and agencies, drafts, and material made confidential by other state or federal statutes. In addition, a record may be withheld whenever the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure - which is why you want to identify a significant public interest in your request. When an agency withholds a record because it is exempt from disclosure, the agency must notify the requester of the reasons for withholding the record. However, the agency is not required to provide a list identifying each record withheld and the specific justification for withholding the record.
When a record contains exempt material, it does not necessarily mean that the entire recordmay be withheld from disclosure. The general rule is that the exempt material may be withheld but the remainder of the record must be disclosed. The fact that it is time consuming to segregate exempt material does not obviate the requirement to do it, unless the burden is so onerous as to clearly outweigh the public interest in disclosure. If the information which would remain after exempt material has been redacted would be of little or no value to the requester, the agency may refuse to disclose the record on the grounds that the segregation process is unduly burdensome. The difficulty in segregating exempt from nonexempt information is relevant in determining the amount of time which is reasonable for producing the records in question.
If you believe a response to your request is being unreasonably delayed, or exemptions are being raised by the agency that appear to be invalid, legal or political action may be necessary to enforce the request. That, of course, can be expensive and time consuming, but attorney’s fees may be awarded to you by a Court if you can show your rights under the PRA have been violated. In some cases, such as where an agency claims that requested material is confidential, a Judge may agree to inspect the records to evaluate such material. If the agency determines that your request is unduly burdensome, the Judge may, as noted above, determine whether your request shows a public benefit for the disclosure that outweighs the agencies’ burden in complying with your request.
You can find many free resources on-line or at a public library to assist you in making and enforcing a PRA request. One of the most helpful general descriptions of the PRA is a 2004 pamphlet from the California Attorney General’s Office, “Summary of the California Public Records Act” from which I have purloined generously above. All California codes and pending legislation are available for free on line. Most public libraries contain “annotated codes” which show the key court decisions that interpret language in a particular code section and librarians who may have “how to” materials for requesting information. On line, you will find many citizen advocacy groups who encourage public records act requests and may even provide some assistance, but be aware that many of these groups have particular political agendas with which you may or may not agree, or they may not be familiar with California’s PRA. Good luck in your efforts.
Michael Hersh is an attorney with the California Teachers Assocation (CTA).
States with strong “freedom of information” laws generally are the best at detecting official corruption and preventing such corruption. In California, our Public Records Act, “PRA,” (Gov’t Code sections 6520 - 6270) assumes that all State and local government records are public, unless specifically exempted from disclosure by the PRA and provides a process to inspect or obtain copies of public records. (The Freedom of Information Act is a parallel federal law that requires agencies of the U.S. government to disclose records.) The purpose of this article is provide some general tips to making an effective PRA request and to steer you to useful resources. The process to request documents is relatively simple, but a successful request entails a bit of research to determine exactly what records you seek, an understanding the exemptions to disclosure in the PRA, and a willingness to enforce your rights.
Stage One: Before your PRA Request
Whenever possible, work with others who share your interest in an issue and in pursuing public records related to that issue. Your request will benefit from the different perspectives you find, and public employees, officials and the Courts will see your request as one with a significant public purpose. An official PRA request starts a formal legal process that is likely to be reviewed by many government officials, attorneys and possibly Superior Court judges. Before starting down that road, if you have a good idea of a particular department or work site that might have the specific information you are seeking, study up. You may find an organizational chart of the particular agency you are dealing with on-line, or learn from press releases which officials are responsible for a particular public project. It does not hurt to visit a specific public office and speak to the people who work there to discuss your need for information. It will not likely result in an employee handing you want you are seeking (though you may get lucky), but the employee may provide a particular form number used in that department to keep track of particular matters or explain that the department issues reports about the matter of which you are concerned, or give you the name of a particular administrator or employee who audits, manages, or works in the specific areas of your concern. That person may also live across the street. Always be polite, friendly and honest with government employees at every step. For an informal chat, avoid a time of day when that office is busy. Absolutely nothing is gained by bullying employees or officials, using the phrase, “my taxes pay your salary,” making empty threats about litigation,or throwing a tantrum, and you quickly lose the cooperation of people who might otherwise be willing to help you. We have local taverns that are ideal for such rants. Another informal route, depending on the specific issue you care about, is to work with the staff of your local State Assemblyperson, Senator or Congressperson, Councilman or School Board member, union leader, or journalist to see if they cannot obtain the documents for you, or help you make and enforce a PRA request.
At this step, you also want to identify the “Custodian of Public Records” who has been appointed by your City, School District or County to receive and respond to PRA requests, and check to see whether that particular government body has its own policies about public records. In Culver City, for example, the City Clerk maintains most public records, but there may be particular records, such as criminal records, for which the Culver City Police Department has a custodian from whom to request those records. At home, write up detailed notes of your communications with particular employees, including the date and time and what was said to you.
Stage Two: Making the PRA Request
Draft the request not only for the Custodian of Records to whom your request initially will go, but thinking about how particular public employees would comply with your request and how a Superior Court judge might understand your request a year from now if your request requires legal action to enforce it. You want to show, briefly, that you seek particular records and that a public purpose is served by providing you or your organization with these records in a timely manner. You do not want to make requests that are vague or overly broad, insensitive to the privacy rights of other people, disregard the time of public employees to gather the information for you, or demonstrate that you are on a fishing expedition or pursuing a personal grudge without a clue as to what you are looking for. Also, because you may need to pay fees for copying of the records you request, a “broad” request may be expensive and bury you in unhelpful documents.
A “shot gun” request is rarely as effective as a simple and specific request that shows you are knowledgeable, serious and understand how the process actually works. If you know the particular name or number of a government form that has the information you need, request all such forms by name for the specific time period you are concerned about and any summaries or periodic reports prepared by that agency about the forms or documents in question. If you know a particular office or administrator who has actual control over the records, state that in the request. You can always follow up a narrow request with an additional request as you learn more about other documents you may want to obtain. The request should A) reference the Public Records Act and any local public record policy of that government body; B) provide a concise and accurate description of the public records you seek; C) the months or years for which you seek the documents; and, D) an invitation for public employees to contact you to clarify the request Though not required, stating the purpose for which you make the request, if it shows a positive public purpose, may encourage public employees to be more helpful than required by law, and make a Superior Court judge view your request as reasonable and important should you need to go to court. It can also help public employees better identify records that are part of your request. You do not need to provide legal citations or explain the agency’s legal duties under the PRA. If you are emotional about the issue, have someone who is not emotional about it and who will be candid with you, read the request to make sure the request is not confusing and makes the requestor appear in a professional and positive manner.
When you file your PRA request, if possible, obtain a file-stamped copy showing the date the request was received by the Custodian of Records. If not possible, note the filing date and to whom you sent it for your records.
Stage Three: Enforcing Your Request and Understanding Exemptions to Disclosure
When a copy of a record is requested, the agency should determine within ten days whetherto comply with the request, and promptly inform the requester of its decision and thereasons for the decision. Where necessary, because either the records or the personnel that needto be consulted regarding the records are not readily available, the initial ten-day period tomake a determination may be extended for up to fourteen days. If immediate disclosure is not possible, the agency must provide the records within a reasonable period of time, along with an estimate of the date that the records will be available. The PRA does not permit an agency to delay or obstruct the inspection or copying of public records. When a written request is denied, it must be denied in writing.
The PRA allows agencies to withhold certain records. These “exemptions” generally include confidential material in personnel records, records related to an ongoing investigation, advice from attorneys to public officials and agencies, drafts, and material made confidential by other state or federal statutes. In addition, a record may be withheld whenever the public interest in nondisclosure clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure - which is why you want to identify a significant public interest in your request. When an agency withholds a record because it is exempt from disclosure, the agency must notify the requester of the reasons for withholding the record. However, the agency is not required to provide a list identifying each record withheld and the specific justification for withholding the record.
When a record contains exempt material, it does not necessarily mean that the entire recordmay be withheld from disclosure. The general rule is that the exempt material may be withheld but the remainder of the record must be disclosed. The fact that it is time consuming to segregate exempt material does not obviate the requirement to do it, unless the burden is so onerous as to clearly outweigh the public interest in disclosure. If the information which would remain after exempt material has been redacted would be of little or no value to the requester, the agency may refuse to disclose the record on the grounds that the segregation process is unduly burdensome. The difficulty in segregating exempt from nonexempt information is relevant in determining the amount of time which is reasonable for producing the records in question.
If you believe a response to your request is being unreasonably delayed, or exemptions are being raised by the agency that appear to be invalid, legal or political action may be necessary to enforce the request. That, of course, can be expensive and time consuming, but attorney’s fees may be awarded to you by a Court if you can show your rights under the PRA have been violated. In some cases, such as where an agency claims that requested material is confidential, a Judge may agree to inspect the records to evaluate such material. If the agency determines that your request is unduly burdensome, the Judge may, as noted above, determine whether your request shows a public benefit for the disclosure that outweighs the agencies’ burden in complying with your request.
