Steve Raiken
I have been following with interest how Mr. Malsin has rationalized his decision to use a loophole in the new law to benefit himself. The facts are that the city council agreed that the current pension system needed a change and the majority voted against their self interest for a scaling back of pension benefits. Mr. Malsin did not. Somehow he is "special". The council did not exclude anyone from these changes however, Mr. Malsin found a loophole to slither through and then write an opinion piece on what an upstanding family man he is for protecting his family's benefits.
What Mr. Malsin is confusing is "legal" with "Ethical and Moral" Mr. Malsin joined a growing group of people that are taking for themselves and not considering the greater good. He saw the pension issue only as it affected him , he was "entitled" to this benefit. He actually wasn't because the city council did not vote to exclude current members and did not anticipate this loop hole. Mr. Malsin found a loophole for himself . He did not abide by the intent of the law or the intent of his oath of office, only the words. I would have felt better about this had Mr. Malsin been a crusader for healthcare and insurance reform for all citizens.
Culver City has a two term limit. Mr. Malsin has served two terms. Wait, there is a "loophole" for that. I am not voting for Scott Malsin. I think his moral compass is stuck, pointing to himself. He has accomplished his objective for serving on the City council by serving himself. Is there more?
Steve Raiken is a resident of Culver City.
Friday, March 30, 2012
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Tilden Terrace Project Succeeds Through Collaboration and Cooperation
David Voncannon
Last week’s ground breaking for the Tilden Terrace affordable housing and retail project marks the beginning of construction, but project planning has been underway for almost two years.
The first community meeting for Tilden Terrace, on September 16, 2010, was loud and anything but supportive of a new three story building being proposed by Los Angeles Housing Partnership (LAHP) and the Culver City Redevelopment Agency. The residents of the area were upset with the prospect of additional traffic congestion and intrusions on parking from services at the nearby Mosque. Parking was especially congested during Friday noon services which coincided with street sweeping in the area closing half the street from 10 AM to 2 PM.
Two residents, Desmond Burns and George Marsh, were selected to represent the neighborhood in talking with city representatives and LAHP. Shortly after the meeting Mr. Marsh had to drop out to deal with family issues and asked me, David Voncannon, to replace him.
To address the traffic issues, Mr. Burns and I participated in a series of meetings with city representatives. The lead person from the city was Mr. Gabe Garcia of traffic engineering and Ms. Tevis Barnes from the Redevelopment Agency. As residents, we had three issues to address, 1) Parking 2) Traffic Congestion, 3) Building Appearance
Working with Mr. Garcia we developed a three part approach to parking and traffic congestion:
- Ask the City Council to approve a parking district for the area impacted by the proposed building. The parking district was approved in March 2011. A parking district gives the residents the ability to implement permit parking without requiring additional approvals from the city.
- Mr. Garcia worked with other city staffers to negotiate a change to the street sweeping schedule moving the times from the 10 AM – 2 PM slot to 8 AM to 11 AM. This change, which was implemented in April 2011, both shortened the sweeping window and moved it out of the most congested time period. This change resulted in an immediate and substantial parking relief for both residents and mosque attendees.
- The final step was a complete redesign of the Tilden Avenue, Washington Blvd, Washington Place intersection. The new design will greatly ease traffic flow through the intersection while enlarging turn lanes. Construction on the revised intersection will be timed for completion along with the building.
During the second community meeting Mr. Burns and I were able to report much of the progress to the residents. Not everything was in place yet, but there was substantial progress and city representatives had been extremely cooperative.
During this meeting, LAHP representatives wanted to begin discussing building colors and materials, But residents were not ready for that step just yet. There were substantial concerns about the type of proposed housing, how large the retail space would be and building appearance. LAHP and Redevelopment Agency representatives took extensive notes and promised changes.
Tevis Barnes from the Redevelopment Agency led the way for the residents. From the beginning Tevis had pledged to the residents that “If the residents are not happy, the city’s not happy.” That meant that the developer had to be willing to listen and make changes to better fit the neighborhood.
By the third community meeting, Mr. Burns and I were able to report on all the changes to parking and traffic being made. But most significantly, LAHP had listened to the residents and the city. Substantial changes had been made to the building plan, including new setbacks from the street allowing for more walking area in front and helping to hide residences from street view. More mature tree plantings had been incorporated to help shield the closest houses from view. There was also the incorporation of a community room for use by building residents and neighborhood members. During this meeting community members not only praised the revised design but were happy to participate in a discussion about colors and materials to be used on the building.
How did we move from a community adamantly opposed to the building to actively supporting the development? I believe there were several important points to the evolution:
- As residents we never took the approach that we wanted to completely stop the project. The location chosen for Tilden Terrace had been a sore spot for many years and needed to be redeveloped.
- City and Redevelopment Agency staff listened and responded to resident concerns. Both points are vitally important, being heard is important but actually making changes to address the concerns demonstrates genuine concern for the residents.
- Los Angeles Housing Partnership also listened to city staff and residents. Substantial changes were made to the building design to address concerns.
- Finally, the residents were reasonable in their requests. Demanding too much would have resulted in either the building not being built or built despite resident requests. Neither outcome would have been ideal but that is what often happens in similar circumstances.
I want to take a moment to recognize the individuals we worked with on putting the project pieces together:
Gabe Garcia Culver City Traffic Engineering
Charles Herbertson Culver City Director of Operations
Tevis Barnes Culver City Redevelopment Agency
Sol Blumenfeld Culver City Director of Community Development
LAHP, staff and management
Desmond Burns, Telefonson Park area resident and my partner in project discussions
My sincere thanks to all and the many others who contributed that I have not mentioned.
David Voncannon is a member of the Culver City Advisory Committee on Redevelopment.
Saturday, March 24, 2012
Culver City's Own 99% Problem: The Compassionate Side of Budgeting
Gary Silbiger
Much has been talked about in this election season concerning Culver City’s support to those “more fortunate." Candidates have mentioned ways that they support businesses and streamlining the licensing process. They have bemoaned the end of the redevelopment agency, which provided financial “incentives” for moving to and staying in Culver City, helped developers buy property from at a rate much lower than the market provided it at, and gave discounts on City fees and licenses.
But what about the “less fortunate” among us?
After listening to some City Council candidates at the League of Women Voters debate speak cautiously about non-profit organizations in Culver City – some talked about them as a drag on the collection of property taxes, for example – I started thinking again about "A Taste of the Nation" leaving Culver City for West Hollywood this year. Unlike the previous 7 years, our City Council refused to offer any financial assistance to them this year, not even willing to waive city fees. Each year A Taste of the Nation, a project of Share Our Strength, would draw 2,000 visitors to Media Park to taste delicious food and drink from restaurants throughout the region, bid on silent auction items, watch food experts perform, and have a great time. All of the funds went directly to end children’s hunger, an epidemic in California with 22% of all children poor.
At the February 13, 2012 City Council meeting, City Manager John Nachbar’s agenda item proposed that none of the Council’s 3 most valuable yearly attractions – Taste of the Nation, the Car Show, and Indiecade – should receive any financial support. The City Council instructed City staff to meet with the 3 organizations to determine the amount of financial support needed. It took 42 days to bring this item back to the Council even though each activity is around the corner. During this time, a Taste of the Nation needed to have a definite location and discovered one in West Hollywood. Now, Culver City has lost an outstanding event rooted in ending childhood hunger that at the same time was able to introduce thousands of people to the kind and caring character of Culver City and its businesses.
Likewise, Culver City has recently lost to Los Angeles 2 of our most prestigious non-profit organizations: Operation USA, perhaps the most successful collector and distributor of emergency funds to countries in need; and the Unusual Suspects Theater Company, a 2007 winner of the prestigious Stand Up Taller President’s award, which takes youth in the juvenile court system and foster care and uses professional actors and directors to teach them to create their own plays. Culver City failed to interact or support these 2 fine nationally recognized organizations and now they’re gone.
Let’s look at what one of our neighboring cities contributes to those in need. West Hollywood provided funding for 25 local organizations for the period of October 1, 2010 to October 1, 2011 which included medical, dental, and mental health care, legal services, rent and utility assistance, civil mediation resolution, services for people with disabilities, nutrition and food pantry, employment counseling, youth services, homelessness assistance, substance abuse treatment, women services, pre-school services, animal services for low income people and seniors, translation assistance, and HIV testing and counseling. While Culver City was relying on private and non-profit groups to provide these programs, the City of West Hollywood took the initiative to fund these services. Of course, utilizing only the private sector can never provide a full complement of social service. The government should never be the sole solution to society's problems, but shouldn't we be part of it?
Culver City has always lagged behind many of our neighboring cities in providing for the benefit of the middle and lower income residents as shown in Culver City Progress articles about refusal to use affordable housing money and the failure to pay legal fees for low income women victims of domestic violence.
We can – and must - move forward in these tough economic times, even when the City refused to do so in better years. The key is to have a transparent budget process with “everything on the table." Community workshops, well planned and publicized, will both educate the public about the financial condition of Culver City and result in massive resident input. Discussions should take place regarding the value of providing social services to the public, the role of non-profits, the massive and secret payments to consultants, large salaries and perks to upper-level city employees, and much more. A fair and democratic budget process will provide the priorities to the staff and the City representatives who can then more scientifically decide what should be funded and by what amount. This would be a dramatic and needed change to what I call the “upside-down” budget process which now begins with City staff preparing the budget, having it taken to the City Council late in the fiscal year, and the public having little, if any, voice in how our precious money is to be spent. After all, if the budget is the financial voice of our community's priorities, then what does this decision say about Culver City's values?
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the former Mayor of Culver City.
Much has been talked about in this election season concerning Culver City’s support to those “more fortunate." Candidates have mentioned ways that they support businesses and streamlining the licensing process. They have bemoaned the end of the redevelopment agency, which provided financial “incentives” for moving to and staying in Culver City, helped developers buy property from at a rate much lower than the market provided it at, and gave discounts on City fees and licenses.
But what about the “less fortunate” among us?
After listening to some City Council candidates at the League of Women Voters debate speak cautiously about non-profit organizations in Culver City – some talked about them as a drag on the collection of property taxes, for example – I started thinking again about "A Taste of the Nation" leaving Culver City for West Hollywood this year. Unlike the previous 7 years, our City Council refused to offer any financial assistance to them this year, not even willing to waive city fees. Each year A Taste of the Nation, a project of Share Our Strength, would draw 2,000 visitors to Media Park to taste delicious food and drink from restaurants throughout the region, bid on silent auction items, watch food experts perform, and have a great time. All of the funds went directly to end children’s hunger, an epidemic in California with 22% of all children poor.
At the February 13, 2012 City Council meeting, City Manager John Nachbar’s agenda item proposed that none of the Council’s 3 most valuable yearly attractions – Taste of the Nation, the Car Show, and Indiecade – should receive any financial support. The City Council instructed City staff to meet with the 3 organizations to determine the amount of financial support needed. It took 42 days to bring this item back to the Council even though each activity is around the corner. During this time, a Taste of the Nation needed to have a definite location and discovered one in West Hollywood. Now, Culver City has lost an outstanding event rooted in ending childhood hunger that at the same time was able to introduce thousands of people to the kind and caring character of Culver City and its businesses.
Likewise, Culver City has recently lost to Los Angeles 2 of our most prestigious non-profit organizations: Operation USA, perhaps the most successful collector and distributor of emergency funds to countries in need; and the Unusual Suspects Theater Company, a 2007 winner of the prestigious Stand Up Taller President’s award, which takes youth in the juvenile court system and foster care and uses professional actors and directors to teach them to create their own plays. Culver City failed to interact or support these 2 fine nationally recognized organizations and now they’re gone.
Let’s look at what one of our neighboring cities contributes to those in need. West Hollywood provided funding for 25 local organizations for the period of October 1, 2010 to October 1, 2011 which included medical, dental, and mental health care, legal services, rent and utility assistance, civil mediation resolution, services for people with disabilities, nutrition and food pantry, employment counseling, youth services, homelessness assistance, substance abuse treatment, women services, pre-school services, animal services for low income people and seniors, translation assistance, and HIV testing and counseling. While Culver City was relying on private and non-profit groups to provide these programs, the City of West Hollywood took the initiative to fund these services. Of course, utilizing only the private sector can never provide a full complement of social service. The government should never be the sole solution to society's problems, but shouldn't we be part of it?
Culver City has always lagged behind many of our neighboring cities in providing for the benefit of the middle and lower income residents as shown in Culver City Progress articles about refusal to use affordable housing money and the failure to pay legal fees for low income women victims of domestic violence.
