NOTE: This is the sixth in a series of Culver City Progress election articles detailing the role of Councilmembers and the views of the challengers on the important issues in Culver City. View the previous articles here, here, here, here, and here.
Does the City of Culver City have a role to play in protecting the civil rights of minority groups like the LGBT community? How?
Jim Clarke: All Culver City residents are entitled to the full protection of the law. To that end the City should ensure that there is no overt or covert discrimination against any or our residents. This applies equally to our City departments and the businesses and organizations that operate in the City. The City should lead by example and ensure (I assume we do) that we have a clear non-discrimination policy for City employees along with regular training programs. Instances of alleged discrimination within the City should be dealt with promptly and resolved quickly to avoid further problems. Where necessary, instances of discrimination should be referred to proper authorities for prosecution.
Stephen Murray: All branches of government have a primary duty to uphold the principle of equality before the law. This equality needs to be exercised regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, age or physical disability. Tip O'Niell once said that "All politics is local" for it is the social and economic relationships of individuals, families, neighbors and our environment that make up our community. Culver City absolutely has to protect both individual and collective civil rights of our citizens- it is the sworn duty of Council Members to do so. By upholding hate-crime and anti-discrimination laws will be the most formal means of protecting individuals civil rights. Additionally, communicating with civility and tolerance, treating people as individuals first and not as classes of people or minorities will help to create a culture of acceptance within our community.
Is it appropriate for the Council, at times, to pass resolutions in support or opposition of legislation or potential legislation at the county, state or federal levels? When?
Jim Clarke: Where issues have a direct impact on Culver City, such as the state legislation to dissolve the redevelopment agencies, the Council should take a position and be in contact with our county, state and federal elected officials to make that position well-known. As there is strength in numbers we should be open to joining with other cities or working through organizations such as the California League of Cities or U.S. Conference of Mayors to leverage our position. In issues of national or international policy that don't directly impact Culver City, it may be worthwhile for the Council to facilitate a community dialogue to help educate our residents but I would be wary about the Council taking a position on such issues unless there was an overwhelming (and there probably would not be) support or opposition for a position.
Stephen Murray: Our City Council is the most immediately accessible form of participative democratic government for most of our citizens. Anyone can step up and speak before the Council on their interests, concerns and needs. Unfortunately as one scales the government hierarchy, individuals power and voice decreases. It is supremely appropriate for Council Members to represent upward on any legislation or other activities which negatively impact any constituent group of our City or our shared interests. A City doesn't exist as an island and City Council has an important role to not only represent it's interests upward but also to help contextualize how distant decisions and policy affects the City. Resolutions are one way to visibly express opinion and may be a way to send an urgent message to our more distant governing bodies. They can give a satisfying sense of making ones voice heard but it's only a partial solution. I think a more effective method is to use ones influence and work through relationships with our neighboring and overlapping governing representatives: our County Government, State Assembly and Senate and our Congressional Representatives and offices to seek change.
Had you been on the council, would you have supported a resolution in support of gay marriage in 2004 and a resolution in opposition to the Federal Marriage Amendment in 2008?
Jim Clarke: My sense is that many of our residents in Culver City are directly impacted by the result of legislation restricting same-sex marriage and I would want to take that into account as it would trigger the first part of my answer above. However, if there was not a significant impact and the result of taking a position would be to create division within the City and among our residents, I would prefer to not take a position but instead promote education through a community dialogue.
Stephen Murray: Resolutions are largely ceremonial and have no binding effect. Rather than attempting to urge an outcome over which I have no authority I prefer to act in a manner in concert with my resources. In 2004 I actively supported legislation that would allow all couples access to equal protection under the law. If I had been on City Council at that time it's very likely that I would have supported an ordinance mandating equal protection, not a resolution. Resolutions are reasonable fallbacks when creating an ordinance is too difficult, the council is unable to come to an agreement or when all that is needed is a vote of support or displeasure. For instance My opposition to the various iterations of the FMA had a number of reasons: It would have been the only active constitutional amendment to restrict civil rights and not expand them. In addition the intrusion of federalism into Family Law -a states province would usurp meaningful policy debate throughout the 50 states and set a terrible precedent. FMA seems to have been born out of fear as a piece of ceremonial legislation. For these reasons I think a resolution in 2006 & 2008 would have been the most appropriate response and I would have eagerly put forth a resolution.
Candidate Meghan Sahli-Wells was invited to also comment for this posting.
No comments:
Post a Comment