You can find many free resources on-line or at a public library to assist you in making and enforcing a PRA request. One of the most helpful general descriptions of the PRA is a 2004 pamphlet from the California Attorney General’s Office, “Summary of the California Public Records Act” from which I have purloined generously above. All California codes and pending legislation are available for free on line. Most public libraries contain “annotated codes” which show the key court decisions that interpret language in a particular code section and librarians who may have “how to” materials for requesting information. On line, you will find many citizen advocacy groups who encourage public records act requests and may even provide some assistance, but be aware that many of these groups have particular political agendas with which you may or may not agree, or they may not be familiar with California’s PRA. Good luck in your efforts.
Michael Hersh is an attorney with the California Teachers Assocation (CTA).
Monday, December 19, 2011
Doom and Gloom or Rays of Possible Sunshine in School District Budget Update
Debbie Hamme
Congratulations to our two new board members, Nancy Goldberg and Laura Chardiet, and to Karlo Silbiger, for his election to the position of board president by his colleagues on the board. The board meeting was longer than expected for a meeting that was largely expected to be filled mostly with the swearing-in activities of the new board members, but of course, there was the 1st Interim Report that Mr. Delawalla presented to the audience.
The report held few surprises. We have come to expect the gloom and doom news that comes out of Sacramento, as well as the dire predictions that Mr. Delawalla presents to us. The thing that concerned me is that Mr. Delawalla predicted a short-fall of 1.8 million dollars to the school district due to the announcements that were sure to come out of the governor’s office on December 15th. Mr. Delawalla was unaware that the announcements had been made on December 13th and that rather than the loss of over $200.00 per student in ADA that he reported, we would face a reduction of $13.00 per student. And while $13.00 per ADA is significant enough, at 6,550 students district-wide, this means a shortfall of $85,150.00—not the 1.8 million Mr. Delawalla indicated. This was pointed out to those in attendance by Ms. Penny Upton of the California Teachers Association, but really, this is something our Assistant Superintendent of Business Services should have known.
Another issue of immense concern is our continued dependence on the use of independent consultants, mostly in the Special Education Department, which creates a crushing encumbrance on our budget. This is something that needs to be addressed immediately. We have been hearing for quite some time that we are in the “process” of hiring one in-house specialist or another, but the reality is that these changes are taking place at a snail’s pace to the continued detriment of our district and our students.
That we are increasing our allocation to “Services and Operating Expenses” by millions of dollars every year is something that “budget watchers” should be questioning at these presentations, but for some reason are not. If we are, as Mr. Delawalla tells us, deficit spending at a rate of 2 million dollars per year, solutions other than furlough days have to be investigated sooner, rather than later.
Debbie Hamme is the President of the Culver City Association of Classified Employees.
Congratulations to our two new board members, Nancy Goldberg and Laura Chardiet, and to Karlo Silbiger, for his election to the position of board president by his colleagues on the board. The board meeting was longer than expected for a meeting that was largely expected to be filled mostly with the swearing-in activities of the new board members, but of course, there was the 1st Interim Report that Mr. Delawalla presented to the audience.
The report held few surprises. We have come to expect the gloom and doom news that comes out of Sacramento, as well as the dire predictions that Mr. Delawalla presents to us. The thing that concerned me is that Mr. Delawalla predicted a short-fall of 1.8 million dollars to the school district due to the announcements that were sure to come out of the governor’s office on December 15th. Mr. Delawalla was unaware that the announcements had been made on December 13th and that rather than the loss of over $200.00 per student in ADA that he reported, we would face a reduction of $13.00 per student. And while $13.00 per ADA is significant enough, at 6,550 students district-wide, this means a shortfall of $85,150.00—not the 1.8 million Mr. Delawalla indicated. This was pointed out to those in attendance by Ms. Penny Upton of the California Teachers Association, but really, this is something our Assistant Superintendent of Business Services should have known.
Another issue of immense concern is our continued dependence on the use of independent consultants, mostly in the Special Education Department, which creates a crushing encumbrance on our budget. This is something that needs to be addressed immediately. We have been hearing for quite some time that we are in the “process” of hiring one in-house specialist or another, but the reality is that these changes are taking place at a snail’s pace to the continued detriment of our district and our students.
That we are increasing our allocation to “Services and Operating Expenses” by millions of dollars every year is something that “budget watchers” should be questioning at these presentations, but for some reason are not. If we are, as Mr. Delawalla tells us, deficit spending at a rate of 2 million dollars per year, solutions other than furlough days have to be investigated sooner, rather than later.
Debbie Hamme is the President of the Culver City Association of Classified Employees.
Friday, December 16, 2011
Traffic and Parking Problems in Downtown Culver City
Cary Anderson
The developer for Parcel B may have up to 256 parking spaces. If employees of the development are not allowed to park for free or close to free, then they will be tempted to park for free in the Downtown residential neighborhood, just like the current downtown employees and patrons. It has been so out of control that one person even got away with parking at a yellow curb (3 minute limit) for 8 hours a day for 6 months! It should have been easy to write ticket, but turned into a "look the other way" situation.
The three Downtown parking structures currently have 1,523 parking spots for employees and patrons. At a cost of $60 per month, some employees save the money by looking for and finding free residential parking. One office space even says on their website, “There is also plenty of metered street parking, and some members have found residential parking nearby…” A talk show that had live large studio audiences told about “Free Street Parking” on their website after mentioning that structure parking was available for a fee of $8 max. Who wants to pay for parking when you can get it for free?
The parking meter was invented in Oklahoma City in the 1930’s to solve a parking problem. Businesses where losing customers due to people parking in front of the businesses then walking somewhere else to work. Customers could not find convenient parking because employees monopolized the parking all day. Last Monday the City Council approved the purchase of 1,000 new parking meters for the City. Lafayette Place, which currently has free parking, will get 28 parking meters. The employees who now park for free all day will look for free parking in the neighborhood. The City is also studying an increas to the meter hours by 50%. The meters currently do not require money after 6PM. The City may end that and require money be put into the meters until 11PM. The elimination of free meter parking on Sundays is also a possibility.
The City Council Agenda in the past has included an item for Consideration of Parking Fee Increases for Downtown Public Parking Facilities. Also considered will be the elimination of 2 hours of free parking. On June 27th the Westside Pavilion on Overland at Pico started charging for parking. What had been free parking since 1985 became a $50 per month expense for employees’? The employees effectively took a $50 per month pay cut to pay for what had been free for 26 years.
Back in Culver City a good test to see if the surrounding downtown neighborhood could be protected from the inevitable parking intrusion happened during the last Culver City Car Show. After 7 years of neighborhood intrusion it was decided to simply ENFORCE the existing Permit Parking Zones for the Eighth Annual Culver City Car Show. What a concept! The focused enforcement resulted in 54 tickets. Of those, 38 were related to hourly/permit violations. Now can Parking Enforcement sustain this level of enforcement of the current Residential Permit Zone signage if the City eliminates 2 hours of free parking in the structures, increases the monthly parking rates, increases the meter hours, increases the meter rates and increases the meter days? It took 8 years to get enforcement for ONE day of enforcement, for an event that brought a tidal wave of cars into the residential neighborhood.
People looking for FREE and convenient have just parked in the residential neighborhood for the last 8 years since the movie theatre was built in 2003. The restaurants and bars have just added to the neighborhood intrusion. A 2004 traffic study, after the theatre opened, showed 2,631 vehicles passed the section of Irving Place just south of Culver Blvd. The system of a one-way street that starting at that section means that when people ignore the signs advising no theatre parking behind the theatre, they will take a over half mile circle thru the neighborhood. In 1990 when my wife and I bought our house, we lived in a quiet neighborhood. It is the original neighborhood of Culver City. Carlson Park, Culver Crest and all the other neighborhoods spread out from the downtown. Around the corner was a quiet, short side street (300 foot long). The 2004 traffic study showed an over 300% increase in traffic on the residential street. The formerly quiet street had over 900 vehicles a day traveling on it in 2004. Since 2004 Downtown has become a busy destination with the addition of restaurants and bars. The neighborhood has been a magnet for free parking. A traffic study has not been done since 2004.