We can – and must - move forward in these tough economic times, even when the City refused to do so in better years. The key is to have a transparent budget process with “everything on the table." Community workshops, well planned and publicized, will both educate the public about the financial condition of Culver City and result in massive resident input. Discussions should take place regarding the value of providing social services to the public, the role of non-profits, the massive and secret payments to consultants, large salaries and perks to upper-level city employees, and much more. A fair and democratic budget process will provide the priorities to the staff and the City representatives who can then more scientifically decide what should be funded and by what amount. This would be a dramatic and needed change to what I call the “upside-down” budget process which now begins with City staff preparing the budget, having it taken to the City Council late in the fiscal year, and the public having little, if any, voice in how our precious money is to be spent. After all, if the budget is the financial voice of our community's priorities, then what does this decision say about Culver City's values?
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the former Mayor of Culver City.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Apathetic Youth? Culver City Students Register Their Interest in Local Election
Nicole Martin and Emily Wood
Students and parents packed into the Ivy Substation on the evening of March 14 for a chance to get to know Culver City candidates for the city council before the upcoming election on April 10. The event, formally called Ask 2 Know, was a forum for students ages K-12 organized by Michelle Mayans to advance her goal of getting more young people involved in politics.
Students, the majority of whom were CCHS seniors, had the opportunity to ask candidates questions regarding a variety of issues important to them, including LGBT rights, environmental policies and innovations, the CCPD, and budget cuts. To begin, the 6 candidates, Jim Clarke, Scott Malsin, Stephen Murray, Mehaul O’Leary, Megan Sahli-Wells, and Andrew Weissmen were each given 2 minutes for opening statements...and also to explain their pizza choices (bought for the event in honor of Pi Day). Weissman explained that he chose LaRocco’s “the works pizza” because he was willing to work with everyone, and Murray commented, “it was pretty good, right?...sort of like my campaign,” when explaining his pizza selection.
The opening statements were informative, and at times amusing, if a bit constrained by time. Attempting to tailor their speeches to a student audience while still stressing the foundation issues of their campaigns, the opening statements set the tone for the whole course of the forum. Clarke began with a humorous line, “I lost my first election in the 8th grade,” and stressed his experience attracting grants for the city, and spoke of the need for more foundation grants and public-private funding partnerships.
Malsin centered his opening statement around his desire to continue to make Culver City a cultural destination, and how much more difficult that could be now that the redevelopment agency has been lost. Malsin said he hoped to enact zoning changes that could create new parks if elected to office, and reminded students that he had brought Indiecade to Culver City.
Murray chose a surprising message for his opening remarks--a promise to make a 60% increase in spending cuts. It is unclear whether his brutal honesty will pay off with voters, or if the negative tone of his speech will shift votes away from his campaign.
O’Leary explained his immigration from Ireland to the United States, and how he lived the American dream and hoped to continue to make that possible for everyone in Culver City, as well as stressing his business experience as the owner of various restaurants.
Sahli-Wells focused mainly on her inspiration and experience in public activism as a basis for entering city government, including joining the LA Student Coalition to protest apartheid, and her work registering voters.
Weissman said that he was running for city council because he had lived his whole life in Culver City, since 1952, and hoped to continue investing in the community he loved. “I am a testement to getting involved and staying involved,” he said.
After opening statements, the forum opened up to student questions. Erik Bergstrum, a senior at CCHS, asked the first question, regarding environmental issues in Culver City. Sahli-Wells, seemingly the most passionate about environmental issues, explained the importance of a mandated re-usable bag policy in Culver City, and the importance of “green education” in schools. She also elaborated on which materials were truly recyclable, of which styrofoam is not. All of the candidates were in favor of implementing some sort of reusable bag plan: Clarke supported a reusable bag incentive, and would consider a complete ban on plastic bags, Malsin said he would implement the LA bag ban model, Murray spoke of taking it a step further and also banning styrofoam, saying, “I want to make sustainability core to Culver City,” and O’Leary promised that such changes were already being discussed. Other environmental question included what candidates position were regarding oil drilling or potentially fracking in Culver City oil fields. Most candidates seemed concerned with the environmental consequences of such actions, but seemed insufficiently informed about the subject to take a strong position. Sahli-Wells did comment that she found the idea of fracking frightening, especially because of the potential for chemicals to enter the groundwater and watershed (including the La Ballona Creek) in Culver City. She also spoke of the need for more comprehensive testing to make sure that oil drilling techniques were not harming the environment or potentially local residents, many of whom were expressing concerns.
Throughout the forum lighting-round questions occurred to break up the seriousness of the issues, with younger students in mind. Each candidate had 30 seconds to respond to more humours questions, forcing candidates to attempt to provide witty and creative answers under pressure. These questions included, “What is your favorite type of pie?” and “If you could invite any living famous person to speak who would it be?”
However, a majority of the forum focused on more to-the-point questions, such as Marilyn Liu’s inquiry regarding widespread accusations that the Culver City Police Department awarded unfair treatment to young drivers and ethnic minorities. Responding to this issue, Sahli-Wells had the most concrete response, advocating for diversifying the CCPD force, installing cameras in police cars, and the need for data regarding the types of arrests made and the ethnicity of the accused. O’Leary seemed shocked by the clear approval of the question by the audience, which applauded, and said that the council had not realized that the issue existed prior to it being brought up in the forum. He promised to look into the matter carefully. Murray brought up the fact that our CCPD is more costly than that of other comparable cities, and suggested that we audit the CCPD to determine how to make it more efficient.
When asked if they supported the overturn of Proposition 8, and whether they would be willing to make a public statement regarding the majority of Culver City citizen’s support for overturning Proposition 8, all candidates except O’Leary said strongly that they would be willing. O’Leary made it subtly clear that his personal views on the matter were in conflict with the majority, but said that he felt that this was not a local issue, but something that should be handled at the state government level.
Additionally, candidates were asked what ideas they had to improve the traffic and parking situation in downtown Culver City. Malsin pledged to make more effective use of the parking that already exists, while O’Leary offered the idea of charging more to park in the center of downtown, and less in lots further away, hopefully causing less people to attempt to park in the same downtown structures. Murray proposed a Baldwin Hills cross-walk, which he hoped to fund through grants.
Finally, when asked about how they would handle the need to make cuts in services, the candidates offered a variety of positions. “I think we’ve cut enough. We’re going to loose the soul of Culver City if we keep on cutting,” said Malsin. Sahli-Wells proposed raising taxes in order to reduce cuts, and O’Leary proposed applying for more grants to make up for the shrinking budget. None of the candidates gave a clear answer regarding what specific services they would cut if cuts could not be avoided.
The forum ended with closing statements, for which each candidate was allotted 90 seconds. All of the candidate stressed the importance of their specific agendas, and the importance of voting and participating in local city government. O’Leary particularly stressed how important it is for students to attend council meetings in order to bring issues to the attention of the council. Voter registration cards were given out to students eligible to vote in the upcoming election, and students were encouraged to vote in a “mock election” held that evening.
Nicole Martin and Emily Wood are Culver City High School students. Nicole Martin was also the co-moderator of the 2012 "Ask 2 Know" forum.
Students and parents packed into the Ivy Substation on the evening of March 14 for a chance to get to know Culver City candidates for the city council before the upcoming election on April 10. The event, formally called Ask 2 Know, was a forum for students ages K-12 organized by Michelle Mayans to advance her goal of getting more young people involved in politics.
Students, the majority of whom were CCHS seniors, had the opportunity to ask candidates questions regarding a variety of issues important to them, including LGBT rights, environmental policies and innovations, the CCPD, and budget cuts. To begin, the 6 candidates, Jim Clarke, Scott Malsin, Stephen Murray, Mehaul O’Leary, Megan Sahli-Wells, and Andrew Weissmen were each given 2 minutes for opening statements...and also to explain their pizza choices (bought for the event in honor of Pi Day). Weissman explained that he chose LaRocco’s “the works pizza” because he was willing to work with everyone, and Murray commented, “it was pretty good, right?...sort of like my campaign,” when explaining his pizza selection.
The opening statements were informative, and at times amusing, if a bit constrained by time. Attempting to tailor their speeches to a student audience while still stressing the foundation issues of their campaigns, the opening statements set the tone for the whole course of the forum. Clarke began with a humorous line, “I lost my first election in the 8th grade,” and stressed his experience attracting grants for the city, and spoke of the need for more foundation grants and public-private funding partnerships.
Malsin centered his opening statement around his desire to continue to make Culver City a cultural destination, and how much more difficult that could be now that the redevelopment agency has been lost. Malsin said he hoped to enact zoning changes that could create new parks if elected to office, and reminded students that he had brought Indiecade to Culver City.
Murray chose a surprising message for his opening remarks--a promise to make a 60% increase in spending cuts. It is unclear whether his brutal honesty will pay off with voters, or if the negative tone of his speech will shift votes away from his campaign.
O’Leary explained his immigration from Ireland to the United States, and how he lived the American dream and hoped to continue to make that possible for everyone in Culver City, as well as stressing his business experience as the owner of various restaurants.
Sahli-Wells focused mainly on her inspiration and experience in public activism as a basis for entering city government, including joining the LA Student Coalition to protest apartheid, and her work registering voters.
Weissman said that he was running for city council because he had lived his whole life in Culver City, since 1952, and hoped to continue investing in the community he loved. “I am a testement to getting involved and staying involved,” he said.
After opening statements, the forum opened up to student questions. Erik Bergstrum, a senior at CCHS, asked the first question, regarding environmental issues in Culver City. Sahli-Wells, seemingly the most passionate about environmental issues, explained the importance of a mandated re-usable bag policy in Culver City, and the importance of “green education” in schools. She also elaborated on which materials were truly recyclable, of which styrofoam is not. All of the candidates were in favor of implementing some sort of reusable bag plan: Clarke supported a reusable bag incentive, and would consider a complete ban on plastic bags, Malsin said he would implement the LA bag ban model, Murray spoke of taking it a step further and also banning styrofoam, saying, “I want to make sustainability core to Culver City,” and O’Leary promised that such changes were already being discussed. Other environmental question included what candidates position were regarding oil drilling or potentially fracking in Culver City oil fields. Most candidates seemed concerned with the environmental consequences of such actions, but seemed insufficiently informed about the subject to take a strong position. Sahli-Wells did comment that she found the idea of fracking frightening, especially because of the potential for chemicals to enter the groundwater and watershed (including the La Ballona Creek) in Culver City. She also spoke of the need for more comprehensive testing to make sure that oil drilling techniques were not harming the environment or potentially local residents, many of whom were expressing concerns.
Throughout the forum lighting-round questions occurred to break up the seriousness of the issues, with younger students in mind. Each candidate had 30 seconds to respond to more humours questions, forcing candidates to attempt to provide witty and creative answers under pressure. These questions included, “What is your favorite type of pie?” and “If you could invite any living famous person to speak who would it be?”
However, a majority of the forum focused on more to-the-point questions, such as Marilyn Liu’s inquiry regarding widespread accusations that the Culver City Police Department awarded unfair treatment to young drivers and ethnic minorities. Responding to this issue, Sahli-Wells had the most concrete response, advocating for diversifying the CCPD force, installing cameras in police cars, and the need for data regarding the types of arrests made and the ethnicity of the accused. O’Leary seemed shocked by the clear approval of the question by the audience, which applauded, and said that the council had not realized that the issue existed prior to it being brought up in the forum. He promised to look into the matter carefully. Murray brought up the fact that our CCPD is more costly than that of other comparable cities, and suggested that we audit the CCPD to determine how to make it more efficient.
When asked if they supported the overturn of Proposition 8, and whether they would be willing to make a public statement regarding the majority of Culver City citizen’s support for overturning Proposition 8, all candidates except O’Leary said strongly that they would be willing. O’Leary made it subtly clear that his personal views on the matter were in conflict with the majority, but said that he felt that this was not a local issue, but something that should be handled at the state government level.
Additionally, candidates were asked what ideas they had to improve the traffic and parking situation in downtown Culver City. Malsin pledged to make more effective use of the parking that already exists, while O’Leary offered the idea of charging more to park in the center of downtown, and less in lots further away, hopefully causing less people to attempt to park in the same downtown structures. Murray proposed a Baldwin Hills cross-walk, which he hoped to fund through grants.
Finally, when asked about how they would handle the need to make cuts in services, the candidates offered a variety of positions. “I think we’ve cut enough. We’re going to loose the soul of Culver City if we keep on cutting,” said Malsin. Sahli-Wells proposed raising taxes in order to reduce cuts, and O’Leary proposed applying for more grants to make up for the shrinking budget. None of the candidates gave a clear answer regarding what specific services they would cut if cuts could not be avoided.
