Malsin Flaunts Utter Disrespect For Voter-Approved Term Limits

Karlo Silbiger

In 1994, a seemingly simple ballot measure went before the voters of Culver City in what became section 601 of the City Charter:

“No person shall serve more than two consecutive full terms as a Council Member. If a person serves a partial term in excess of two years, it shall be considered a full term for the purpose of this provision. Nothing in this provision shall act to bar service as a Council Member after at least two years have elapsed from the Council Member’s last full term.”

Even though 40% of the sitting city council and both of the candidates who won office in that same election opposed the measure, the voters spoke loud and clear: 8 years on the council is enough.

The issue was first raised in Culver City back in 1988, when then new Council Member Steve Gourley pushed for a 2 term limit, suggesting that serving for too many years often breeds arrogance and distance from the voters. This was not an academic issue for Culver City 24 years ago, as Gourley served on a council with 3 colleagues (Richard Alexander, Dr. Jim Boulgarides, and Paul Jacobs) who each served 16 years on the council before eventual retirement. A majority of Gourley’s colleagues voted against him and the issue lied dormant for 6 years.

There is no question that term limits are controversial, both here in Culver City and at every level in which they have been attempted. Those who support them argue that given the built in benefits that incumbents have in elections, term limits provide some balance in helping new candidates win office and lowering complacency. Those who oppose them argue that they limit institutional memory and take away valuable options from the voters.

While that is an interesting debate, it is not the topic for today’s posting. It is also not worth discussing whether former Council Member Scott Malsin is breaking the law by resigning his seat only 20 months after winning a second consecutive 4-year term only to run again 4 months later. The law cited above is quite clear and easy to interpret, even for a non-lawyer like me. Here are the facts:

• Section 601 of the Culver City Charter defines a full council term as any portion of a term exceeding 2 years. Mr. Malsin served for the entirety of his first term (from April 2006 to April 2010) and for the first year and 8 months of his second term (from April 2010 to December 2011). Therefore, he has served for one full term and one partial term.


• Section 601 of the Culver City Charter specifies that Council Members can only serve for 2 consecutive full terms before they must leave the council. However, since Mr. Malsin only served one full term and one partial term, there is nothing (besides his own conscience and sense of morality) that precludes his for running again in this April’s election.


• Section 601 of the Culver City Charter states that once a council member is term limited after 2 consecutive full council terms, they can run once again for the position after at least 2 years have elapsed. However, since Mr. Malsin has not served 2 consecutive full terms (but instead one full term and one partial term) and was never term limited, he can not only run in April (only 4 months after his resignation), but could conceivably serve for another 8 years. Should that happen, Mr. Malsin could take advantage of a loophole in a law intending to limit council members to a maximum of 8 consecutive years of service, and himself legally serve for 14 years with only a 4 month hiatus in the middle.

Again, nothing really to discuss there, the law is quite clear. The really interesting question that will be presented to the voters of our community over the coming months is whether Scott Malsin has so broken the spirit of the voter-approved 1994 charter amendment that he deserves to be automatically disqualified from serving on the council in the future. There is no love lost between Mr. Malsin and myself. I did not support him during either of his campaigns and he was the only council member to deny me an endorsement 2 years ago. I would likely not support him for any office, regardless of the circumstances. But in this election, I am of the belief that even long time supporters of Mr. Malsin’s will deny him support given the self-centered way that he has ignored the intent of this law.

Voters were quite clear with their beliefs on term limits back in 1994: they wanted an 8 year maximum. The only reason for the full term / partial term distinction is that they did not want to punish those who joined the council midway through a term to take over a vacated seat. For example, say a member of the council had to leave 1 year early because they left the city (while it has never happened in our community, nearby Santa Monica has resignations on a somewhat regular basis). If the council were to appoint an interim member to fill the remaining year, it would not be fair to count that 1 year as a full term, thereby holding that new council member to a maximum of 5 years. That was an important consideration by those who authored this law and should remain. However, Mr. Malsin has found a loophole wherein council member can exploit the full term / partial term definition by leaving after just 5 and a half years of service and, potentially serve forever. While Mr. Malsin has every right to take advantage of this loophole, voters generally do not look highly upon those who openly ignore the intent of the laws, especially those that were voter-approved.

Former Mayor Paul Jacobs summed up the argument against term limits best, saying that every time a council member seeks reelection, voters have the option of removing him or her from office. Let’s hope that Culver City voters remember that on April 10th and send a message to those who might attempt to play with the intent of the voters.

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