When the movie theatre was built in 2003 the City allowed the residents of Van Buren to sign a petition that would allow for resident only parking (parking with permit only) between 6PM Friday Night and Midnight Sunday Night. The first weekend the signs and permits were enforced the City wrote 60-70 tickets to intruders. Unfortunately the residents were completely unprotected during the weekdays and weekday nights. The person who got the original petition signatures went to the City for relief. He was told they could change the signs to 1-HOUR PARKING Noon to Midnight seven days a week if he got another petition signed and paid for new signs. The residents could not have both what they had before and the new 1-HOUR PARKING. They had to pick one. They mistakenly thought that the 1-HOUR residential parking zones would be enforced. Enforcement requires a Parking Enforcement Officer to mark the tires of vehicles without a Permit Parking Pass. The officer has to walk two blocks and chalk the tire on vehicles on one side of the street then walk back and chalk tires on the other side of the street. Then they have to come back 1 hour later. It doesn’t work because of lack of manpower. The City has since come up with a different Parking District concept. So if the residents get a third petition signed and buy a third version of the signs then they can have the original 2003 protection back along with the current 1-HOUR PARKING during the week. The CCPD lacks manpower to routinely enforce and people know that.
Parking Enforcement is mostly making revenue for the City by writing 52 street sweeping tickets a day for 5 days a week and 13 meter violation tickets a day for 6 days a week. The marking of tires with chalk and return in an hour or two is more labor intensive then writing street sweeping and meter tickets. Unfortunately the resident that forgets to move their car gets a $60 street sweeping ticket, but the intruding parker who parks on the same street, does not get a permit zone violation ticket because the City is ill equipped to enforce that violation.
Cary Anderson is a 25 year homeowner in Culver City, an active member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, and a former member of the Culver City Fire Department Strategic Planning Committee.
The developer for Parcel B may have up to 256 parking spaces. If employees of the development are not allowed to park for free or close to free, then they will be tempted to park for free in the Downtown residential neighborhood, just like the current downtown employees and patrons. It has been so out of control that one person even got away with parking at a yellow curb (3 minute limit) for 8 hours a day for 6 months! It should have been easy to write ticket, but turned into a "look the other way" situation.
The three Downtown parking structures currently have 1,523 parking spots for employees and patrons. At a cost of $60 per month, some employees save the money by looking for and finding free residential parking. One office space even says on their website, “There is also plenty of metered street parking, and some members have found residential parking nearby…” A talk show that had live large studio audiences told about “Free Street Parking” on their website after mentioning that structure parking was available for a fee of $8 max. Who wants to pay for parking when you can get it for free?
The parking meter was invented in Oklahoma City in the 1930’s to solve a parking problem. Businesses where losing customers due to people parking in front of the businesses then walking somewhere else to work. Customers could not find convenient parking because employees monopolized the parking all day. Last Monday the City Council approved the purchase of 1,000 new parking meters for the City. Lafayette Place, which currently has free parking, will get 28 parking meters. The employees who now park for free all day will look for free parking in the neighborhood. The City is also studying an increas to the meter hours by 50%. The meters currently do not require money after 6PM. The City may end that and require money be put into the meters until 11PM. The elimination of free meter parking on Sundays is also a possibility.
The City Council Agenda in the past has included an item for Consideration of Parking Fee Increases for Downtown Public Parking Facilities. Also considered will be the elimination of 2 hours of free parking. On June 27th the Westside Pavilion on Overland at Pico started charging for parking. What had been free parking since 1985 became a $50 per month expense for employees’? The employees effectively took a $50 per month pay cut to pay for what had been free for 26 years.
Back in Culver City a good test to see if the surrounding downtown neighborhood could be protected from the inevitable parking intrusion happened during the last Culver City Car Show. After 7 years of neighborhood intrusion it was decided to simply ENFORCE the existing Permit Parking Zones for the Eighth Annual Culver City Car Show. What a concept! The focused enforcement resulted in 54 tickets. Of those, 38 were related to hourly/permit violations. Now can Parking Enforcement sustain this level of enforcement of the current Residential Permit Zone signage if the City eliminates 2 hours of free parking in the structures, increases the monthly parking rates, increases the meter hours, increases the meter rates and increases the meter days? It took 8 years to get enforcement for ONE day of enforcement, for an event that brought a tidal wave of cars into the residential neighborhood.
People looking for FREE and convenient have just parked in the residential neighborhood for the last 8 years since the movie theatre was built in 2003. The restaurants and bars have just added to the neighborhood intrusion. A 2004 traffic study, after the theatre opened, showed 2,631 vehicles passed the section of Irving Place just south of Culver Blvd. The system of a one-way street that starting at that section means that when people ignore the signs advising no theatre parking behind the theatre, they will take a over half mile circle thru the neighborhood. In 1990 when my wife and I bought our house, we lived in a quiet neighborhood. It is the original neighborhood of Culver City. Carlson Park, Culver Crest and all the other neighborhoods spread out from the downtown. Around the corner was a quiet, short side street (300 foot long). The 2004 traffic study showed an over 300% increase in traffic on the residential street. The formerly quiet street had over 900 vehicles a day traveling on it in 2004. Since 2004 Downtown has become a busy destination with the addition of restaurants and bars. The neighborhood has been a magnet for free parking. A traffic study has not been done since 2004.
When the movie theatre was built in 2003 the City allowed the residents of Van Buren to sign a petition that would allow for resident only parking (parking with permit only) between 6PM Friday Night and Midnight Sunday Night. The first weekend the signs and permits were enforced the City wrote 60-70 tickets to intruders. Unfortunately the residents were completely unprotected during the weekdays and weekday nights. The person who got the original petition signatures went to the City for relief. He was told they could change the signs to 1-HOUR PARKING Noon to Midnight seven days a week if he got another petition signed and paid for new signs. The residents could not have both what they had before and the new 1-HOUR PARKING. They had to pick one. They mistakenly thought that the 1-HOUR residential parking zones would be enforced. Enforcement requires a Parking Enforcement Officer to mark the tires of vehicles without a Permit Parking Pass. The officer has to walk two blocks and chalk the tire on vehicles on one side of the street then walk back and chalk tires on the other side of the street. Then they have to come back 1 hour later. It doesn’t work because of lack of manpower. The City has since come up with a different Parking District concept. So if the residents get a third petition signed and buy a third version of the signs then they can have the original 2003 protection back along with the current 1-HOUR PARKING during the week. The CCPD lacks manpower to routinely enforce and people know that.
Parking Enforcement is mostly making revenue for the City by writing 52 street sweeping tickets a day for 5 days a week and 13 meter violation tickets a day for 6 days a week. The marking of tires with chalk and return in an hour or two is more labor intensive then writing street sweeping and meter tickets. Unfortunately the resident that forgets to move their car gets a $60 street sweeping ticket, but the intruding parker who parks on the same street, does not get a permit zone violation ticket because the City is ill equipped to enforce that violation.
Cary Anderson is a 25 year homeowner in Culver City, an active member of the Downtown Neighborhood Association, and a former member of the Culver City Fire Department Strategic Planning Committee.
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
School Board Leads City 2 to 1 in Creating Brown Act Violations
Gary Silbiger
Recently, Culver City’s School Board has overtaken the City Council in recent violations of the State’s Brown Act by a 2 to 1 margin. But don’t fret – there’s still plenty of time remaining for the City to regain its lead.
For years, the Culver City School Board has had a policy (Board Bylaw 9323) of not allowing public criticism of school employees at its meetings. Not only does this contradict the teachings of students in their classes, it also flies in the face of the State’s Open Government law – the Brown Act. So when a Culver City resident criticized a District employee last summer, Scott Zeidman, former School Board president, told her she could not say such things. That time, though, there was loud rumbling from those believing our rights needed strengthening. Free speech, after all, protects both the things we like and those we don’t. That’s why burning the U.S. flag as well as statements from groups many of us despise are protected.
The School Board sent this Constitutional issue to its attorney, who agreed that criticism of school employees is lawful, yet thought that when this happened, a secret closed session would be called to discuss the complaint. Let the public hear and participate, or else this new proposal will also violate the Brown Act.
The District’s attorney started fooling around with other aspects of the School Board meeting resulting in an unconscionable and illegal proposal involving many topics. This item has appeared on several School Board agendas, but due to other lengthy agendized discussions, has not been fully discussed or voted on. It is time now to have that dialogue.
The District’s proposal would place an artificial cap of 20 minutes on the time allocated for any topic. Yet, we know that controversial issues can take hours of testimony, as have recent discussions about capital improvement projects, and the public has the right to comment and persuade our elected officials. In another section of the proposal, the Board would limit public discussion to any item within the jurisdiction of the Board. And located within another part of the proposal, members of the public could have to make their comments near the beginning of the meeting, not at the time of the item being heard. Yet, anyone taking the time to come to a School Board meeting should be given his or her opportunity to speak. There is no need to limit the speakers; the School Board must encourage – not discourage - public participation.