The forum ended with closing statements, for which each candidate was allotted 90 seconds. All of the candidate stressed the importance of their specific agendas, and the importance of voting and participating in local city government. O’Leary particularly stressed how important it is for students to attend council meetings in order to bring issues to the attention of the council. Voter registration cards were given out to students eligible to vote in the upcoming election, and students were encouraged to vote in a “mock election” held that evening.
Nicole Martin and Emily Wood are Culver City High School students. Nicole Martin was also the co-moderator of the 2012 "Ask 2 Know" forum.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Fracking in the Baldwin Hills
Damon Nagami
NOTE: This article is originally from the National Resources Defense Council Switchboard Blog and is reprinted with their permission.
The controversial drilling practice known as fracking has made its way to southern California.
Last night, over 100 concerned citizens packed the meeting room at the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area Community Center to hear representatives from the County of Los Angeles, the state of California, and Plains Exploration and Production Company (PXP) talk about PXP’s plans to study the feasibility of, and the potential impacts that could result from, fracking in the Baldwin Hills.
Fracking – the pumping of large quantities of fluids into the ground at high pressure to stimulate the flow and recovery of oil and gas – is a serious and growing concern all over the country. My colleagues Kate Sinding, Briana Mordick, Amy Mall and others have worked tirelessly to protect drinking water in New York from the impacts of fracking; investigate increased seismic activity related to fracking in Ohio; push for strong new rules governing fracking at the federal level; and more.
Here in California, however, it has been difficult to get even the most basic information about fracking and its potential impacts to our communities. The term “fracking” is not defined under California law because there are no laws or regulations that deal with fracking. Nor is the state required to track oil companies’ fracking operations. As a result, the state doesn’t know exactly where or how frequently fracking is occurring, or which communities might be at risk. Our colleagues with the Environmental Working Group in Sacramento published a report on this troubling state of affairs just last week.
These are big problems, but we saw the fracking study I mentioned above as an opportunity to start uncovering some of that basic information and sharing it with the public. The study is one of several provisions that NRDC and other parties negotiated in a settlement agreement last July that resolved litigation over PXP’s expansion of oil drilling in the Baldwin Hills. (I blogged about the settlement here.) Upon learning that PXP was on the verge of selecting a consultant for the fracking study, NRDC and Community Health Councils (CHC), a health advocacy group based in Baldwin Hills and our coalition partner, sent a letter to the County and PXP in January asking for a public meeting to discuss the scope of the study and to allow members of the community to ask basic questions about fracking and its potential impacts in the Baldwin Hills. They agreed, and the meeting took place last night.
At the meeting, PXP representatives explained that the fracking study will be the first of its kind in California. They also gave brief presentations on the scope of the study, which will cover a range of topics including the potential for groundwater and surface water contamination and gas migration, the potential environmental effects of different chemicals used in fracking, the potential for induced earthquakes, and air emissions from fracking. PXP committed to posting these presentations on its Web site, and the County invited the public to submit written suggestions as to what other topics should be included in the study. Anyone who has suggestions should email them to Rena Kambara at rkambara@planning.lacounty.gov before the close of business on Thursday, March 15th. NRDC and CHC will be submitting our suggestions shortly.
Also speaking at the meeting were Jason Marshall, chief deputy director of the state’s Department of Conservation (DOC), and Tim Kustic, state Oil and Gas Supervisor for the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR, a division of DOC). One of the evening's most striking statements came from Mr. Marshall, who candidly admitted that it probably was an “oversight” that representatives from DOC and DOGGR haven’t been as involved with issues in the Baldwin Hills as they could be, and committed to more frequent involvement on the part of those agencies in the future. Many of the attendees, myself included, were very glad to hear this, as there had been a sense that state regulators had been neglecting important issues at the largest urban oil field in the country. In addition, Mr. Marshall acknowledged that fracking has been occurring in California for at least the last thirty years; confirmed that DOGGR does not know where all the fracked wells are located; and admitted that there is no monitoring system in California for fracking.
Understandably, these troubling admissions – along with the sense that this was the first time many folks had heard about PXP’s fracking plans – generated both anger and frustration among those in attendance. Some folks were upset that PXP already has fracked two wells, which was required to obtain data for the fracking study, without notifying the community as a whole. Although a community advisory group known as the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) meets every month on oil field issues – in fact, this community update was held jointly with this month’s CAP meeting – some felt the CAP wasn’t achieving its intended function of taking in important information and disseminating it back to folks in the broader community. This is a critical problem that needs to be fixed.
With regard to the startling absence of any state regulation of fracking, some good news may be on the horizon. A bill currently working its way through the Legislature, Assembly Bill 591, would require oil companies to disclose important fracking-related information such as the location of each frack job and the amounts of chemicals and water used. Although AB 591 only covers the disclosure of information and not anything more substantive, it would be a start. NRDC is reviewing the bill’s language thoroughly – for example, we want to make sure that companies can’t rely on bogus trade secret claims to avoid having to disclose the composition of their fracking fluids.
As for what's next in the Baldwin Hills, once the fracking study’s scope has been completed, PXP’s consultant will have until July 2012 to complete the study itself, at which time it will be subject to independent peer review. The study’s results will be then released to the public in or around August 2012, at which time we would urge the County and PXP to hold a follow-up public meeting to discuss the results. In the meantime, anyone who would like periodic updates on this issue from our coalition, the Greater Baldwin Hills Alliance, please contact my CHC colleague Mark Glassock at MGlassock@chc-inc.org to be added to our email list. As last night’s strong turnout demonstrated, this is an extremely important issue for the communities surrounding the Baldwin Hills, and we will continue to stay involved to make sure those communities are protected.
Photo credits: NRDC
Damon Nagami is a Staff Attorney for the National Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica.
NOTE: This article is originally from the National Resources Defense Council Switchboard Blog and is reprinted with their permission.
The controversial drilling practice known as fracking has made its way to southern California.
Last night, over 100 concerned citizens packed the meeting room at the Kenneth Hahn State Recreation Area Community Center to hear representatives from the County of Los Angeles, the state of California, and Plains Exploration and Production Company (PXP) talk about PXP’s plans to study the feasibility of, and the potential impacts that could result from, fracking in the Baldwin Hills.
Fracking – the pumping of large quantities of fluids into the ground at high pressure to stimulate the flow and recovery of oil and gas – is a serious and growing concern all over the country. My colleagues Kate Sinding, Briana Mordick, Amy Mall and others have worked tirelessly to protect drinking water in New York from the impacts of fracking; investigate increased seismic activity related to fracking in Ohio; push for strong new rules governing fracking at the federal level; and more.
Here in California, however, it has been difficult to get even the most basic information about fracking and its potential impacts to our communities. The term “fracking” is not defined under California law because there are no laws or regulations that deal with fracking. Nor is the state required to track oil companies’ fracking operations. As a result, the state doesn’t know exactly where or how frequently fracking is occurring, or which communities might be at risk. Our colleagues with the Environmental Working Group in Sacramento published a report on this troubling state of affairs just last week.
These are big problems, but we saw the fracking study I mentioned above as an opportunity to start uncovering some of that basic information and sharing it with the public. The study is one of several provisions that NRDC and other parties negotiated in a settlement agreement last July that resolved litigation over PXP’s expansion of oil drilling in the Baldwin Hills. (I blogged about the settlement here.) Upon learning that PXP was on the verge of selecting a consultant for the fracking study, NRDC and Community Health Councils (CHC), a health advocacy group based in Baldwin Hills and our coalition partner, sent a letter to the County and PXP in January asking for a public meeting to discuss the scope of the study and to allow members of the community to ask basic questions about fracking and its potential impacts in the Baldwin Hills. They agreed, and the meeting took place last night.
At the meeting, PXP representatives explained that the fracking study will be the first of its kind in California. They also gave brief presentations on the scope of the study, which will cover a range of topics including the potential for groundwater and surface water contamination and gas migration, the potential environmental effects of different chemicals used in fracking, the potential for induced earthquakes, and air emissions from fracking. PXP committed to posting these presentations on its Web site, and the County invited the public to submit written suggestions as to what other topics should be included in the study. Anyone who has suggestions should email them to Rena Kambara at rkambara@planning.lacounty.gov before the close of business on Thursday, March 15th. NRDC and CHC will be submitting our suggestions shortly.
Also speaking at the meeting were Jason Marshall, chief deputy director of the state’s Department of Conservation (DOC), and Tim Kustic, state Oil and Gas Supervisor for the Division of Oil, Gas and Geothermal Resources (DOGGR, a division of DOC). One of the evening's most striking statements came from Mr. Marshall, who candidly admitted that it probably was an “oversight” that representatives from DOC and DOGGR haven’t been as involved with issues in the Baldwin Hills as they could be, and committed to more frequent involvement on the part of those agencies in the future. Many of the attendees, myself included, were very glad to hear this, as there had been a sense that state regulators had been neglecting important issues at the largest urban oil field in the country. In addition, Mr. Marshall acknowledged that fracking has been occurring in California for at least the last thirty years; confirmed that DOGGR does not know where all the fracked wells are located; and admitted that there is no monitoring system in California for fracking.
Understandably, these troubling admissions – along with the sense that this was the first time many folks had heard about PXP’s fracking plans – generated both anger and frustration among those in attendance. Some folks were upset that PXP already has fracked two wells, which was required to obtain data for the fracking study, without notifying the community as a whole. Although a community advisory group known as the Community Advisory Panel (CAP) meets every month on oil field issues – in fact, this community update was held jointly with this month’s CAP meeting – some felt the CAP wasn’t achieving its intended function of taking in important information and disseminating it back to folks in the broader community. This is a critical problem that needs to be fixed.
With regard to the startling absence of any state regulation of fracking, some good news may be on the horizon. A bill currently working its way through the Legislature, Assembly Bill 591, would require oil companies to disclose important fracking-related information such as the location of each frack job and the amounts of chemicals and water used. Although AB 591 only covers the disclosure of information and not anything more substantive, it would be a start. NRDC is reviewing the bill’s language thoroughly – for example, we want to make sure that companies can’t rely on bogus trade secret claims to avoid having to disclose the composition of their fracking fluids.
As for what's next in the Baldwin Hills, once the fracking study’s scope has been completed, PXP’s consultant will have until July 2012 to complete the study itself, at which time it will be subject to independent peer review. The study’s results will be then released to the public in or around August 2012, at which time we would urge the County and PXP to hold a follow-up public meeting to discuss the results. In the meantime, anyone who would like periodic updates on this issue from our coalition, the Greater Baldwin Hills Alliance, please contact my CHC colleague Mark Glassock at MGlassock@chc-inc.org to be added to our email list. As last night’s strong turnout demonstrated, this is an extremely important issue for the communities surrounding the Baldwin Hills, and we will continue to stay involved to make sure those communities are protected.
Photo credits: NRDC
Damon Nagami is a Staff Attorney for the National Resources Defense Council in Santa Monica.
Monday, March 19, 2012
Para Todos, La Educacion Que Necesitan
Karlo Silbiger
Two weeks ago I held Parent Teacher Conferences in my classroom. A mother of one of my students came without her son and she was unable to speak English. She was about to leave, figuring that there was no way for us to conduct a conference without a interpreter, when I explained that, while my Spanish speaking skills have diminished over the years with lack of consistent use, I knew enough for us to hold an important conversation about her son’s progress.
In the mid 1980s, my parents had recently moved into Culver City and were looking for an elementary school for me. They visited Lin Howe, our neighborhood school and were very impressed by the teachers. They also visited El Rincon, a school a bit farther away that housed a relatively unique program where the students learned to read and write in Spanish before English, from the very first day of Kindergarten, and would leave after 6 years of elementary school with some level of fluency. My parents had the same concern that many at that time had: would their child lose out on some of the important foundational skills taught in elementary school because of their being taught primarily in a foreign language? Did the proven results mimic the impressive theoretical framework? At that time there was not as much demand as now, so after a lot of thought, they took a chance and signed me up.
I went through the immersion program from kindergarten through 7th grade (when Culver City cancelled the program at the middle school), I then continued with Spanish in high school, taking and passing the AP Spanish Language test. Being taught in Spanish obviously did not negatively impact my academic skills as I did well throughout my schooling. I have always been very supportive of the immersion programs for 2 primary reasons. First, it is such a fantastic way for us to support the concept of a 21st century education. With a smaller world, a more internationalist economy, and a more culturally diverse Los Angeles, having a bilingual population creates a marked advantage for Culver City. But in addition, the language immersion programs have provided a needed form of school choice for our community. We are lucky in Culver City that we have 5 excellent elementary schools. However, providing parents with a choice has been proven to increase student academic achievement because families are matched up with a schooling system that best meets their needs. I hope that the language immersion program becomes a model for how we can add choice to all of our schools.
