Patricia Levinson
On Wednesday, the Culver City Democratic Club (CCDC) held the first Candidates Forum for this election cycle. All five Democratic candidates participated: Jim Clarke (JC), Scott Malsin (ScM), Stephen Murray (StM), Meghan Sahli-Wells (MSW) and Andrew Weissman (AW).
As Recording Secretary for the CCDC, one key question from moderator, Gary Walker, reporter for the Culver City News, jumped out at me to make an impression of the differences among the candidates. This question referred to the loss of Redevelopment funds and what each candidate would do, if anything, to maintain cultural events (Mr. Walker used the term “sacred cows”) in CC. In the order of candidates called:
MSW stated that funds “needed to be leveraged.” She’d utilize individual donations, foundations, indicating that the “arts are not a soft economy." She stated, “The public needs to be invited to weigh in on the matters of choice and solutions.”
StM threw out that “everything is up for grabs.” He stated that that included the arts, parks and other services. He wouldn’t “turn away an art project” perhaps “wouldn’t kill it, but fund it less.”
JC suggested that we find partnerships and to ask the wealthy in the region to assist. They could make donations to foundations that would provide tax deduction incentives.
ScM stated, “The cultural events are absolutely intransigent to our city.” He “wouldn’t chop it one piece at a time.”
AW indicated that he supports the summer concerts and that [and other events] add to the city’s cultural and program diversity.” Discussions are needed to determine what the community wants from services, revenues, social problems, etc.
So this tells me what? Two candidates actually advocated having the community weigh in (MSW, JC). One candidate indicated “discussions," but didn’t say with whom those discussions needed to be held (AW). Two candidates inferred that some modifications needed to be made but didn’t offer suggestions (StM, ScM). So what else is new? Be specific. Don’t politicians know that we are looking for solutions? You had to have known that that questions would be out there.
As a community member I WANT INPUT into this process. I want ALL the cultural events to remain in effect. I KNOW that that is an unreasonable attitude. But then, I’M NOT RUNNING AS A CANDIDATE! As Gary Walker wrote in his article in the CC News, about the demolition of the graphic “Syncopation” designed and created by Ed Massey at the Culver Plaza building complex, “CC has lost a signature visual landmark.” Okay, the property wasn’t owned by the city. I know that there is an Arts Commission. But the chopping of government-run cultural affairs programs piece by piece seems to have started. Please, candidates, let the community weigh in on the solutions!
The other question of note was queried during the “audience participation” part of the evening. Basically a number of questions addressed the fringe benefits that Council Members receive since they are considered part time employees yet have received benefits “for life.”
David Mielke, President of the CC Teachers’ Assn., mentioned that the school district gives benefits to only those Board Members who don’t have them in their “real” jobs, since being a Board Member is not a full-time job [my paraphrasing].
ScM uttered some wording about PERS and their “unfortunate” rules and wanted to see some “working moms” [I think he meant on the City Council].
StM stated that after a person is off the Council, benefits should cease. I happen to agree.
MSW agreed with Mr. Mielke that benefits needed to be cut for those who already receive benefits. I also agree with this.
JC mentioned, as an aside, that he already receives benefits and pensions from at least [my words] two other entities and wouldn’t need them from Culver City [again my paraphrasing]. I’m jealous. Damn, if he’s not married, could I share in those benefits? I wont even get Social Security…
AW agreed with MSW but stated that although “we are considered as employees, we are volunteers” including that being a Council Member is a “terribly time-consuming enterprise.” As an aside he mentioned the many hours he dedicates [not in hours, per se, but in time]. He stated, “I question the wisdom of providing life-time benefits to part-time employees.”
So what does all this mean? I was truly upset by AW’s glib answer about how many hours he dedicates despite the inference of little or no pay. I was a teacher and school district employee for over 38 years. I, too, found the enterprise “terribly time-consuming.” And, before you say anything, I will tell you I did receive benefits WHILE I WORKED. And I worked many hours, probably 55-75 not the 35 I was required to put in as a teacher and probably 60 – 80 not the 40 I was required to put in as a district employee, not in the classroom. I DID NOT GET LIFE-TIME BENEFITS! I’m not sorry. That was my choice. It’s AW’s choice to work whatever hours he deems necessary to get the job done. Don’t cry about it being time-consuming therefore you might really “earn” full-time benefits. You serve at the pleasure of the electorate – at least those who vote. If you ran for office to get full-time health benefits, then your priorities are misguided. Take the $30,000 (?) you might be spending on the campaign and put it in an IRA account or wait until the single-payer health care that you and ScM mentioned you favored, comes to fruition. (I favor it, too.) You stated that you, “question the wisdom of providing full-time benefits for part-time employees,” but you don’t stand against it. You didn’t even offer to present that as an item on the City Council agenda while you are currently a member.
If you all want to get serious about serving the Community of Culver City, ask the community to weigh in at Council Meetings. Don’t roll your eyes and dismiss us. Our questions are valid and deserve both answers and action.
Patricia Levinson is the Recording Secretary of the Culver City Democratic Club, the former President of the Friends of the Culver City Youth Health Center, the a long time leader in Culver City political campaigns.
Diana B Wright on blaming Culver City Cultural Affairs Commission for the loss of an art piece in the City of Los Angeles: Why? That does not make any sense and your "facts" are very wrong. That art was not "demolished" it was moved to a building elsewhere.
ReplyDelete