Another controversial part of the District’s proposal is if a committee made of 2 School Board members allowed public comment, no public participation could be permitted once the topic came to the full School Board. Again, this limits discussion because not all members of the public pay as much attention to the 2 member meetings as they do to the School Board meetings and the proposal could have changed from the time it was listed on the 2 member committee agenda.
And what should be done when a member of the public is “disruptive”? The School Board proposal allows the clearing of the meeting room and continuing their meeting. It would have been helpful to have the term “disruptive” defined. The solution, however, is to ban the very disruptive individual if no other less intrusive responses are successful, not to evict all members of the public.
The second clear violation of the Brown Act by the School Board took place at its July 26, 2011 meeting consisting of only 3 School Board members. On the consent portion of the agenda – defined for only routine matters – the District included a highly controversial architects contract, without public bidding or receiving other proposals. In its haste, the Board had not yet determined the amount authorized for the athletic complex. Contained within this swirling secret “agenda” was an agenda item that simply states, “Approval is recommended for the contract between CCUSD and Westbrook and White”. Really, that’s all it says.
The Brown Act requires public notice of each meeting through posting of the agenda containing a brief general description of each item. That agenda item failed to state the purpose or terms of the contract and did not identify Westbrook and White as architects that would be employed on the athletic complex. The School Board only posts the agenda, not the attachments, so the details of this contract found only in the attachment were unknown.
A $400,000 architects contract – far from “routine” – was likely placed in the consent agenda to hide this enormous sole-bid contract from the public’s view. After all, members of the public simply do not look as closely to the “routine” items as they do for the discussion or action ones.
What should be done:
- Annual Brown Act training for all elected and appointed officials, and administrators by well-qualified individuals
- Talk with the School District’s attorney before limiting the public’s rights
- Prior to deciding a controversial Open Government issue, first check with the California School Board Association, Californians Aware (the primary transparency organization in our state), the California Attorney General, and the Los Angeles District Attorney
- Encourage each High School student to participate in a practical Free Speech exercise
- Apologize to everyone who has had their Free Speech rights denied
- Place valuable information about Free Speech and Open Government on the District’s website
- Bid for an attorney who knows the Brown Act well
- Free Speech rights should be expanded beyond the minimal limits given us by court decisions
- Require more details in the agenda and only include “routine” issues in the consent portion of that document
- Speak Up! Everyone has the obligation to protest the destruction of our Constitutional rights and thus our democracy
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the Former Mayor of Culver City.
Monday, December 12, 2011
For The Third Time, Parcel B Proposal Approved
Meghan Sahli-Wells
On December 5th, 2011, the City Council/Redevelopment Agency Board voted unanimously to accept the Combined Properties proposal for Parcel B at 9300 Culver Blvd. - the long-empty lot between Trader Joe's, the Culver Studios mansion and Culver Hotel in Downtown Culver City.
According to former Culver City Mayor Gary Silbiger, this is at least the third attempt to develop this central plot of public land in the last 25 years.
Designed by Culver City-based Ehrlich Architects, the chosen project distinguishes itself from the other three proposals as the only option without an inner courtyard. This, many believe, is its strength: rather than funneling visitors into the project - and, by extension, away from other downtown businesses - it "activates" the Downtown by encouraging circulation all around the development.
The most noted feature of the project is its "Grand Staircase." Inspired by the Spanish Steps in Rome and New York City's Highline, the stairs provide a huge open seating area which may be used for resting, people-watching, and will form amphitheatre-like seating for events such as Culver City's popular summer concert series.
The developers will apply for LEED status, incorporating a graywater system, solar panels (already mandated by the city), greenroof elements on the elevated plaza, and windows that actually open!
Though I question the need for office space in the heart of Downtown Culver City, and hoped, like many other residents, for a bona fide design competition to attract more attention and stiffer competition for this key piece of public land in Culver City [read more here], ultimately, I believe the chosen project is the best of the four proposals.
Here's why:
- the ample public seating space of the Grand Stair
- the massing (a.k.a. bulk of the building) is on the Washington (Trader Joe's parking lot) side which is the least interesting side of the lot, as opposed to the other projects which mass on the side of the Culver Studios Mansion
- it's the only proposal that embraces the Culver Studios Mansion and Culver Hotel: the view from the Plaza is directed toward the Mansion and the Hotel
- it's also the only proposal that limits car access on the Culver Studios Mansion side - thus maximizing pedestrian access, safety and comfort
The main point of concern with many residents is the flashy North East corner which, in renderings, looks like a mini Times Square. Note that Culver City has a billboard ban (not that one would know it given the huge billboards at the Fox Hills Mall / Westfield Culver City). However, since the proposals were first submitted - and negative input received - the development team has made some changes, which we hope to see soon.
Next steps
Going forward, residents need to pay attention to some key points and keep giving input on this vital project as the City prepares to enter into a formal agreement with the developers (called a Disposition and Development Agreement - DDA). According to the 12/05/11 staff report:
"Selecting a developer for negotiation does not commit the City or the Agency to sell the property. That cannot happen unless and until an economic report is first prepared and made available for public review detailing the proposed purchase price and other terms and conditions of the proposed sale, and until further input on the report and proposed sale is first obtained at a noticed public hearing."
In other words, there is still time to influence the project to ensure that it is done well.
The following concerns were developed by Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association members, who encourage all residents to continue giving input:
- the developer needs to guarantee the amount of public space and seating in the DDA: if it's not a binding part of the city contract, we may risk losing the very aspect that attracted support for the project in the first place
- a cluster of shade-providing trees must be a part of the expansion of Town Plaza; therefore the subterranean parking structure must be engineered so as to include full shade trees
- employees must have free or drastically reduced parking either on-site or on the roof of the city's Ince parking structure; many buildings in the area require tenants to lease parking spaces for their employees, Parcel B must do the same to avoid employee encroachment in residential neighborhoods
- the city should consider leasing the land, rather than selling it: this keeps the property under the city's control; lease prices increase over time, providing substantial future revenue; the developers will be able to put their money into the development instead of land price, significantly improving the property (which will in turn make it more valuable, bringing in more money for the city, etc. etc.)
- we must ensure that Culver City's billboard ban is fully respected, and that legal on-site advertizing be downsized, and fitting for Downtown Culver City
See the full proposal here.
Meghan Sahli-Wells is the Chair of the Culver City Downtown Neighborhood Association, the Vice Chair of the Culver City Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee, the Vice President of the Culver City Democratic Club, and a member of the Culver City Advisory Committee on Redevelopment. See her blog at http://meghansahliwells.com.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Grading Time: Evaluating the 2009-2011 Culver City School Board Term
Karlo Silbiger
On December 8, 2009, Kathy Paspalis, Patricia Siever, and I were sworn in as new members of the Culver City School Board. We joined Steve Gourley and Scott Zeidman (who had both joined the board just 2 years earlier) as the first Culver City School Board in at least 25 years where all members were simultaneously in their first terms. In those same 25 years, that has never happened on our City Council. I was a bit nervous that the lack of experience, of long term memory, would hinder our ability to be as productive as we could be.
On Tuesday, we will once again start a new School Board term with the swearing in of two new members, Nancy Goldberg and Laura Chardiet. And for the second time in as many years, all members of the board will be simultaneously serving our first terms. Before we begin that transition, it may be instructive to look back over the 2009-2011 School Board term to identify both the successes and the lost opportunities that accompanied this relatively unique level of new energy, or inexperience, depending on your perspective.
Meeting Location
Success: The board gained a more transparent operation by moving 1 meeting per month to the City Hall Council Chambers, where the entire community could participate and meetings are broadcast live on TV and streaming on the internet
Lost Opportunity: Half of the meetings are still held at the highly inadequate District Board Room where overflow crowds cannot participate, see, or hear, and where broadcasts are done well after the fact. This is a shared lost opportunity with the city council who have not pushed hard enough to find a way to make their facilities available to their colleague elected officials.
Committees / Community Participation
Success: Two years ago, CCUSD had no functioning committees appointed by the board or Superintendent. We all know how important it is to systematically engage all stakeholders in the decision-making process, so it is significant that we have added an Environmental Sustainability Committee and a Measure EE Oversight Committee in addition to fixing the Community Budget Advisory Committee.
Lost Opportunity: Where to start! We have gone through 2 years of budgeting during the most difficult fiscal environment in California public education history with no budget committee or avenue for public input (the committee was just appointed last month). There are so many stakeholders searching for an avenue to fix issues (school lunches, the arts curriculum, the natatorium, and English Language Learning immediately come to mind), yet no committees have been appointed for that work. The Environmental Sustainability Committee has run up against a brick wall consistently during the past year as they have not received the support necessary to do their work well. And then there are those other capital improvement projects (which I won’t get into here).