The more interesting thing about the immersion program is the way that it has at times created such a divide within our community. From the time that I began at El Rincon, my mom, who became a very active parent in both the PTA (which serves the entire school population) and ALL (which raised money to fund the adjuncts in the Spanish Immersion classes), found a below the surface tension between the parents from the neighborhood school and those from the immersion program. When my mom , Barbara Honig, ran for school board in 1993, she had to name a campaign manager from a different school so that she would not be seen as the “immersion candidate.” The tension surfaced the following year when the board decided to re-open El Marino and were determining who would occupy that school. The immersion programs didn’t want to move, the El Marino neighbors didn’t want to move, and there were a lot of unhappy parents at many board meetings. The board ultimately agreed with the neighbors, moving both immersion programs to El Marino. The divide continued.
Ultimately, our job as a community is to support the education of all students. That does not mean, necessarily treating every kid and every program equally. There are certain schools that have different needs and it would be irresponsible for a district to deprive them of the services needed to educate those kids just because other schools don’t need them. Much of the jealousy over the immersion program has come because El Marino is the only school of choice in the district. Farragut has a remarkable arts program, one that undoubtedly influences their school’s success. But why should that program only be open to the families that happen to live in that neighborhood? El Rincon has an amazing science lab. Their STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) program should be open to all who are interested in that type of an education, not just those in close proximity. Again, effective education is about providing families with choice and then providing each program with the services needed to deliver on their individual needs.
After over 40 years, the immersion program in Culver City (the first in the nation, by the way), is still going strong. We start almost 180 kindergartners each year in a classroom with a teacher who does not instruct in English. However, after all that time, the immersion program at our middle school is still in need of a complete overhaul. As I mentioned, when I was in middle school, the immersion program there had become so deteriorated that it was pulled from the schedule altogether. Immersion is about students being (for lack of a better word) immersed in the language throughout the day. Taking 1 class in Spanish or Japanese, no matter how great the teacher or the curriculum, is simply not a true immersion program. Immersion is also about teaching language through content. Without content, the depth of language instruction is simply diminished.
About 18 months ago, I made a recommendation that we institute a full immersion program at the middle school, one that complements the successful program at El Marino and La Ballona. My suggestion was that students would receive 50% of their instruction in the target language and that all 3 classes would be content-based. That has not yet occurred. Part of it is the inherent slow pace of government change. But I think part of it relates back to that misconception in our community that anything different for one group of students may lead to special treatment. For students who have worked hard to be on the way to fluency in a second language by age 10, we have a moral obligation to continue their effective instruction in that language. This is not about special treatment, it is about providing our students with the instruction that they need, the central duty of any school district.
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.
Two weeks ago I held Parent Teacher Conferences in my classroom. A mother of one of my students came without her son and she was unable to speak English. She was about to leave, figuring that there was no way for us to conduct a conference without a interpreter, when I explained that, while my Spanish speaking skills have diminished over the years with lack of consistent use, I knew enough for us to hold an important conversation about her son’s progress.
In the mid 1980s, my parents had recently moved into Culver City and were looking for an elementary school for me. They visited Lin Howe, our neighborhood school and were very impressed by the teachers. They also visited El Rincon, a school a bit farther away that housed a relatively unique program where the students learned to read and write in Spanish before English, from the very first day of Kindergarten, and would leave after 6 years of elementary school with some level of fluency. My parents had the same concern that many at that time had: would their child lose out on some of the important foundational skills taught in elementary school because of their being taught primarily in a foreign language? Did the proven results mimic the impressive theoretical framework? At that time there was not as much demand as now, so after a lot of thought, they took a chance and signed me up.
I went through the immersion program from kindergarten through 7th grade (when Culver City cancelled the program at the middle school), I then continued with Spanish in high school, taking and passing the AP Spanish Language test. Being taught in Spanish obviously did not negatively impact my academic skills as I did well throughout my schooling. I have always been very supportive of the immersion programs for 2 primary reasons. First, it is such a fantastic way for us to support the concept of a 21st century education. With a smaller world, a more internationalist economy, and a more culturally diverse Los Angeles, having a bilingual population creates a marked advantage for Culver City. But in addition, the language immersion programs have provided a needed form of school choice for our community. We are lucky in Culver City that we have 5 excellent elementary schools. However, providing parents with a choice has been proven to increase student academic achievement because families are matched up with a schooling system that best meets their needs. I hope that the language immersion program becomes a model for how we can add choice to all of our schools.
The more interesting thing about the immersion program is the way that it has at times created such a divide within our community. From the time that I began at El Rincon, my mom, who became a very active parent in both the PTA (which serves the entire school population) and ALL (which raised money to fund the adjuncts in the Spanish Immersion classes), found a below the surface tension between the parents from the neighborhood school and those from the immersion program. When my mom , Barbara Honig, ran for school board in 1993, she had to name a campaign manager from a different school so that she would not be seen as the “immersion candidate.” The tension surfaced the following year when the board decided to re-open El Marino and were determining who would occupy that school. The immersion programs didn’t want to move, the El Marino neighbors didn’t want to move, and there were a lot of unhappy parents at many board meetings. The board ultimately agreed with the neighbors, moving both immersion programs to El Marino. The divide continued.
Ultimately, our job as a community is to support the education of all students. That does not mean, necessarily treating every kid and every program equally. There are certain schools that have different needs and it would be irresponsible for a district to deprive them of the services needed to educate those kids just because other schools don’t need them. Much of the jealousy over the immersion program has come because El Marino is the only school of choice in the district. Farragut has a remarkable arts program, one that undoubtedly influences their school’s success. But why should that program only be open to the families that happen to live in that neighborhood? El Rincon has an amazing science lab. Their STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math) program should be open to all who are interested in that type of an education, not just those in close proximity. Again, effective education is about providing families with choice and then providing each program with the services needed to deliver on their individual needs.
After over 40 years, the immersion program in Culver City (the first in the nation, by the way), is still going strong. We start almost 180 kindergartners each year in a classroom with a teacher who does not instruct in English. However, after all that time, the immersion program at our middle school is still in need of a complete overhaul. As I mentioned, when I was in middle school, the immersion program there had become so deteriorated that it was pulled from the schedule altogether. Immersion is about students being (for lack of a better word) immersed in the language throughout the day. Taking 1 class in Spanish or Japanese, no matter how great the teacher or the curriculum, is simply not a true immersion program. Immersion is also about teaching language through content. Without content, the depth of language instruction is simply diminished.
About 18 months ago, I made a recommendation that we institute a full immersion program at the middle school, one that complements the successful program at El Marino and La Ballona. My suggestion was that students would receive 50% of their instruction in the target language and that all 3 classes would be content-based. That has not yet occurred. Part of it is the inherent slow pace of government change. But I think part of it relates back to that misconception in our community that anything different for one group of students may lead to special treatment. For students who have worked hard to be on the way to fluency in a second language by age 10, we have a moral obligation to continue their effective instruction in that language. This is not about special treatment, it is about providing our students with the instruction that they need, the central duty of any school district.
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.
Friday, March 16, 2012
The Humanitarian Council Members Voted for a Humane Animal Policy
Gary Silbiger
NOTE: This is the eighth 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, here, here and here.
In celebration of Culver City’s March 12 presentation to its Animal Care and Services Program, thanks in part to the highly respected Animal Services officer, Corolla Fleeger, we now look at the process through which this important issue was approved by the Council.
Beginning in 2005, the Friends of Culver City Animals, a broad based organization of 2,000 supporters, has been working towards improving the lives of animals and, their owners, and all who care for them. With the election of 3 new Councilmembers in 2008, hope grew that a more sympathetic animal policy was within reach. Los Angeles County was both the employer of the part time animal services officer and the shelter – neither of which had much support in our community.
In April of 2008, the City Council voted to have Councilmembers Christopher Armenta and me serve as the 2 members of its Animal Services Committee working with City staff. Soon, members of the Friends of Culver City Animals were participating in the meetings. From these meetings came a proposal to agendize the topic of replacing the County’s animal services officer with one employed by Culver City.
After waiting for more than 3 years for a City Council agenda topic on local control of animal services, the evening of June 16, 2008 brought out a full house at the City Council chambers. Between verbal and written comments that night, 77 individuals were in favor of the creation of Culver City’s own officer while 12 opposed. Individuals gave vivid descriptions of the inadequacy of the County’s animal services officer. During those years as a Councilmember, I received daily complaints from Culver City residents about nonexistent officers, unanswered complaints, injured animals waiting days to be attended to, dead animals not being picked up, ignoring mean animals and their owners, and many other safety and health issues.
At the meeting, after both the City staff and public commented about local animal services, the Councilmembers had their turn. Quickly, Councilmember Scott Malsin made a motion to contract with Los Angeles County for a full time officer and contract with local veterinarians to hold the Culver City animals in order to contact their owners. No one seconded this motion.
Shortly afterwards, Councilmember Christopher Armenta made a motion for Culver City to have its own full time Animal Services Officer which was seconded by me.
In reply to Councilmember Armenta’s motion, Councilmember Andrew Weissman stated, “It’s a difficult issue.” He claimed more needed to be known because the information was incomplete. He said he did not know the impact on the police department where the officer would be located. Councilmember Weissman concluded that due to the difficult economic times, it was improper to begin this new program. He ended, “It’s not an easy decision for any of us."
Councilmember Scott Malsin agreed with Weissman. Malsin said local control is not the answer for everything. He claimed that Culver City is a small city so we do not have the resources for our own Animal Services Officer.
When it came time for Councilmember Micheal O’Leary to speak, he quickly noted he could not support Armenta’s motion, but rather made a motion for a 24 month pilot program to begin Culver City’s Animal Services Officer. The 2 year program would begin at the time of hiring the officer. Councilmember Armenta seconded O’Leary’s motion and withdrew his own
Not content with the obvious direction of the council majority, Councilmember Malsin again made his motion to have the County provide a full time officer. Again no second was made. Malsin commented, “I’d rather do something more responsible” than what was proposed by others. His opposition was to the “hasty slapped together proposal” of O’Leary.
Towards the end of this important item, Councilmember Weissman asked if the money for the officer should be taken from the City’s general fund or money allocated to the Councilmember’s fund which also comes from the general fund. I explained that it would be better to come directly from the general fund, at which time Malsin started loudly laughing for some time. I told Malsin, who as mayor was chairing the meeting, it was disrespectful to the audience to laugh at them, and he replied that he was not disrespectful to them. When I asked who he was disrespectful to, he only said that I was “cavalier with the people’s money.”
The inevitable vote was taken with 3 members for beginning Culver City’s own Animal Services officer (Armenta, O’Leary, and Silbiger) and 2 opposed (Malsin and Weissman).
The spectators that night were overjoyed with the prospect of having a safe and humane animal program right here in Culver City. Although the 24 month pilot program was approved, this 2 year review requirement was unnecessary. If Councilmember O’Leary had joined with the pending motion for the unrestricted time period which already had 2 Council supporters, it would have passed. Culver City has begun numerous programs without time restrictions and this additional burden could have caused less interested applicants for a potentially temporary job as well as creating an artificial time requirement for evaluating a needed program. However, in the end, a positive local animal services officer was approved and that is the main aspect of this meeting.
Let’s look at the advantages of having a Culver City Animal Services officer. Local control means accountability to the public. If someone wants to speak to the Culver City officer, he simply calls or goes to the Police Department or talks with the City Manager. And if an individual wants further clarification, she speaks with a councilmember or at a City Council meeting. This accountability never worked when the Los Angeles County officer was located in Carson and reported to County officials and the Supervisors. Culver City knows the importance of local control. For instance, we would not turn over our police force to the County sheriffs, our fire department to Los Angeles City, or our schools, garbage collection, recycling, parks, or emergency medical services to other cities or the county. Why, people asked, would Culver City accept lower inadequate services for animal services than our other programs. If an excellent program costs more money than a failing one, Culver City residents have always preferred – and were willing to pay for – the excellent one.
Likewise, having a Culver City officer is preferable because she spends time relating to other Culver City employees and is supervised directly by our City Manager allowing for local evaluation, training, hiring, and firing. The Culver City officer works as a team member with other Culver City staff and departments. Located within the Culver City police department allows for animal services and other safety programs to support each other by servicing animals when necessary in a crime scene. A full time caring officer results in the difference between life and death; joy and heartache. Since the hiring of the officer, our whole community celebrates the humane treatment of both animals and animal-lovers in Culver City.
