Karl Manheim
I don’t know Scott Malsin, I presume he’s a nice guy and cares about Culver City. But I’m worried that he’s pulling a fast one (or three) on the voters.
First, Scott seems to be doing an end-run around our term-limits law by running a third consecutive time for a Council seat. I’m not a fan of term limits, but I’m less a fan of a candidate who manipulates the law by resigning mid-way through his second term so as to be eligible for a 3rd consecutive term. It may be technically legal (due to the poorly-worded City Charter section on term limits), but it surely goes against the intent of that provision. Indeed, re-electing Scott will set a precedent for candidates who want to serve indefinitely. All they have to do is skip out half way through a term and, presto, they can run an unlimited number of times. It is an insult to the voters to even try that prank.
Second, Scott seems to have divided loyalties. He resigned in December, apparently because “his first priority is to his wife and daughter.” I cannot fault Scott for choosing his family over civic obligations (as many politicians ultimately do); that’s definitely his call to make, and I respect it. But, all of a sudden, he’s discovered that he can once again be a councilmember without jeopardizing that “first priority.” I hope other voters are as skeptical about that as I am. We deserve a City Council that puts Culver City as it’s “first priority.”
Third, Scott resigned in December just before a change in the law affecting health benefits for councilmembers. Had he served out his term, he would have been ineligible BOTH to run for reelection and for the health benefits he’s now receiving. To be sure, Scott voted against the benefits change (the only councilmember to do so). I presume he voted that way for policy reasons and not because he was self-interested in the outcome. But he still figured out a way to game the system, by “retiring” before the change date, and then seeking to be “re-hired” by the voters. That way he gets to keep health benefits that were intended for actual retirees. It’s sort of like insider trading. Again Scott’s ploy may be legal, but it’s hardly ethical.
In short, Scott Malsin is thumbing his nose at the voters, saying that the rules don’t really apply to him. It’s not merely that he’s treating us as fools, he’s costing us money; money that could be better spent on improving our City.
Karl Manheim is a Former Member of the Culver City Ad Hoc Committee on Signs in the Public Right of Way and a Professor of Law at Loyola Law School.
Thanks, Karl, for this post. The question I have is this: who gets fully paid life-time family benefits in this day and age after working for just a few years in a part-time job?
ReplyDeleteI know that the city and the schools are separate, but school board members only get health benefits while they're on the school board and only if they are not covered at their place of employment. The idea of a part-time, short-time council member getting lifetime benefits for himself and his family surprises me.
I'm wondering if all city employees get these benefits. I would hate to see a council member getting lifetime benefits if actual city employees do not.
For the record, teachers need to work at least 10 years in CCUSD in order to get health benefits at retirement------and those benefits run out at age 65 when we transition into Medicare. Currently, those costs are divided between CCUSD and the employee.
As pensions and pension costs move to the forefront of California's concerns, let's get some details on what goes on here locally. I'm a good source of what happens in CCUSD-------I"m hoping someone will fill us in on what goes on at the City. david mielke
I just finished reading Karl Manheim's post about Mr Malsin. This a real eye-opener and poke-in-the-eye to Culver City taxpayers. Can you ask Mr. Manheim to PLEASE publish this in the Culver City Observer and Culver City News for everyone in town knows about Mr. Malsin, the scam artist who now wants his power back. Diana B. Wright
ReplyDeleteIt's Diana Wright again and I just did the math on the reader poll. I can see that 34% (Flaunts and Gaming together) think that Malsin is the most important story. You guys need to tell all Culver City residents about this selfish, spoiled brat.
ReplyDeleteThere are a couple of holes in Mr. Manheim’s logic. First, his assertion that Mr. Malsin has “divided loyalties”. By resigning, Malsin has secured his healthcare benefits, a step that has obvious benefits for him and his family’s finances. By securing those benefits, it seems to me he’s done a good thing for his family, and he can once again look to serving his city. Characterizing this as “divided” is childish. My mother was in the hospital recently and I took time away from work to be with her. When she improved, I went back to work. Should I have put work first instead? Are my loyalties divided too? It’s not at all unusual to focus on family when we have to, and then go back to work when we can.
ReplyDeleteSecond, his off-the-cuff claim that we are discussing “health benefits that were intended for actual retirees”. If I understand the city policy correctly, the lifetime healthcare benefit was secured after only 5 years of service. Does Mr. Manheim think that most people actually “retire” after 5 years of work? How could the city have meant this benefit for “actual retirees” if such a short amount of time was required to earn it? Clearly, the city meant it to be what it was: a benefit for those who served. Now, I personally think the City leadership was correct in tossing out this practice. But I had to comment on the mischaracterization in Mr. Manheim’s editorial. -- Andrew J. Leist
Thanks, Andrew, for continuing this really interesting conversation. A couple of observations based on your thoughtful response.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do agree that Scott was likely trying to secure the health and safety of his family, I don't quite think that his situation is comparable to you taking a few days off of work. He resigned his position, causing a special election and allowing himself to serve for way longer than the term limits were supposed to allow. I believe that he took advantage of 2 technical loopholes in the law in order to be able to serve longer than the 8 year maximum. You did exactly what your personal days were intended to allow you to do.
To your second point, this is complicated. In Culver City management employees (including council members) received lifetime health benefits for themselves and their families as long as they RETIRED from Culver City after working for at least 5 years. You are right that all management employees had the opportunity to retire as Mr. Malsin did. However, all of them would have to stay retired! Since his job by its very nature is part time, he is being given the ability to maintain his job AND get the benefits, something that no other employee has access to.
Great discussion! Keep the comments coming.
Karlo