Enrollment
Success: After years of expanding district enrollment (especially at the secondary level), we had reached a breaking point. Not only were our schools incredibly overcrowded, but we were relying on permit students from other neighboring districts for over 25% of our enrollment. As soon as LAUSD threatened and then attempted to take them back, we realized that this had to change. The board began the process of capping secondary school enrollment at 500 students per grade level, starting with last year’s 6th graders and continuing until the policy was in place through grade 12.
Lost Opportunity: While a middle school of 1500 is better than 1900 and a high school of 2000 is better than 2300, this ignores the more significant change needed. Research has consistently shown that small schools and small learning communities produce better retention rates and better academic results because students know the adults on campus and there are fewer cracks in which to fall through. 2000 is still a very large high school. Members of the board brought up 3 potential solutions to help fix this problem: move 6th grade back to the elementary schools and 9th grade back to the middle school to create a more balanced secondary division, create a series of K-8 schools while eliminating the middle school all together, and keeping the current configuration but with highly developed small learning communities to better connect students and the adults on campus who are supporting them. None were researched, none were discussed, and the large secondary schools remain intact.
Immersion
Success: The immersion programs at El Marino and La Ballona are among the most successful programs in our district. That definitely continues and while the board cannot really take credit for the work that has been done over the past 40 years, we have done everything we can to support it. The board has stood steadfast in continuing to allow almost 200 kindergarteners to begin instruction in Japanese or Spanish each year, even with repeated calls to reduce the size. We even passed a resolution finally stating our unanimous support for immersion and the benefits that it brings to our community.
Lost Opportunity: The immersion programs at the middle school and high school have never been good. There has been a struggle to find a way to continue building fluency in the target language while simultaneously teaching a curriculum that gets much more difficult and a schedule that now includes athletics, arts, and other electives. This board had an opportunity to fix this 40 year old problem by using the federal FLAP grant to build a curriculum that allows students to be taught content in a foreign language for 2-3 periods a year rather than the current one Spanish/Japanese elective. However, no changes were made and the problem persists. Actually, one change was made. Our students were losing so much of their language skills in middle school due to their lack of immersion caliber instruction that we had to add a new Spanish 1 class at the high school to allow them to start learning the language all over again.
Budget
Success: At a time where so many millions of dollars have been cut from our school district that I lose count, we have been able to maintain a relatively good quality education for our students. We have lost a few teachers, but kept the vast majority. We lost a few days of instruction the past 2 years, but have kept class size much lower than most of our neighbors. We have cut administrative and support staff, but have prioritized maintaining academic staff likes aides and librarians who work closest with our students. Have our budgets been perfect? Absolutely not and there’s a lot more that needs to be done to ensure that smart fiscal decisions are being made. However, given the circumstances, it could have been a lot worse.
Lost Opportunity: The board has spent nearly every month of the past 2 years fighting with our unions and cutting a variety of positions before finally coming to an agreement. While it is great that we have been able to bring back most of the cut positions, our poor relationship with both unions is causing unnecessary turmoil in the lives of all parties. Both sides own some of that responsibility, but it has to get better. We are all on the same team. While most positions were retained, some of the lost positions really hurt. The board approved a 25% cut in the size of our music program, far higher than any other academic department in the district. This is not due to a lack of student interest, but a poor understanding of the value of music to our students’ education.
So, I guess it’s not all good or all bad, but somewhere in the middle. A lot was accomplished, but so much more could be done. As we install a new board, I hope that the same level of energy will be present, but that a new level of organization will allow us to deal with bigger issues more quickly, involve the community at all levels, and find new ways to improve the education provided to the students of this city.
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.
On December 8, 2009, Kathy Paspalis, Patricia Siever, and I were sworn in as new members of the Culver City School Board. We joined Steve Gourley and Scott Zeidman (who had both joined the board just 2 years earlier) as the first Culver City School Board in at least 25 years where all members were simultaneously in their first terms. In those same 25 years, that has never happened on our City Council. I was a bit nervous that the lack of experience, of long term memory, would hinder our ability to be as productive as we could be.
On Tuesday, we will once again start a new School Board term with the swearing in of two new members, Nancy Goldberg and Laura Chardiet. And for the second time in as many years, all members of the board will be simultaneously serving our first terms. Before we begin that transition, it may be instructive to look back over the 2009-2011 School Board term to identify both the successes and the lost opportunities that accompanied this relatively unique level of new energy, or inexperience, depending on your perspective.
Meeting Location
Success: The board gained a more transparent operation by moving 1 meeting per month to the City Hall Council Chambers, where the entire community could participate and meetings are broadcast live on TV and streaming on the internet
Lost Opportunity: Half of the meetings are still held at the highly inadequate District Board Room where overflow crowds cannot participate, see, or hear, and where broadcasts are done well after the fact. This is a shared lost opportunity with the city council who have not pushed hard enough to find a way to make their facilities available to their colleague elected officials.
Committees / Community Participation
Success: Two years ago, CCUSD had no functioning committees appointed by the board or Superintendent. We all know how important it is to systematically engage all stakeholders in the decision-making process, so it is significant that we have added an Environmental Sustainability Committee and a Measure EE Oversight Committee in addition to fixing the Community Budget Advisory Committee.
Lost Opportunity: Where to start! We have gone through 2 years of budgeting during the most difficult fiscal environment in California public education history with no budget committee or avenue for public input (the committee was just appointed last month). There are so many stakeholders searching for an avenue to fix issues (school lunches, the arts curriculum, the natatorium, and English Language Learning immediately come to mind), yet no committees have been appointed for that work. The Environmental Sustainability Committee has run up against a brick wall consistently during the past year as they have not received the support necessary to do their work well. And then there are those other capital improvement projects (which I won’t get into here).
Enrollment
Success: After years of expanding district enrollment (especially at the secondary level), we had reached a breaking point. Not only were our schools incredibly overcrowded, but we were relying on permit students from other neighboring districts for over 25% of our enrollment. As soon as LAUSD threatened and then attempted to take them back, we realized that this had to change. The board began the process of capping secondary school enrollment at 500 students per grade level, starting with last year’s 6th graders and continuing until the policy was in place through grade 12.
Lost Opportunity: While a middle school of 1500 is better than 1900 and a high school of 2000 is better than 2300, this ignores the more significant change needed. Research has consistently shown that small schools and small learning communities produce better retention rates and better academic results because students know the adults on campus and there are fewer cracks in which to fall through. 2000 is still a very large high school. Members of the board brought up 3 potential solutions to help fix this problem: move 6th grade back to the elementary schools and 9th grade back to the middle school to create a more balanced secondary division, create a series of K-8 schools while eliminating the middle school all together, and keeping the current configuration but with highly developed small learning communities to better connect students and the adults on campus who are supporting them. None were researched, none were discussed, and the large secondary schools remain intact.
Immersion
Success: The immersion programs at El Marino and La Ballona are among the most successful programs in our district. That definitely continues and while the board cannot really take credit for the work that has been done over the past 40 years, we have done everything we can to support it. The board has stood steadfast in continuing to allow almost 200 kindergarteners to begin instruction in Japanese or Spanish each year, even with repeated calls to reduce the size. We even passed a resolution finally stating our unanimous support for immersion and the benefits that it brings to our community.
Lost Opportunity: The immersion programs at the middle school and high school have never been good. There has been a struggle to find a way to continue building fluency in the target language while simultaneously teaching a curriculum that gets much more difficult and a schedule that now includes athletics, arts, and other electives. This board had an opportunity to fix this 40 year old problem by using the federal FLAP grant to build a curriculum that allows students to be taught content in a foreign language for 2-3 periods a year rather than the current one Spanish/Japanese elective. However, no changes were made and the problem persists. Actually, one change was made. Our students were losing so much of their language skills in middle school due to their lack of immersion caliber instruction that we had to add a new Spanish 1 class at the high school to allow them to start learning the language all over again.
Budget
Success: At a time where so many millions of dollars have been cut from our school district that I lose count, we have been able to maintain a relatively good quality education for our students. We have lost a few teachers, but kept the vast majority. We lost a few days of instruction the past 2 years, but have kept class size much lower than most of our neighbors. We have cut administrative and support staff, but have prioritized maintaining academic staff likes aides and librarians who work closest with our students. Have our budgets been perfect? Absolutely not and there’s a lot more that needs to be done to ensure that smart fiscal decisions are being made. However, given the circumstances, it could have been a lot worse.
Lost Opportunity: The board has spent nearly every month of the past 2 years fighting with our unions and cutting a variety of positions before finally coming to an agreement. While it is great that we have been able to bring back most of the cut positions, our poor relationship with both unions is causing unnecessary turmoil in the lives of all parties. Both sides own some of that responsibility, but it has to get better. We are all on the same team. While most positions were retained, some of the lost positions really hurt. The board approved a 25% cut in the size of our music program, far higher than any other academic department in the district. This is not due to a lack of student interest, but a poor understanding of the value of music to our students’ education.