So when some Councilmembers said that night, “it’s not an easy decision” and “I’d rather do something more responsible”, the people of Culver City knew having a Culver City officer was the “easy and responsible” thing to do. Leaders have to lead, not stand in the way of progress. Time has clearly shown the June 16, 2008 decision was correct.
And it all started with visionaries, led by Deborah Weinrauch, who know ways of effectively organizing and working constructively with elected officials. And the program keeps getting stronger. We thank you!
Animal Services Program Report Card:
O’Leary B
Malsin F
Weismman F
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the former Mayor of Culver City.
NOTE: This is the eighth 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, here, here and here.
In celebration of Culver City’s March 12 presentation to its Animal Care and Services Program, thanks in part to the highly respected Animal Services officer, Corolla Fleeger, we now look at the process through which this important issue was approved by the Council.
Beginning in 2005, the Friends of Culver City Animals, a broad based organization of 2,000 supporters, has been working towards improving the lives of animals and, their owners, and all who care for them. With the election of 3 new Councilmembers in 2008, hope grew that a more sympathetic animal policy was within reach. Los Angeles County was both the employer of the part time animal services officer and the shelter – neither of which had much support in our community.
In April of 2008, the City Council voted to have Councilmembers Christopher Armenta and me serve as the 2 members of its Animal Services Committee working with City staff. Soon, members of the Friends of Culver City Animals were participating in the meetings. From these meetings came a proposal to agendize the topic of replacing the County’s animal services officer with one employed by Culver City.
After waiting for more than 3 years for a City Council agenda topic on local control of animal services, the evening of June 16, 2008 brought out a full house at the City Council chambers. Between verbal and written comments that night, 77 individuals were in favor of the creation of Culver City’s own officer while 12 opposed. Individuals gave vivid descriptions of the inadequacy of the County’s animal services officer. During those years as a Councilmember, I received daily complaints from Culver City residents about nonexistent officers, unanswered complaints, injured animals waiting days to be attended to, dead animals not being picked up, ignoring mean animals and their owners, and many other safety and health issues.
At the meeting, after both the City staff and public commented about local animal services, the Councilmembers had their turn. Quickly, Councilmember Scott Malsin made a motion to contract with Los Angeles County for a full time officer and contract with local veterinarians to hold the Culver City animals in order to contact their owners. No one seconded this motion.
Shortly afterwards, Councilmember Christopher Armenta made a motion for Culver City to have its own full time Animal Services Officer which was seconded by me.
In reply to Councilmember Armenta’s motion, Councilmember Andrew Weissman stated, “It’s a difficult issue.” He claimed more needed to be known because the information was incomplete. He said he did not know the impact on the police department where the officer would be located. Councilmember Weissman concluded that due to the difficult economic times, it was improper to begin this new program. He ended, “It’s not an easy decision for any of us."
Councilmember Scott Malsin agreed with Weissman. Malsin said local control is not the answer for everything. He claimed that Culver City is a small city so we do not have the resources for our own Animal Services Officer.
When it came time for Councilmember Micheal O’Leary to speak, he quickly noted he could not support Armenta’s motion, but rather made a motion for a 24 month pilot program to begin Culver City’s Animal Services Officer. The 2 year program would begin at the time of hiring the officer. Councilmember Armenta seconded O’Leary’s motion and withdrew his own
Not content with the obvious direction of the council majority, Councilmember Malsin again made his motion to have the County provide a full time officer. Again no second was made. Malsin commented, “I’d rather do something more responsible” than what was proposed by others. His opposition was to the “hasty slapped together proposal” of O’Leary.
Towards the end of this important item, Councilmember Weissman asked if the money for the officer should be taken from the City’s general fund or money allocated to the Councilmember’s fund which also comes from the general fund. I explained that it would be better to come directly from the general fund, at which time Malsin started loudly laughing for some time. I told Malsin, who as mayor was chairing the meeting, it was disrespectful to the audience to laugh at them, and he replied that he was not disrespectful to them. When I asked who he was disrespectful to, he only said that I was “cavalier with the people’s money.”
The inevitable vote was taken with 3 members for beginning Culver City’s own Animal Services officer (Armenta, O’Leary, and Silbiger) and 2 opposed (Malsin and Weissman).
The spectators that night were overjoyed with the prospect of having a safe and humane animal program right here in Culver City. Although the 24 month pilot program was approved, this 2 year review requirement was unnecessary. If Councilmember O’Leary had joined with the pending motion for the unrestricted time period which already had 2 Council supporters, it would have passed. Culver City has begun numerous programs without time restrictions and this additional burden could have caused less interested applicants for a potentially temporary job as well as creating an artificial time requirement for evaluating a needed program. However, in the end, a positive local animal services officer was approved and that is the main aspect of this meeting.
Let’s look at the advantages of having a Culver City Animal Services officer. Local control means accountability to the public. If someone wants to speak to the Culver City officer, he simply calls or goes to the Police Department or talks with the City Manager. And if an individual wants further clarification, she speaks with a councilmember or at a City Council meeting. This accountability never worked when the Los Angeles County officer was located in Carson and reported to County officials and the Supervisors. Culver City knows the importance of local control. For instance, we would not turn over our police force to the County sheriffs, our fire department to Los Angeles City, or our schools, garbage collection, recycling, parks, or emergency medical services to other cities or the county. Why, people asked, would Culver City accept lower inadequate services for animal services than our other programs. If an excellent program costs more money than a failing one, Culver City residents have always preferred – and were willing to pay for – the excellent one.
Likewise, having a Culver City officer is preferable because she spends time relating to other Culver City employees and is supervised directly by our City Manager allowing for local evaluation, training, hiring, and firing. The Culver City officer works as a team member with other Culver City staff and departments. Located within the Culver City police department allows for animal services and other safety programs to support each other by servicing animals when necessary in a crime scene. A full time caring officer results in the difference between life and death; joy and heartache. Since the hiring of the officer, our whole community celebrates the humane treatment of both animals and animal-lovers in Culver City.
So when some Councilmembers said that night, “it’s not an easy decision” and “I’d rather do something more responsible”, the people of Culver City knew having a Culver City officer was the “easy and responsible” thing to do. Leaders have to lead, not stand in the way of progress. Time has clearly shown the June 16, 2008 decision was correct.
And it all started with visionaries, led by Deborah Weinrauch, who know ways of effectively organizing and working constructively with elected officials. And the program keeps getting stronger. We thank you!
Animal Services Program Report Card:
O’Leary B
Malsin F
Weismman F
Gary Silbiger is the Co-Editor of the Culver City Progress Blog and the former Mayor of Culver City.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Need or Greed
George Laase
"Ethical behavior doesn't require someone to ignore their own self-interests or demand they live a life of self-sacrifice. But it does require them to know the difference between what they want and what they should do."
Michael Josephson
I once wrote that I thought Mr. Malsin could have used a refresher course on Ethics. But in light of seeing what he declared to the Fair Political Practices Commission, it probably would have been a total waste of time and effort.
How dare Mr. Malsin even consider that our small community should have to pay for his healthcare for life! It just exposes what he would do to get what he wanted; even if it took doing the extraordinary action of resigning from his office to accomplish it. By leaving his office early, Mr Malsin made damn sure he was going to get what he thought was his due. Instead of giving back to the community the cost of his healthcare, he decided that it was about time for him to start taking; not just once or twice, but every year, for the rest of his life.
Not only did he do the unprecedented by resigning early from office; he did the unthinkable and used his family as a shield for moral justification for what he did. After looking at the extent of his declared holdings, do you really think his family’s “sake” was at stake?
Was his decision really made out of Need or just plain Greed?
After seeing his declared holdings do you think he really needs the Public’s continued subsidy in providing for his and his family’s healthcare? Do you think he even took into consideration the kind of fiscal yoke he was adding around the neck of our small community?
It doesn’t matter how Mr Malsin acquired his wealth. Whether he received it by inheritance from his grandmother, Lane Bryant, the famous clothier, or whether he “worked his butt off” for it, saved and invested it wisely. It doesn’t matter whether his wealth is Old or New money. It’s a fact that Mr Malsin has a whole lot more money than the “average bear” living in Culver City.
So why would he even think about asking us tax-paying peons to fork over for his and his family’s healthcare benefits for the rest of his life? How much “sake” does a family need? Well, I guess by Mr Malsin’s standards… it’s a whole lot more than the rest of us.
So far I have refrained from calling Mr Malsin “dirty names.” But, in this case, after seeing this part of his declared holdings, I think the term “One-Percenter” aptly fits, don’t you?
If Mr Malsin or any of his supporters think I have been unfair or too harsh in my criticism or was too generous in my estimations, he could always set the record straight by publicly releasing the real figures of his holdings and his State and Federal Tax Returns so all of us can see just how much he really needs the public’s hand-out supporting his life-style for the rest of his life.
D SCOTT MALSIN
STATEMENT of ECONOMIC INTEREST 2012
CALIFORNIA FORM 700
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
NOTE: The information presented below is based on the FPPC Form 700 submitted by D Scott Malsin and is a Public document. All candidates running for office in the state of California must file this Statement of Economic Interest form and it is available in our City Clerk's office. I choose to estimate the catagories shown on the conservative side because the ranges given were too broad to really mean anything. I choose to use the amounts of $5,000 when the $2K-$10K box was checked, $35,000 when the $10K-$100K was choosen, and $450,000 for the $100,000-$1,000,000 box.
As you can see at the bottom, the estimates total a little over $2,000,000.
INVESTMENT, TYPE, PRODUCT
RANGE OF INVESTMENT, ESTIMATED AMOUNT INVESTED
ABBOTT LABORATORIES STOCK Pharmaceuticals
$10K-$100K $35,000
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES (ADM) STOCK Semiconductors
$10K-$100K $35,000
CITIGROUP STOCK Financial Services
$2K-$10K $5,000
CBL & ASSCOIATES PROPERTY STOCK Real Estate Investmrent Trust
$10K-$100K $35,000
CROWN CASTLE INC STOCK Telecom Towers
$10K-$100K $35,000
COMCAST STOCK Cable TV
$10K-$100K $35,000
DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED STOCK Real Estate Investmrent Trust
$10K-$100K $35,000
DUKE WEEKS REALTY STOCK Real Estate Investmrent Trust
$2K-$10K $5,000
GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES STOCK Real Estate Investmrent Trust
$10K-$100K $35,000
GOLDMAN SACHS STOCK Financial Services
$2K-$10K $5,000
HOWARD HUGHES CORP STOCK Real Estate
$10K-$100K $35,000
IBM STOCK Computer Technology
$100K-$1M $450,000
KINDER-MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS STOCK Petrochemical Pipelines
$100K-$1M $450,000
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY STOCK Semiconductors
$10K-$100K $35,000
MILLICON INTER-NATIONAL CELLULAR STOCK International Cell Phone Service
$10K-$100K $35,000
MOTOROLA MOBILITY STOCK Telecom Equipment
$2K-$10K $5,000
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS STOCK Telecom Equipment
$2K-$10K $5,000
PLAINS ALL-AMERICAN PIPELINES STOCK Pipeline MPL
$100K-$1M $110,000
SAFEWAY STOCK Groceries
$10K-$100K $35,000
TC PIPELINES STOCK Petrochemical Pipelines
$100K-$1M $450,000
TIME-WARNER STOCK Media
$10K-$100K $35,000
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS STOCK Semiconductors
$10K-$100K $35,000
WESTERN UNION STOCK Payment Processing
$10K-$100K $35,000
STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS STOCK Lodging
$10K-$100K $35,000
HOST HOTELS AND RESORTS STOCK Lodging
$2K-$10K $5,000
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM STOCK Telecomunications Provider
$10K-$100K $35,000
CA STATE DEPT of WATER RESOURCES BOND State Revenue Bond
$10K-$100K $10,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL OF PUBLICLY DECLARED HOLDINGS $2,060,000
George Lasse is a Staff Writer for the Culver City Progress Blog and a life-long Culver City resident.
"Ethical behavior doesn't require someone to ignore their own self-interests or demand they live a life of self-sacrifice. But it does require them to know the difference between what they want and what they should do."
Michael Josephson
I once wrote that I thought Mr. Malsin could have used a refresher course on Ethics. But in light of seeing what he declared to the Fair Political Practices Commission, it probably would have been a total waste of time and effort.