So, I guess it’s not all good or all bad, but somewhere in the middle. A lot was accomplished, but so much more could be done. As we install a new board, I hope that the same level of energy will be present, but that a new level of organization will allow us to deal with bigger issues more quickly, involve the community at all levels, and find new ways to improve the education provided to the students of this city.
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.
Tuesday, December 6, 2011
Expanding our Horizons, Building Peace through Understanding
Barbara Honig
Approximately 2 weeks ago, Culver City said good bye to a delegation visiting from our sister city of Iksan, South Korea. The delegation included the Vice Mayor, the President of their City Council, 2 other Council members and city staff, eight people in total, 4 women and 4 men. They arrived on a Friday at noon and left at about the same time the following Wednesday. They were not here on a vacation. They came to learn about Culver City and the immediate surrounding area, to share our cultures with one another and mostly to further develop the relationship between our two cities, who have been sister cities since 1983. The delegation was hosted by the Culver City Sister City Committee with major support from our city staff and City Council. As President of the Culver City Sister City Committee, I could not have been more pleased with the exchange experience and the wonderful group of volunteers who helped put it together.
The committee that organized and shepherded the delegation did an amazing job of developing an itinerary and program that met the needs of the delegation and showcased our city. From visiting our Senior Center on that very first day, to learning about and commerce at the Westfield Culver City, to visiting city departments, Sony Studios, the Getty, the Gene Autry Museum and the Korean Cultural Center located in neighboring Los Angeles, and more, our Korean friends received an excellent overview of our community and our neighbors. They were presented to the City Council, formal messages were expressed, and they also had the opportunity to have more personal conversations with our Councilmembers throughout their visit. Our Korean guests also met with other key members of our community including school officials and representatives of our county and state elected officials as well as the student leadership of Culver City High School. We shared music and dance with each other, with members of our student delegation who had been to Iksan last summer singing a favorite Korean song on their very first night in Culver City and experiencing traditional song and dance from members of their delegation. Those of you who follow us on Facebook were able to view these cultural exchanges through social media.
I share this much detail because I believe it is important for our community to understand that the exchanges sponsored through the Culver City Sister City Committee to our sister cities, whether we send a delegation there or receive a delegation from our sister city here, are much more than a jaunt to a foreign country. Our two public events were held on Saturday night and then on Monday night and many community members had the opportunity to speak with our guests in an informal and comfortable setting. They asked questions of us as we did of them. For example, did you know that their city council consists of 24 members? Certainly glad that’s not something we have in common, that must be one heck of a meeting! Actually they are divided up into 3 different groups that are responsible for different areas of community management and needs and meet separately. That’s not to say that all travel isn’t beneficial because I am of the opinion that visiting different cultures, even on a vacation, helps break down barriers and develops relationships unless you’re at a beach resort where you never see the local area or people. So as other organizations in our community develop trips abroad, I wholeheartedly support them, but the delegations through the Culver City Sister City Committee to our 4 sister cities is definitely not a vacation.
In July of 2010, ten of us from Culver City were on a delegation to our sister city of Lethbridge, Canada. We spent a very full five days visiting historical sites and museums, experiencing their culture (yes, they have a different culture than we do), and being taken to some of the most beautiful locations in the vicinity of Lethbridge. The most exciting aspect of the experience was that the Lethbridge Twinning Society paired us up with community members who hosted us for the duration of our Lethbridge visit. Living with an individual/family and having the opportunity to have personal dialogue and experiences with them was the highlight of the delegation visit for me and one of the distinctions between going on vacation and being part of a delegation. Prior to leaving Culver City, most of the delegation decided to develop an itinerary and vacation together in the surrounding area after our delegation visit to Lethbridge. We spent some time in Calgary, attended the famous Calgary Stampede and some of our Lethbridge hosts came up to Calgary to attend with us. We also went on to Banff and the Columbia Icefields, one of the most amazing locations I had ever visited, notwithstanding the fact that we were in a snow blizzard in the middle of July! We were treated like royalty by our Canadian hosts while in Lethbridge, including a reception with the Mayor and representatives from their City Council and interviews with the local media. It is truly an experience I will never forget and I know that I have a connection with Lethbridge that is quite different than the many cities throughout the U.S. and the world that I’ve had the opportunity to visit. Lethbridge will always be my second home. I like to think that our Korean guests consider Culver City to be their second home. That bond creates a difference in the way we view each other. We feel more responsible for our actions and how they might affect others.
In March, Culver City will be hosting the 49th annual U.S./México Sister Cities Association national conference and delegates will be visiting from different cities in California and other states as well as from Mexico. We will again be showcasing our city as we meet people from other communities and learn that the world is really a very small place. Everyone wants to live in peace and when you get to know someone personally, the affects of war and destruction on people, even thousands of miles away become personal. We exemplified that in our joint fundraising with our Japanese sister city of Kaizuka for Japan relief after the earthquake and tsunami earlier this year.
I welcome any of you to join us as we plan for the U.S./Mexico conference. Let me know if you’d like more information and go to our website and friend us on Facebook. We are always looking for people to serve on our 4 sister city subcommittees. Kaizuka is now planning the long-time marathon exchange, having just selected a male and female marathon runner from Culver City to go in February and participate in their Senshu marathon and in March we will be hosting a male and female runner from Kaizuka who will be participating in the L.A. Marathon. The Kaizuka committee is also starting the outreach for our middle school student delegation to Kaizuka in the summer 2012. The Iksan subcommittee will be having a meeting right after the holidays to review the recent delegation visit and to develop programming based on discussions with our Korean guests prior to their departure.
I invite readers to comment and share some of your experiences as part of a Culver City Sister City delegation as well during your own travels. We learn not only from our personal experiences, but from others as well. I always tell friends that I travel vicariously with them wherever they go. Bon Voyage!
Barbara Honig is the President of the Culver City Sister City Committee and the Former President of the Culver City School Board.
Approximately 2 weeks ago, Culver City said good bye to a delegation visiting from our sister city of Iksan, South Korea. The delegation included the Vice Mayor, the President of their City Council, 2 other Council members and city staff, eight people in total, 4 women and 4 men. They arrived on a Friday at noon and left at about the same time the following Wednesday. They were not here on a vacation. They came to learn about Culver City and the immediate surrounding area, to share our cultures with one another and mostly to further develop the relationship between our two cities, who have been sister cities since 1983. The delegation was hosted by the Culver City Sister City Committee with major support from our city staff and City Council. As President of the Culver City Sister City Committee, I could not have been more pleased with the exchange experience and the wonderful group of volunteers who helped put it together.
The committee that organized and shepherded the delegation did an amazing job of developing an itinerary and program that met the needs of the delegation and showcased our city. From visiting our Senior Center on that very first day, to learning about and commerce at the Westfield Culver City, to visiting city departments, Sony Studios, the Getty, the Gene Autry Museum and the Korean Cultural Center located in neighboring Los Angeles, and more, our Korean friends received an excellent overview of our community and our neighbors. They were presented to the City Council, formal messages were expressed, and they also had the opportunity to have more personal conversations with our Councilmembers throughout their visit. Our Korean guests also met with other key members of our community including school officials and representatives of our county and state elected officials as well as the student leadership of Culver City High School. We shared music and dance with each other, with members of our student delegation who had been to Iksan last summer singing a favorite Korean song on their very first night in Culver City and experiencing traditional song and dance from members of their delegation. Those of you who follow us on Facebook were able to view these cultural exchanges through social media.
I share this much detail because I believe it is important for our community to understand that the exchanges sponsored through the Culver City Sister City Committee to our sister cities, whether we send a delegation there or receive a delegation from our sister city here, are much more than a jaunt to a foreign country. Our two public events were held on Saturday night and then on Monday night and many community members had the opportunity to speak with our guests in an informal and comfortable setting. They asked questions of us as we did of them. For example, did you know that their city council consists of 24 members? Certainly glad that’s not something we have in common, that must be one heck of a meeting! Actually they are divided up into 3 different groups that are responsible for different areas of community management and needs and meet separately. That’s not to say that all travel isn’t beneficial because I am of the opinion that visiting different cultures, even on a vacation, helps break down barriers and develops relationships unless you’re at a beach resort where you never see the local area or people. So as other organizations in our community develop trips abroad, I wholeheartedly support them, but the delegations through the Culver City Sister City Committee to our 4 sister cities is definitely not a vacation.
In July of 2010, ten of us from Culver City were on a delegation to our sister city of Lethbridge, Canada. We spent a very full five days visiting historical sites and museums, experiencing their culture (yes, they have a different culture than we do), and being taken to some of the most beautiful locations in the vicinity of Lethbridge. The most exciting aspect of the experience was that the Lethbridge Twinning Society paired us up with community members who hosted us for the duration of our Lethbridge visit. Living with an individual/family and having the opportunity to have personal dialogue and experiences with them was the highlight of the delegation visit for me and one of the distinctions between going on vacation and being part of a delegation. Prior to leaving Culver City, most of the delegation decided to develop an itinerary and vacation together in the surrounding area after our delegation visit to Lethbridge. We spent some time in Calgary, attended the famous Calgary Stampede and some of our Lethbridge hosts came up to Calgary to attend with us. We also went on to Banff and the Columbia Icefields, one of the most amazing locations I had ever visited, notwithstanding the fact that we were in a snow blizzard in the middle of July! We were treated like royalty by our Canadian hosts while in Lethbridge, including a reception with the Mayor and representatives from their City Council and interviews with the local media. It is truly an experience I will never forget and I know that I have a connection with Lethbridge that is quite different than the many cities throughout the U.S. and the world that I’ve had the opportunity to visit. Lethbridge will always be my second home. I like to think that our Korean guests consider Culver City to be their second home. That bond creates a difference in the way we view each other. We feel more responsible for our actions and how they might affect others.
In March, Culver City will be hosting the 49th annual U.S./México Sister Cities Association national conference and delegates will be visiting from different cities in California and other states as well as from Mexico. We will again be showcasing our city as we meet people from other communities and learn that the world is really a very small place. Everyone wants to live in peace and when you get to know someone personally, the affects of war and destruction on people, even thousands of miles away become personal. We exemplified that in our joint fundraising with our Japanese sister city of Kaizuka for Japan relief after the earthquake and tsunami earlier this year.
I welcome any of you to join us as we plan for the U.S./Mexico conference. Let me know if you’d like more information and go to our website and friend us on Facebook. We are always looking for people to serve on our 4 sister city subcommittees. Kaizuka is now planning the long-time marathon exchange, having just selected a male and female marathon runner from Culver City to go in February and participate in their Senshu marathon and in March we will be hosting a male and female runner from Kaizuka who will be participating in the L.A. Marathon. The Kaizuka committee is also starting the outreach for our middle school student delegation to Kaizuka in the summer 2012. The Iksan subcommittee will be having a meeting right after the holidays to review the recent delegation visit and to develop programming based on discussions with our Korean guests prior to their departure.
I invite readers to comment and share some of your experiences as part of a Culver City Sister City delegation as well during your own travels. We learn not only from our personal experiences, but from others as well. I always tell friends that I travel vicariously with them wherever they go. Bon Voyage!
Barbara Honig is the President of the Culver City Sister City Committee and the Former President of the Culver City School Board.
Monday, December 5, 2011
How Does the "Occupy” Movement Manifest Itself in Culver City?
Roger Maxwell
Or does it?
How could "Occupy" even have a hint of support in Culver City? Our streets are safe, our parks are clean and well maintained, we have a state of the art Senior Center. We have our own responsive Fire Department as well as our local Police Department. And we have our own high ranking schools...and our own School District. We have gaggles of informed citizens who are in full court press at City Hall and at the Unified School District Headquarters who express their feelings, opinions, and concerns on a regular, continued, and sustaining basis.
Whither, "Occupy"?
Five days ago, on the windshield of my car, came the first ever political flyer that I have received in Culver City. The pamphleteer wanted me to look at Youtube Video on the 'Federal Reserve', "Quantitative Easing", and 'the essence of the banking system." Moreover the flyer asked me to Google "Why the Federal Reserve is Bad" and why we should "Nationalize the Federal Reserve." Right here in Culver City, folks.
However, anonymous pamphlets withstanding, there are some major issues in the U.S.A. at this time. Here in Culver City some homeowners are underwater on their mortgages. Some have had their homes foreclosed upon. In this politically sophisticated city there are some who remember the marches of the 60's who fought for civil rights with non-violent demonstrations. In the 70's some here marched against the Vietnam War. Now we have two wars Iraq and, in Afghanistan, the longest running war in the history of the United States both of whose military budgets drain programs for domestic consumption. The bail out of wall street has no scoundrels in jail yet a food stamp manipulator goes to jail. There is massive deficient spending yet local municipalities squirm to provide adequate services. The disconnect regarding tax loop holes continues and the 99% start to voice their outrage. Some California students harass the Regents after they had voted to raise, yet again, student fees (while paying a new administrator a $100,000 raise over his predecessor -- a yearly salary of $400,000).
Clearly these are not ordinary times.
I have read that the Time Magazine's Man of the Year may in fact be the 'Occupy' movement. Or maybe the 'Arab Spring' phenomena. Senator John McCain, not exactly a maverick from the left, has publicly stated that a 3rd political party may emerge soon, forcing both Republican and Democratic parties to scramble for votes. U.S. voters have continuously stated contempt and dislike for both parties. Unheard of citizen discontent from other nations has swept Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain. Palestine has submitted a bid for statehood to the United Nations after years of failed negations. The "Occupy" movement, started on 17 September 2011 in New York, has spawned supportive demonstrations in Lisbon, London, Stockholm, Berlin, Montreal, and other major cities of the world. In the U.S.A. 'Occupy" has similarly summoned the disenchanted, disenfranchised, and dissatisfied folks -- of all ages and ethnicities -- in major cities. The poor handling of the demonstrators has given some Police Departments very negative reports. Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent technique of civil disobedience has followed picketing, demonstrations, occupation of sites. New techniques fueled with the smart phone and Twitter, Facebook, and the internet acting as broadcast and contact points to "Occupy" followers give this movement unparalleled sophistication.
Yet the "Occupy" movement has failed to translate its objectives into clearly articulated action points.
But, I feel, "Occupy" is in the gestation period. There is massive, non-centralized discontent again. My crystal ball portends major "Occupy" disruptions. Our history books write of the Veteran's March on Washington in the 1930's and some of us remember the 60's and 70's epoch conflagrations. Something's afoot again.
Maybe right here in Culver City.
Roger Maxwell has served as the Vice President of the Culver City PTA, the Vice President of the Culver City Democratic Club, and was a marble away from being elected to the Culver City School Board in 2003.
Or does it?
How could "Occupy" even have a hint of support in Culver City? Our streets are safe, our parks are clean and well maintained, we have a state of the art Senior Center. We have our own responsive Fire Department as well as our local Police Department. And we have our own high ranking schools...and our own School District. We have gaggles of informed citizens who are in full court press at City Hall and at the Unified School District Headquarters who express their feelings, opinions, and concerns on a regular, continued, and sustaining basis.
Whither, "Occupy"?
Five days ago, on the windshield of my car, came the first ever political flyer that I have received in Culver City. The pamphleteer wanted me to look at Youtube Video on the 'Federal Reserve', "Quantitative Easing", and 'the essence of the banking system." Moreover the flyer asked me to Google "Why the Federal Reserve is Bad" and why we should "Nationalize the Federal Reserve." Right here in Culver City, folks.
However, anonymous pamphlets withstanding, there are some major issues in the U.S.A. at this time. Here in Culver City some homeowners are underwater on their mortgages. Some have had their homes foreclosed upon. In this politically sophisticated city there are some who remember the marches of the 60's who fought for civil rights with non-violent demonstrations. In the 70's some here marched against the Vietnam War. Now we have two wars Iraq and, in Afghanistan, the longest running war in the history of the United States both of whose military budgets drain programs for domestic consumption. The bail out of wall street has no scoundrels in jail yet a food stamp manipulator goes to jail. There is massive deficient spending yet local municipalities squirm to provide adequate services. The disconnect regarding tax loop holes continues and the 99% start to voice their outrage. Some California students harass the Regents after they had voted to raise, yet again, student fees (while paying a new administrator a $100,000 raise over his predecessor -- a yearly salary of $400,000).
Clearly these are not ordinary times.
I have read that the Time Magazine's Man of the Year may in fact be the 'Occupy' movement. Or maybe the 'Arab Spring' phenomena. Senator John McCain, not exactly a maverick from the left, has publicly stated that a 3rd political party may emerge soon, forcing both Republican and Democratic parties to scramble for votes. U.S. voters have continuously stated contempt and dislike for both parties. Unheard of citizen discontent from other nations has swept Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Bahrain. Palestine has submitted a bid for statehood to the United Nations after years of failed negations. The "Occupy" movement, started on 17 September 2011 in New York, has spawned supportive demonstrations in Lisbon, London, Stockholm, Berlin, Montreal, and other major cities of the world. In the U.S.A. 'Occupy" has similarly summoned the disenchanted, disenfranchised, and dissatisfied folks -- of all ages and ethnicities -- in major cities. The poor handling of the demonstrators has given some Police Departments very negative reports. Mahatma Gandhi's non-violent technique of civil disobedience has followed picketing, demonstrations, occupation of sites. New techniques fueled with the smart phone and Twitter, Facebook, and the internet acting as broadcast and contact points to "Occupy" followers give this movement unparalleled sophistication.