How dare Mr. Malsin even consider that our small community should have to pay for his healthcare for life! It just exposes what he would do to get what he wanted; even if it took doing the extraordinary action of resigning from his office to accomplish it. By leaving his office early, Mr Malsin made damn sure he was going to get what he thought was his due. Instead of giving back to the community the cost of his healthcare, he decided that it was about time for him to start taking; not just once or twice, but every year, for the rest of his life.
Not only did he do the unprecedented by resigning early from office; he did the unthinkable and used his family as a shield for moral justification for what he did. After looking at the extent of his declared holdings, do you really think his family’s “sake” was at stake?
Was his decision really made out of Need or just plain Greed?
After seeing his declared holdings do you think he really needs the Public’s continued subsidy in providing for his and his family’s healthcare? Do you think he even took into consideration the kind of fiscal yoke he was adding around the neck of our small community?
It doesn’t matter how Mr Malsin acquired his wealth. Whether he received it by inheritance from his grandmother, Lane Bryant, the famous clothier, or whether he “worked his butt off” for it, saved and invested it wisely. It doesn’t matter whether his wealth is Old or New money. It’s a fact that Mr Malsin has a whole lot more money than the “average bear” living in Culver City.
So why would he even think about asking us tax-paying peons to fork over for his and his family’s healthcare benefits for the rest of his life? How much “sake” does a family need? Well, I guess by Mr Malsin’s standards… it’s a whole lot more than the rest of us.
So far I have refrained from calling Mr Malsin “dirty names.” But, in this case, after seeing this part of his declared holdings, I think the term “One-Percenter” aptly fits, don’t you?
If Mr Malsin or any of his supporters think I have been unfair or too harsh in my criticism or was too generous in my estimations, he could always set the record straight by publicly releasing the real figures of his holdings and his State and Federal Tax Returns so all of us can see just how much he really needs the public’s hand-out supporting his life-style for the rest of his life.
D SCOTT MALSIN
STATEMENT of ECONOMIC INTEREST 2012
CALIFORNIA FORM 700
FAIR POLITICAL PRACTICES COMMISSION
A PUBLIC DOCUMENT
NOTE: The information presented below is based on the FPPC Form 700 submitted by D Scott Malsin and is a Public document. All candidates running for office in the state of California must file this Statement of Economic Interest form and it is available in our City Clerk's office. I choose to estimate the catagories shown on the conservative side because the ranges given were too broad to really mean anything. I choose to use the amounts of $5,000 when the $2K-$10K box was checked, $35,000 when the $10K-$100K was choosen, and $450,000 for the $100,000-$1,000,000 box.
As you can see at the bottom, the estimates total a little over $2,000,000.
INVESTMENT, TYPE, PRODUCT
RANGE OF INVESTMENT, ESTIMATED AMOUNT INVESTED
ABBOTT LABORATORIES STOCK Pharmaceuticals
$10K-$100K $35,000
ADVANCED MICRO DEVICES (ADM) STOCK Semiconductors
$10K-$100K $35,000
CITIGROUP STOCK Financial Services
$2K-$10K $5,000
CBL & ASSCOIATES PROPERTY STOCK Real Estate Investmrent Trust
$10K-$100K $35,000
CROWN CASTLE INC STOCK Telecom Towers
$10K-$100K $35,000
COMCAST STOCK Cable TV
$10K-$100K $35,000
DEVELOPERS DIVERSIFIED STOCK Real Estate Investmrent Trust
$10K-$100K $35,000
DUKE WEEKS REALTY STOCK Real Estate Investmrent Trust
$2K-$10K $5,000
GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES STOCK Real Estate Investmrent Trust
$10K-$100K $35,000
GOLDMAN SACHS STOCK Financial Services
$2K-$10K $5,000
HOWARD HUGHES CORP STOCK Real Estate
$10K-$100K $35,000
IBM STOCK Computer Technology
$100K-$1M $450,000
KINDER-MORGAN ENERGY PARTNERS STOCK Petrochemical Pipelines
$100K-$1M $450,000
LINEAR TECHNOLOGY STOCK Semiconductors
$10K-$100K $35,000
MILLICON INTER-NATIONAL CELLULAR STOCK International Cell Phone Service
$10K-$100K $35,000
MOTOROLA MOBILITY STOCK Telecom Equipment
$2K-$10K $5,000
MOTOROLA SOLUTIONS STOCK Telecom Equipment
$2K-$10K $5,000
PLAINS ALL-AMERICAN PIPELINES STOCK Pipeline MPL
$100K-$1M $110,000
SAFEWAY STOCK Groceries
$10K-$100K $35,000
TC PIPELINES STOCK Petrochemical Pipelines
$100K-$1M $450,000
TIME-WARNER STOCK Media
$10K-$100K $35,000
TEXAS INSTRUMENTS STOCK Semiconductors
$10K-$100K $35,000
WESTERN UNION STOCK Payment Processing
$10K-$100K $35,000
STARWOOD HOTELS & RESORTS STOCK Lodging
$10K-$100K $35,000
HOST HOTELS AND RESORTS STOCK Lodging
$2K-$10K $5,000
DEUTSCHE TELEKOM STOCK Telecomunications Provider
$10K-$100K $35,000
CA STATE DEPT of WATER RESOURCES BOND State Revenue Bond
$10K-$100K $10,000
ESTIMATED TOTAL OF PUBLICLY DECLARED HOLDINGS $2,060,000
George Lasse is a Staff Writer for the Culver City Progress Blog and a life-long Culver City resident.
Thursday, March 8, 2012
A Safe Place for a Second Chance
Karen Lanier
The expansion of El Marino Elementary School to accommodate a full-day kindergarten requires the relocation of CCUSD’s other high school, Culver Park. CPHS is the district’s continuation school and provides a program, now limited by budget cuts to 80 students, where high-schoolers, 16 to 18 years old, have a supportive, productive place to make up lost time- time lost for as many reasons as there are students.
I’ve been a teacher at Culver Park long enough to now have the children of former students in my English classes, as well as teens I first met when they were El Marino grade-schoolers attending my after-school art program. My commitment to these students, past, present and future, goes way back. And my concern about this poorly planned, last minute push to shovel CPHS into a couple of degraded bungalows in the parking lot between Farragut and the middle school goes pretty deep.
The word “bungalow” needs clarification. What do you think of when you visualize the word? A rustic, cozy cottage maybe? If you are an educator or have school-age children, you probably think of a portable classroom, kitted out with the basics: clean walls, floors, proper lighting, ventilation and safe access to P.E., food services, restrooms and the other amenities of a real school. The structures in the parking lot cannot, by either definition, be called “bungalows." They are decaying 30-year-old pre-fab portables that have been there long enough to have grown roots- and not in a good way. Plumbing inside the buildings? Not that I could see. Outdoor bathrooms with a septic tank? Asbestos? Who knows. There is evidence of vermin, the stench of mold and mildew. No windows, ventilation or proper lighting. These are deep structural problems that can’t be remedied by our maintenance crew, good as they are, painting, carpeting and punching out a few windows.
And why would the district spend all the money necessary to bring the structures up to minimal building, health, safety, fire and earthquake codes when the site itself is so detrimental to any school, especially one for CCUSD’s most vulnerable young people? Is it even possible to open a school in the middle of a parking lot, expecting teenagers to make their way in the morning rush through cars moving in all directions? How can this location support the hard work continuation students must do to make up classes, change their behavior and priorities? How can Culver Park kids feel any school pride? For their final school years, they will be fenced off behind a locked gate, a utility pole with power lines hanging overhead, a view of the parking lot on one side, the creek fence on the other, truly banished to the farthest edge of the densest part of our school district for all to scorn. Not a great message for our community, or about our community.
Students in every school will see Culver Park as a prison sentence, a punishment place, not an opportunity place. Please, go take a look at the structures and try to imagine sending your own child there. No parents ever think their beautiful kindergartener, first-grader, 6th grader will require the individualized support that Culver Park provides. But all kinds of things can go wrong- family problems, friends, learning issues, bad choices, terrible wrongs and burdens can all lead to the need for an alternative school, a fresh start in a healthy, safe place. For the sake of all our kids, we’d best hope our school board makes sure that they have one.
Karen Lanier is a teacher at Culver Park High School.
The expansion of El Marino Elementary School to accommodate a full-day kindergarten requires the relocation of CCUSD’s other high school, Culver Park. CPHS is the district’s continuation school and provides a program, now limited by budget cuts to 80 students, where high-schoolers, 16 to 18 years old, have a supportive, productive place to make up lost time- time lost for as many reasons as there are students.
I’ve been a teacher at Culver Park long enough to now have the children of former students in my English classes, as well as teens I first met when they were El Marino grade-schoolers attending my after-school art program. My commitment to these students, past, present and future, goes way back. And my concern about this poorly planned, last minute push to shovel CPHS into a couple of degraded bungalows in the parking lot between Farragut and the middle school goes pretty deep.
The word “bungalow” needs clarification. What do you think of when you visualize the word? A rustic, cozy cottage maybe? If you are an educator or have school-age children, you probably think of a portable classroom, kitted out with the basics: clean walls, floors, proper lighting, ventilation and safe access to P.E., food services, restrooms and the other amenities of a real school. The structures in the parking lot cannot, by either definition, be called “bungalows." They are decaying 30-year-old pre-fab portables that have been there long enough to have grown roots- and not in a good way. Plumbing inside the buildings? Not that I could see. Outdoor bathrooms with a septic tank? Asbestos? Who knows. There is evidence of vermin, the stench of mold and mildew. No windows, ventilation or proper lighting. These are deep structural problems that can’t be remedied by our maintenance crew, good as they are, painting, carpeting and punching out a few windows.
And why would the district spend all the money necessary to bring the structures up to minimal building, health, safety, fire and earthquake codes when the site itself is so detrimental to any school, especially one for CCUSD’s most vulnerable young people? Is it even possible to open a school in the middle of a parking lot, expecting teenagers to make their way in the morning rush through cars moving in all directions? How can this location support the hard work continuation students must do to make up classes, change their behavior and priorities? How can Culver Park kids feel any school pride? For their final school years, they will be fenced off behind a locked gate, a utility pole with power lines hanging overhead, a view of the parking lot on one side, the creek fence on the other, truly banished to the farthest edge of the densest part of our school district for all to scorn. Not a great message for our community, or about our community.
Students in every school will see Culver Park as a prison sentence, a punishment place, not an opportunity place. Please, go take a look at the structures and try to imagine sending your own child there. No parents ever think their beautiful kindergartener, first-grader, 6th grader will require the individualized support that Culver Park provides. But all kinds of things can go wrong- family problems, friends, learning issues, bad choices, terrible wrongs and burdens can all lead to the need for an alternative school, a fresh start in a healthy, safe place. For the sake of all our kids, we’d best hope our school board makes sure that they have one.
Karen Lanier is a teacher at Culver Park High School.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Culver City Peace Vigil: July 2007 through March 2012
Susan Anderson
Many cities throughout Southern California participate in local peace vigils. The first peace vigil in Culver City took place during the start of the occupation in Iraq. Ours is the second Culver City Peace Vigil. We step aside now for another community group to continue in what Martin Luther King, Jr. calls "the beautiful struggle" for peace.
Our meeting place was nearby the Culver Hotel. Originally we met every Friday night from 5:30 to 6:30 pm and later changed our peace vigil to every other Friday.
Commuters on Culver Boulevard responded to our banner and signs by honking. Pedestrians and tourists walking by the hotel checked out our banner and signs and stopped to ask questions and give their comments. Most agreed with our message and cheered us.
Our message was: U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan; No war in Iran.
Health care not warfare.
Billions of money for quality schools, affordable housing, sustainable jobs, and health care for all, instead of for war.
In support of our veterans, our signs called for: training, education, health care, housing and jobs.
The Peace Vigil was a community activity. Those who participated in the vigil were from Culver City or adjacent and are truly a wonderful group of peace activists! Adele in her wheel chair had joined us early on; Chloe became our peace poodle; we all miss Sally, and we congratulated Gretta on her retirement. We sang songs of liberation at the vigil and marched in a Los Angeles downtown peace rally carrying our banner.
We welcomed those passing by to join us. Those who did included middle school age boys riding their skate boards; a group of lively teen age girls; a bicycler from South America who was visiting her mom here in Culver City en route to her home in Belgium; a dad and his preschool son who recognized Robert from the peace vigil as a fellow passenger on their morning bus ride; and a director on his way to joining friends for a showing of his film. Veterans from Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan stopped by and told us of their military experiences.