Yet the "Occupy" movement has failed to translate its objectives into clearly articulated action points.
But, I feel, "Occupy" is in the gestation period. There is massive, non-centralized discontent again. My crystal ball portends major "Occupy" disruptions. Our history books write of the Veteran's March on Washington in the 1930's and some of us remember the 60's and 70's epoch conflagrations. Something's afoot again.
Maybe right here in Culver City.
Roger Maxwell has served as the Vice President of the Culver City PTA, the Vice President of the Culver City Democratic Club, and was a marble away from being elected to the Culver City School Board in 2003.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The Failure to Systematically Train the Leaders of Tomorrow
Gary Silbiger
For 7 years a Youth Advisory Committee proposal has been kicked around by the City Council and the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission. Now is the time for forward thinking leaders to finally create this program.
What good could a Youth Advisory Committee do?
- encourage youth involvement in Culver City Municipal government
- train the next generation of leaders
- allow the City to make better decisions on issues affected Culver City youth
- learn effective ways of running meetings
What practical activities could the Committee perform?
- advise Council members on issues important to youth
- offer feedback to the City Council, Redevelopment Agency, and Culver City Commissions and Committees
- work jointly with the City Council on increasing the involvement of young people in city government and municipal elections
This introduction begs the question: while many cities have had very successful Youth Advisory Committees for years, why hasn’t Culver City initiated this program? The majority of the City Council, other than Councilmember Christopher Armenta, has rejected creating a Youth Advisory Committee over and over. After more than 7 years of stalling, even in the face of very positive support from students, school staff, parents, and the community; students still do not have a voice in our city. Yet, Culver City has committees concerning disability, seniors, tenants, and the homeless, as we should. Why not include our youth as deserving of its own committee?
Attempts to establish a Culver City Youth Committee officially began on October 18, 2004, when as a Council member, I raised the issue of the City sponsoring a Committee and a majority of Council members agreed to agendize it, but first sent the proposal to the City’s Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission for a recommendation.
When this issue finally returned to the City Council on June 26, 2006 - having languished in the Commission for more than 1 ½ years - the City report raised the issues of having a 5 or 12 member Youth Committee, (which was estimated to cost annually as little as $26,000), or sponsor a 1 day event called a round table of civic affairs. When I made a motion to establish a Youth Advisory Committee, no other Council member seconded my motion. It was left for dead. The other 4 Council members - Alan Corlin, Carol Gross, Scott Malsin, and Steve Rose - voted to have the 1 day round table for youth and use the City’s Teen Center and leaders at the schools for input. Of course, not even this proposal was ever implemented, nor did any Council member ever try in public to have it established. It was simply a way of putting a halt to a real Youth Advisory Committee.
I have always maintained that the voice of our youth is essential to a well-run city. I therefore implemented an idea that would exemplify how meaningful such a committee could be to Culver City and the interest our youth have in participation in such a committee. As mayor at that time, I publicized Culver City Mayor Gary Silbiger’s Youth Advisory Committee with a 1 year term for individuals between the ages of 14-21 living in Culver City. With limited publicity, 22 high school students applied by completing a detailed application, 10 of whom became the members and the rest participants. The members were the leaders in Culver High School, involved in the Student Government (including the president, vice president, and class president), school clubs, music, Sister City, electoral politics, mock trial, the YMCA Youth and Government program, environmental and disability groups, the Academy of Visual and Performing Arts program at Culver High, sports teams and much more. Meeting at least once a week for that full year, the students began taking a greater interest in city government by attending and speaking at City Council meetings and learning about city issues. The Committee advocated for youth members on certain City Committees and the Council agreed to place one youth on its annual Community Development Block Grant advisory committee. Culver City newspapers printed favorable stories about the Youth Committee. And Committee members met with staff to discuss culture, music, and park issues. At the yearly Committee evaluation, the students said the experience was very meaningful to each of them. I know it was also meaningful input to the city.
With the positive experiences of that Youth Advisory Committee, I again raised the issue of creating a city-wide Culver City Youth Advisory Committee on May 5, 2008, and the then-newly elected majority agreed the following month to again send the issue to the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Commission to create a youth survey and determine whether there was a “need” for a Youth Committee. Earlier in that meeting, my motion to establish a Youth Advisory Committee and budget $5,000 towards expenses was defeated. I could not support yet another return to the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission so I dissented in that 4 to 1 vote.
The City’s youth survey was widely publicized and 117 individuals completed it with 31% stating they would like to be a member of the Youth Advisory Committee. These 35 “Yes” responses are many more than any Culver City committee has ever received. In fact, most Culver City Committees receive just 2-6 applications from candidates for those positions. Also, 16 of those “Yes” responders said they would volunteer 3 or more hours per week on the Committee. Everything looked very favorable. However, the Parks, Recreation, and Community Service Commission once again voted to oppose a Youth Advisory Committee.
When the Youth Advisory Committee topic returned once again to the City Council agenda for the umpteenth time on May 4, 2009, 8 individuals spoke, and several wrote comments, about the importance of initiating a Youth Committee. The Council unanimously voted to create a 2 member Council Committee consisting of Christopher Armenta and Micheal O’Leary to establish a “Youth Council”. Although Councilmember Armenta and I often tried to bring this vote to fruition, it has lingered aimlessly in limbo for the past 2 ½ years. It is shameful that our youth and our city have suffered from this neglect.
What are some of the fallacies in opposing a Youth Advisory Committee?
“Youth are not interested in politics”; yet, youth openly expressed their interest in participating in this committee, participated in the Mayor’s Youth Advisory Committee that I personally established during my term as Mayor, are involved in the YMCA’s Youth in Government program, high school student government, etc.
“Youth will not join a Youth Advisory Committee”; yet the city survey had 35 youth say “Yes” to serving and 22 others already served spectacularly for one year on my Youth Committee.
“Youth already have the YMCA Youth and Government program and do not need another one”; although the excellent YMCA program focuses exclusively on State, not local issues.
“The City has no money for a Youth Committee”; priorities, priorities, priorities should always be the mantra. A City Youth Committee will cost little, but give our youth a major boost towards becoming involved adults. If the City can pay more money on some of its 1 day events than a full year of student activism, these priorities must be changed
The real answer to all these concerns is that our community honors its youth and values their opinions. However, our city council has been stalling for over 7 years on implementing a committee focused on formally giving them input from students throughout Culver City. Why? There are student willing and ready to serve this community at the local government level and it is time to bring them into the picture. We need their input and they will benefit from the exposure to local government. What could be better!
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the Former Mayor of Culver City.
Friday, December 2, 2011
City Council Meeting Preview
On Monday, December 5, 2011, the City Council meets at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall, 9770 Culver Boulevard. The agenda includes:
- Selection of a developer for negotiations to redevelop property located at 9300 Culver Boulevard (Parcel B) in the downtown area. Four developers have submitted proposals. For further information, read the attachments to this agenda item and see our November 7, 2011 article, “Parcel B Deadline: Tell Council What You Want For Downtown Culver City” by Meghan Sahli Wells.
- Approval of an exclusive negotiating agreement with Habitat for Humanity to develop low and moderate income housing on Globe Avenue.
- Consent items are “routine in nature” according to the City’s agenda. However, controversial topics, issues of importance to discuss, and items of value for the community to know are sometimes included in the consent items in the agenda. The December 5 agenda has 2 consent items which would be better organized as action items in order for the public to pay closer attention to them, staff to give its report, and the public and Council members to better discuss the merits of each. The first consent item of special interest is allocation of funds for the 2012 Performing Arts Grant Program as recommended by the Cultural Affairs Commission. This year the Commission is recommending funding 15 performing arts groups with grants from $1875 to $4500 each. The agenda materials include information about each group, the types, dates, and places of performance. The second consent item of special interest is approval of a Memorandum of Understanding/lease agreement with the Friends of the Culver City Scout House and the Culver City Rock and Mineral Club, Inc. for the renovations/repair and leasehold interest in the property located at 10866 Culver Boulevard (the Scout House). This agreement will allow the Friends of the Culver City Scout House to raise the money and do the work to repair the 2 existing buildings. When the work is timely completed, both organizations will have 20 year leases in the city owned property. City recreational purposes will also be available in the Scout House.
To see the full agenda and staff report, see this link.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)