What did this do for Culver City? It put Culver City on the map as a city with citizens who believe in participating in an ongoing action in support of peace. We participated in this nonviolent direct action for four and a half years. This Friday will be our final peace vigil. I hope that you will join us for one final action.
Susan Anderson has been the organizer of the Culver City Peace Vigil for over 4 years.
Many cities throughout Southern California participate in local peace vigils. The first peace vigil in Culver City took place during the start of the occupation in Iraq. Ours is the second Culver City Peace Vigil. We step aside now for another community group to continue in what Martin Luther King, Jr. calls "the beautiful struggle" for peace.
Our meeting place was nearby the Culver Hotel. Originally we met every Friday night from 5:30 to 6:30 pm and later changed our peace vigil to every other Friday.
Commuters on Culver Boulevard responded to our banner and signs by honking. Pedestrians and tourists walking by the hotel checked out our banner and signs and stopped to ask questions and give their comments. Most agreed with our message and cheered us.
Our message was: U.S. out of Iraq and Afghanistan; No war in Iran.
Health care not warfare.
Billions of money for quality schools, affordable housing, sustainable jobs, and health care for all, instead of for war.
In support of our veterans, our signs called for: training, education, health care, housing and jobs.
The Peace Vigil was a community activity. Those who participated in the vigil were from Culver City or adjacent and are truly a wonderful group of peace activists! Adele in her wheel chair had joined us early on; Chloe became our peace poodle; we all miss Sally, and we congratulated Gretta on her retirement. We sang songs of liberation at the vigil and marched in a Los Angeles downtown peace rally carrying our banner.
We welcomed those passing by to join us. Those who did included middle school age boys riding their skate boards; a group of lively teen age girls; a bicycler from South America who was visiting her mom here in Culver City en route to her home in Belgium; a dad and his preschool son who recognized Robert from the peace vigil as a fellow passenger on their morning bus ride; and a director on his way to joining friends for a showing of his film. Veterans from Viet Nam, Iraq and Afghanistan stopped by and told us of their military experiences.
What did this do for Culver City? It put Culver City on the map as a city with citizens who believe in participating in an ongoing action in support of peace. We participated in this nonviolent direct action for four and a half years. This Friday will be our final peace vigil. I hope that you will join us for one final action.
Susan Anderson has been the organizer of the Culver City Peace Vigil for over 4 years.
Tuesday, March 6, 2012
The Culver City Youth Health Center: They Make Learning Possible
Sarah Carpenter
NOTE: This is the fifth in a series of Culver City Progress Blog articles highlighting local community groups doing good work in Culver City. Please see the postings on the Culver City Sister City Committee here and here, on the Martin Luther King Planning Committee here, and on Shoes for the Homeless here.
The Culver City Youth Health Center combines both Physical and Mental health care for Teen and Young Adults in Culver City. The clinic started in 1985, with the combination of Dr Tom Long from UCLA and our now retired school nurse - Sandy Segal. It grew from one exam room to 3 exam rooms, labs, a doctor’s office and several counseling offices. Over the years, the clinic has also developed the Mental health portion, now with a remarkable group of therapists from The Los Angeles Child Development Center providing individual and group counseling at the clinic. The Physical health part gets a great deal of help from the Venice Family clinic and some support from the School district. The Mental health portion is almost entirely financially supported by a very dedicated and energetic group, “The Friends of the Culver City Youth Health Center”. A very important fund raiser will be taking place Saturday March 10th at the Double Tree Hilton Hotel in Culver City. Superintendent Patricia Jaffe will be honored at this even for her many years of service to the school district.
The Physical health program is open three half days per week. The clinic is staffed primarily by the Venice Family clinic -with a health educator, nurse, a fourth year medical student, and two supervising medical doctors. The clinic provides school entry and sports physicals. The staff also cares for a range of health problems - anemia, asthma, TB treatments, skin disorder and diabetes care. In addition, there are many services related to teen sexuality - abstinence counseling, contraception, pregnancy and STD testing. Since the clinic has started, the school has seen a steady decline in Teen pregnancy and a reduction in absences from school.
The Mental Health part of the program is exceedingly important. Many young people do not have the financial resources to get the counseling they need at this very important time of their lives. The mental health program consists of 8 interns in training, 7 volunteers and 3 supervising Psychologists. It is open 3 ½ days per week. Last year, they provided care for 375 Middle and High school students. The Mental health trainees come form the MSW programs (from Smith college and USC) and Marriage and Family Therapy programs (from Cal State Northridge, Pepperdine and Pacifica Graduate Institute). Depressed and/or anxious students can get individual counseling. In addition, the therapists have an array of Therapy Groups: Reaching life goals for teen girls, Coping with recent immigration, Coping with grief, GLBT support group, Drama and creativity for girls at Culver park, Life Skills group, and a Group on ending Substance Abuse- are a few examples.
A fun way to help the health center is to go to our Online Auction. We have exciting restaurant, vacations, household items , and much more at http://www.biddingforgood.com/CCYHC. Hurry - the auction closes on March 8th.
Interested in attending the fund raiser? It is $85 at ticket, $95 at the door. Contact Sue Mitchell (310) 559-5681 or Andy Alexander (310) 837-5012.
Sarah Carpenter, MD, is a Volunteer Physician at the Culver City Youth Health Center.
NOTE: This is the fifth in a series of Culver City Progress Blog articles highlighting local community groups doing good work in Culver City. Please see the postings on the Culver City Sister City Committee here and here, on the Martin Luther King Planning Committee here, and on Shoes for the Homeless here.
The Culver City Youth Health Center combines both Physical and Mental health care for Teen and Young Adults in Culver City. The clinic started in 1985, with the combination of Dr Tom Long from UCLA and our now retired school nurse - Sandy Segal. It grew from one exam room to 3 exam rooms, labs, a doctor’s office and several counseling offices. Over the years, the clinic has also developed the Mental health portion, now with a remarkable group of therapists from The Los Angeles Child Development Center providing individual and group counseling at the clinic. The Physical health part gets a great deal of help from the Venice Family clinic and some support from the School district. The Mental health portion is almost entirely financially supported by a very dedicated and energetic group, “The Friends of the Culver City Youth Health Center”. A very important fund raiser will be taking place Saturday March 10th at the Double Tree Hilton Hotel in Culver City. Superintendent Patricia Jaffe will be honored at this even for her many years of service to the school district.
The Physical health program is open three half days per week. The clinic is staffed primarily by the Venice Family clinic -with a health educator, nurse, a fourth year medical student, and two supervising medical doctors. The clinic provides school entry and sports physicals. The staff also cares for a range of health problems - anemia, asthma, TB treatments, skin disorder and diabetes care. In addition, there are many services related to teen sexuality - abstinence counseling, contraception, pregnancy and STD testing. Since the clinic has started, the school has seen a steady decline in Teen pregnancy and a reduction in absences from school.
The Mental Health part of the program is exceedingly important. Many young people do not have the financial resources to get the counseling they need at this very important time of their lives. The mental health program consists of 8 interns in training, 7 volunteers and 3 supervising Psychologists. It is open 3 ½ days per week. Last year, they provided care for 375 Middle and High school students. The Mental health trainees come form the MSW programs (from Smith college and USC) and Marriage and Family Therapy programs (from Cal State Northridge, Pepperdine and Pacifica Graduate Institute). Depressed and/or anxious students can get individual counseling. In addition, the therapists have an array of Therapy Groups: Reaching life goals for teen girls, Coping with recent immigration, Coping with grief, GLBT support group, Drama and creativity for girls at Culver park, Life Skills group, and a Group on ending Substance Abuse- are a few examples.
A fun way to help the health center is to go to our Online Auction. We have exciting restaurant, vacations, household items , and much more at http://www.biddingforgood.com/CCYHC. Hurry - the auction closes on March 8th.
Interested in attending the fund raiser? It is $85 at ticket, $95 at the door. Contact Sue Mitchell (310) 559-5681 or Andy Alexander (310) 837-5012.
Sarah Carpenter, MD, is a Volunteer Physician at the Culver City Youth Health Center.
Saturday, March 3, 2012
The Courage to Lead
Karlo Silbiger
For the past 2 school board meetings, the board has been overwhelmed by parents asking and/or demanding that the board protect the parents' right to raise money and spend that money as they see fit by hiring employees to work in the schools. While the message has been both consistent and direct, the criticism that I and my colleagues have received has been a bit more confusing.
I have had people say that the board is too active and that we should stay out of oversight decisions that should be made by our staff. I have had people say that we need to be more active, to take a stand that would, supposedly, protect our students and their education. I have been told that I am personally biased based on my friendship and strong working relationship with Debbie Hamme, a dedicated employee of our district, Culver City resident, and parent of a CCUSD graduate (in addition to being the President of the Culver City Association of Classified Employees). I have been told that I am staying TOO NEUTRAL (if that is possible) and that I need to take a more active role in picking a side. Sometimes all of the above statements have come from the same person!
Obviously some members of the public are confused about what they want in an elected official, they just know that they want to be in agreement with them on this particular issue. It has been an interesting learning experience for me as a relatively new elected official and I know that in the end it will help to make our district stronger and our board more cohesive.
It is within this context that I sat last Sunday through the 60th anniversary Installation Luncheon of the Culver City Democratic Club, an organization in which I have been heavily involved over the past 5 years. I pulled 2 lessons from that event. First, I learned that I was still a newbie when it came to being a political activist. Because I grew up in a political family where we were always running campaigns out of the living room and attending meetings each weekend, I assume that I am ready for anything that can be thrown at me. However, listening at the luncheon to Steve Gourley, a leader in our community and state for over 30 years (and a speaker as the former Club President), reminded me that being a leader and policy-maker is a constant learning experience.
The second lesson learned, is that while good elected officials set policy based on past practice and formal votes, great elected officials just lead. They sometimes throw the rules aside for the betterment of the people they serve and always think of the end result over the short-term political consequences of their actions. It is not that I didn't know this before (I've been outspoken for as long as I've been speaking!). But there's something about listening to State Controller John Chiang, one of the best elected officials that California has ever produced, that reinforces just how much of a difference 1 person can make.
For those who don't know Controller Chiang's history he has been helping to set fiscal policy in our state for over 13 years. He sits on a variety of boards and signs our tax return checks, as his job description specifies. However, as the chief financial officer of the state, Controller Chiang sees it as his personal mission to do all he legally can do to protect taxpayer money from corruption, corporate greed, and non-transparent decision-making. And sometimes that means taking a stand that is unpopular to some.
Controller Chiang is best known for 2 actions taken during his 5 years in this position. He is the one who refused on pay all state workers at minimum wage levels (regardless of their contractually-guaranteed pay) when ordered to by then-Governor Schwarzenegger. The Controller argued that it was completely unfair and illegal to change peoples’ income unilaterally when they had been created through negotiations. Many were mad, arguing that the Controller was substituting his own political beliefs for the direction of the Chief Executive. Others argued that during crises, one must throw the agreements out the window and focus on keeping the state solvent. I saw that move as politically-risky, but completely in keeping with Chiang’s sole motivation: don’t allow the political environment to alter one’s sworn duty to uphold the law.
A few years later, when the legislature and Governor passed a phony budget just before June 30th in order to protect their own pay, the Controller refused to hand out checks until a true balanced budget was passed, not one that relied on gimmicks. He is still in court defending that action. People in his own party were furious, but Chiang knows that his allegiance can’t be to any group other than the entire constituency of the state. The law says that a balanced budget must be passed and he had yet to see what he considered a balanced budget. Another gutsy move from a true leader.
What people generally don’t know about Controller Chiang is that he has spent the past 5 years behind the scenes doing exactly what we need in Sacramento: auditing every cent that comes in or goes out of the state treasury to independently ensure that no money is wasted. In just those 5 years, he has $3 billion in savings. Imagine how many more billions have been saved because corporations know not to mess with our state. He spoke on Sunday about using fiscal policy to enact social policy, a concept that only a true leader would develop.
So after listening to and reflecting on the Controller’s work, I feel better about the criticism that I have been getting. I am sure it is similar to the reaction that Mr. Chiang has received each and every time that he has tried to push the boundaries of his position beyond the status quo for the betterment of the people he serves. Sometimes it is not alright to sit back and just vote every other week, sometimes you have to actively work, sometimes you have to take a stand. Leadership does not always mean being popular. But even in the midst of lawsuits from his fellow democrats and threats from former Governors, John Chiang has managed to be elected overwhelmingly 4 times and was honored by the Culver City Democratic Club, so that’s something.
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.
For the past 2 school board meetings, the board has been overwhelmed by parents asking and/or demanding that the board protect the parents' right to raise money and spend that money as they see fit by hiring employees to work in the schools. While the message has been both consistent and direct, the criticism that I and my colleagues have received has been a bit more confusing.
I have had people say that the board is too active and that we should stay out of oversight decisions that should be made by our staff. I have had people say that we need to be more active, to take a stand that would, supposedly, protect our students and their education. I have been told that I am personally biased based on my friendship and strong working relationship with Debbie Hamme, a dedicated employee of our district, Culver City resident, and parent of a CCUSD graduate (in addition to being the President of the Culver City Association of Classified Employees). I have been told that I am staying TOO NEUTRAL (if that is possible) and that I need to take a more active role in picking a side. Sometimes all of the above statements have come from the same person!
Obviously some members of the public are confused about what they want in an elected official, they just know that they want to be in agreement with them on this particular issue. It has been an interesting learning experience for me as a relatively new elected official and I know that in the end it will help to make our district stronger and our board more cohesive.
It is within this context that I sat last Sunday through the 60th anniversary Installation Luncheon of the Culver City Democratic Club, an organization in which I have been heavily involved over the past 5 years. I pulled 2 lessons from that event. First, I learned that I was still a newbie when it came to being a political activist. Because I grew up in a political family where we were always running campaigns out of the living room and attending meetings each weekend, I assume that I am ready for anything that can be thrown at me. However, listening at the luncheon to Steve Gourley, a leader in our community and state for over 30 years (and a speaker as the former Club President), reminded me that being a leader and policy-maker is a constant learning experience.
The second lesson learned, is that while good elected officials set policy based on past practice and formal votes, great elected officials just lead. They sometimes throw the rules aside for the betterment of the people they serve and always think of the end result over the short-term political consequences of their actions. It is not that I didn't know this before (I've been outspoken for as long as I've been speaking!). But there's something about listening to State Controller John Chiang, one of the best elected officials that California has ever produced, that reinforces just how much of a difference 1 person can make.
For those who don't know Controller Chiang's history he has been helping to set fiscal policy in our state for over 13 years. He sits on a variety of boards and signs our tax return checks, as his job description specifies. However, as the chief financial officer of the state, Controller Chiang sees it as his personal mission to do all he legally can do to protect taxpayer money from corruption, corporate greed, and non-transparent decision-making. And sometimes that means taking a stand that is unpopular to some.
Controller Chiang is best known for 2 actions taken during his 5 years in this position. He is the one who refused on pay all state workers at minimum wage levels (regardless of their contractually-guaranteed pay) when ordered to by then-Governor Schwarzenegger. The Controller argued that it was completely unfair and illegal to change peoples’ income unilaterally when they had been created through negotiations. Many were mad, arguing that the Controller was substituting his own political beliefs for the direction of the Chief Executive. Others argued that during crises, one must throw the agreements out the window and focus on keeping the state solvent. I saw that move as politically-risky, but completely in keeping with Chiang’s sole motivation: don’t allow the political environment to alter one’s sworn duty to uphold the law.
A few years later, when the legislature and Governor passed a phony budget just before June 30th in order to protect their own pay, the Controller refused to hand out checks until a true balanced budget was passed, not one that relied on gimmicks. He is still in court defending that action. People in his own party were furious, but Chiang knows that his allegiance can’t be to any group other than the entire constituency of the state. The law says that a balanced budget must be passed and he had yet to see what he considered a balanced budget. Another gutsy move from a true leader.
What people generally don’t know about Controller Chiang is that he has spent the past 5 years behind the scenes doing exactly what we need in Sacramento: auditing every cent that comes in or goes out of the state treasury to independently ensure that no money is wasted. In just those 5 years, he has $3 billion in savings. Imagine how many more billions have been saved because corporations know not to mess with our state. He spoke on Sunday about using fiscal policy to enact social policy, a concept that only a true leader would develop.
So after listening to and reflecting on the Controller’s work, I feel better about the criticism that I have been getting. I am sure it is similar to the reaction that Mr. Chiang has received each and every time that he has tried to push the boundaries of his position beyond the status quo for the betterment of the people he serves. Sometimes it is not alright to sit back and just vote every other week, sometimes you have to actively work, sometimes you have to take a stand. Leadership does not always mean being popular. But even in the midst of lawsuits from his fellow democrats and threats from former Governors, John Chiang has managed to be elected overwhelmingly 4 times and was honored by the Culver City Democratic Club, so that’s something.
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.
Thursday, March 1, 2012
Association of Classified Employees (ACE) Clarifies Position on El Marino Adjuncts
Debbie Hamme
NOTE: In order to help clarify the position of the various groups involved in the current debate about the role of parent funded positions, we have invited both ACE and "Parents Have Rights" to submit articles. What follows is the submission from ACE.
The union representing the support staff of Culver City Unified School District is calling for the website parentshaverights.org, as well as parent Yahoo groups, to refrain from posting erroneous or misleading information that is fanning the flames surrounding the issue of the El Marino adjuncts.
The Association of Classified Employees-Culver City fully supports parent involvement and participation in their children’s education. Unfortunately, there is a lot of theory, rather than fact, being put out in the public domain that is unnecessarily upsetting parents. It is not, nor has it ever been, our intention to disrupt the El Marino language program or replace the existing adjuncts with other district employees. While we believe that the adjuncts are performing our bargaining unit work, there is more than enough room for compromise and we urge El Marino parents, as well as parents throughout the community, to give us a chance to work through this process collaboratively with the district.
We are aware that volunteers throughout the district may be doing comparable work to our unit members in classrooms every day, but there is a definite distinction to be made between parent volunteers who are in the classroom intermittently and paid employees that do our work on a daily basis. I’ve read several accounts of this issue in recent days that refer to the adjuncts as “paid volunteers,” but how is that accurate when by definition a volunteer is a “person who performs a service willingly and without pay?” We are also aware that there are employees in the district whose salaries are paid by various parent fundraising groups, and those positions are not at issue, either—nor will they be in the future.
At issue, however, are approximately twenty positions at El Marino Language School that have been funded by Advocates for Language Learning El Marino (ALLEM). There are a few different concerns that surround this issue. Several year ago, when the federal law, No Child Left Behind went into effect, all of the members of our unit had to become “highly qualified” in order to keep their jobs. The federal criterion that needed to be met by anyone working with students in the classroom was an AA degree or better—or equivalent training. In an effort to avoid a massive lay-off of our members and to ensure that our members became “highly qualified,” A.C.E. negotiated with CCUSD to provide that training at no cost to the employees, and it was taught in-house. As a result, all current district employees working as support professionals in our district: instructional assistants, librarians, even P.E. aides, have met this criterion. If the adjuncts at El Marino are not already highly qualified, they would be given an opportunity to take the same district provided course to enable them to meet the same qualifications. This benefits not only the adjuncts, but our students.
Secondly, while we applaud all of the parents in our district for their commitment to our schools and students, we realize that not all parent groups will be equally successful in their fundraising efforts. This creates an unfortunate disparity between our schools and creates a climate of “haves” and “have-nots.” For any parent in the community who does not think this would ever happen, you should be aware that while El Marino is fortunate enough to have 20 adjuncts at
their school, La Ballona, which also hosts a Spanish Immersion program has none for their immersion students. So, how can the modeling of target language be an integral part of the immersion experience for the students at one site, but not for the students of the same program at another? El Rincon has four instructional assistants for the entire school, and three of them are restricted to working with only Title I students and split their time between 23 classrooms.
Even if we were to assume that this inequity did not exist, can you imagine a district in which every site had a successful booster club that had total autonomy over who they hired, fired, or how much they paid “their” employees? In what position does that place the district? What is their liability if employees of the booster clubs are involved in legal actions brought by parents or students? Do we even think for a minute that the district would be held harmless if this should happen? Has anyone thought of the chaos having seven different “employers” within one small district would create?
And last, but certainly by no means, least, we’ve seen a lot of rhetoric out there from parents who “support” unions, are actual members of unions, value the important work that unions do, have worked for unions, or value the work the classified employees of this district do every day, but somehow feel it’s appropriate to demonize me in public for wanting to provide the adjuncts they “love” a living wage, a few paid sick days and a few paid holidays by bringing them into my unit. Contrary to what you may have been told, this will not destroy the program at El Marino. It will enhance it.
To all of the people who have posted in their Yahoo groups or Letters to the Editor that I should be “ashamed” of myself for wanting to improve someone’s quality of life and the quality of education, let me assure you, I am not ashamed of it.
I am proud.
Debbie Hamme is a Staff Writer for the Culver City Progress Blog and the President of the Culver City Association of Classified Employees.
NOTE: In order to help clarify the position of the various groups involved in the current debate about the role of parent funded positions, we have invited both ACE and "Parents Have Rights" to submit articles. What follows is the submission from ACE.
The union representing the support staff of Culver City Unified School District is calling for the website parentshaverights.org, as well as parent Yahoo groups, to refrain from posting erroneous or misleading information that is fanning the flames surrounding the issue of the El Marino adjuncts.
The Association of Classified Employees-Culver City fully supports parent involvement and participation in their children’s education. Unfortunately, there is a lot of theory, rather than fact, being put out in the public domain that is unnecessarily upsetting parents. It is not, nor has it ever been, our intention to disrupt the El Marino language program or replace the existing adjuncts with other district employees. While we believe that the adjuncts are performing our bargaining unit work, there is more than enough room for compromise and we urge El Marino parents, as well as parents throughout the community, to give us a chance to work through this process collaboratively with the district.
We are aware that volunteers throughout the district may be doing comparable work to our unit members in classrooms every day, but there is a definite distinction to be made between parent volunteers who are in the classroom intermittently and paid employees that do our work on a daily basis. I’ve read several accounts of this issue in recent days that refer to the adjuncts as “paid volunteers,” but how is that accurate when by definition a volunteer is a “person who performs a service willingly and without pay?” We are also aware that there are employees in the district whose salaries are paid by various parent fundraising groups, and those positions are not at issue, either—nor will they be in the future.
At issue, however, are approximately twenty positions at El Marino Language School that have been funded by Advocates for Language Learning El Marino (ALLEM). There are a few different concerns that surround this issue. Several year ago, when the federal law, No Child Left Behind went into effect, all of the members of our unit had to become “highly qualified” in order to keep their jobs. The federal criterion that needed to be met by anyone working with students in the classroom was an AA degree or better—or equivalent training. In an effort to avoid a massive lay-off of our members and to ensure that our members became “highly qualified,” A.C.E. negotiated with CCUSD to provide that training at no cost to the employees, and it was taught in-house. As a result, all current district employees working as support professionals in our district: instructional assistants, librarians, even P.E. aides, have met this criterion. If the adjuncts at El Marino are not already highly qualified, they would be given an opportunity to take the same district provided course to enable them to meet the same qualifications. This benefits not only the adjuncts, but our students.
Secondly, while we applaud all of the parents in our district for their commitment to our schools and students, we realize that not all parent groups will be equally successful in their fundraising efforts. This creates an unfortunate disparity between our schools and creates a climate of “haves” and “have-nots.” For any parent in the community who does not think this would ever happen, you should be aware that while El Marino is fortunate enough to have 20 adjuncts at
their school, La Ballona, which also hosts a Spanish Immersion program has none for their immersion students. So, how can the modeling of target language be an integral part of the immersion experience for the students at one site, but not for the students of the same program at another? El Rincon has four instructional assistants for the entire school, and three of them are restricted to working with only Title I students and split their time between 23 classrooms.
Even if we were to assume that this inequity did not exist, can you imagine a district in which every site had a successful booster club that had total autonomy over who they hired, fired, or how much they paid “their” employees? In what position does that place the district? What is their liability if employees of the booster clubs are involved in legal actions brought by parents or students? Do we even think for a minute that the district would be held harmless if this should happen? Has anyone thought of the chaos having seven different “employers” within one small district would create?
And last, but certainly by no means, least, we’ve seen a lot of rhetoric out there from parents who “support” unions, are actual members of unions, value the important work that unions do, have worked for unions, or value the work the classified employees of this district do every day, but somehow feel it’s appropriate to demonize me in public for wanting to provide the adjuncts they “love” a living wage, a few paid sick days and a few paid holidays by bringing them into my unit. Contrary to what you may have been told, this will not destroy the program at El Marino. It will enhance it.
To all of the people who have posted in their Yahoo groups or Letters to the Editor that I should be “ashamed” of myself for wanting to improve someone’s quality of life and the quality of education, let me assure you, I am not ashamed of it.
I am proud.
Debbie Hamme is a Staff Writer for the Culver City Progress Blog and the President of the Culver City Association of Classified Employees.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)