Gary Silbiger
Once a year, Culver City’s 5 Councilmembers vote to appoint members to serve on its 4 commissions and several committees, including both Culver City committees and multi-jurisdictional ones. This is one of the most significant tasks of the council since appointed officials both serve as an important part of the decision-making process and are groomed to potentially run for public office themselves at some later point. Of the most recent 8 former council members, 7 served as commissioners before their term on the council. For that reason alone, we need to ensure that we have a fair process for selecting these important people.
The proceedures for choosing Culver City Commissioners and Committee members now give any 3 Councilmembers voting as a block the opportunity to select 100% of their chosen members. In fact, during the past 4 years, 3 Councilmembers voted exactly the same for all Commission and Committee appointments, skewing the results and affecting the outcomes of the important work that needs to get done.
So what would be a fair procedure for elected officials to select city commissioners and committee members? In Culver City, the 5 Councilmembers, all of whom represent the full city because no Council districts exist, vote for each open commission and committee position annually in May or June. In a distortion of democracy, 3 Councilmembers, totaling 60% of the 5 elected officials, often decide almost 100% of who will be selected on those crucial bodies. Of course, not every commission appointment is contested by the elected officials, but when they are you could be sure for the past 4 years that Scott Malsin, Micheal O’Leary, and Andrew Weissman regularly voted as a block. These yearly selections allow each of the 5 Councilmembers to nominate his (there were no women Council members from 2008 until April of this year) choice. The mayor asks each Councilmember to name his favorite candidate. When 3 or more Councilmembers have verbally selected one person, the nomination is completed, and the official vote is then taken.
At the June 2, 2008 Council meeting – the first vote taken to select Commissioners by Christopher Armenta, Micheal O’Leary and Andrew Weissman - there were opposing nominations for the 2 Planning Commission seats and for the one Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission position. For the first Planning Commission seat, Armenta, Malsin, O’Leary, and Weissman nominated Marcus Tiggs and I named Mark Salkin and Mary Ann Webster. For the second Planning Commission seat, Malsin, O’Leary, and Weissman chose Tony Pleskow while Armenta and I nominated Mark Salkin. The Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission selection split with Armenta nominating Karlo Silbiger; Malsin, O’Leary, and Weissman choosing John Richard Hudson; and I recusing myself because my son, Karlo, was a candidate for this position. Therefore, during all 3 contested positions, Malsin, O’Leary and Weissman voted together thus having their favorite candidates selected as Commissioners 100% of the time.
The next annual selection meeting took place on May 11, 2009 when the Councilmembers disagreed on one of the two Planning Commission appointments and the Landlord-Tenant Board selection. Malsin, O’Leary, and Weissman nominated Scott Wyant, and Armenta and I favored Mark Salkin. Additionally, Armenta, Malsin, O’Leary and Weissman voted for Robert Pine while I favored Michelle Woolner Weiner. Again, the same 3 Council members got their way each time.
The third annual selection took place on June 14, 2010 which resulted in unanimous appointments except for the Cultural Affairs Commission seat which had Armenta, Malsin, O’Leary and Weissman choosing Michelle Bernardin while Jeff Cooper nominated Greg Guzetta. For the third year in a row, Councilmembers Malsin, O’Leary and Weissman joined forces to select all commissioners.
The fourth annual selection occurred at the May 23, 2011 Council meeting when all commission and committee seats were chosen unanimously by the Council.
During all of these yearly appointments, one or more Councilmembers encouraged those not selected to “stay active”, and “apply again” because there were so many qualified applicants. You couldn’t tell that there were so many “qualified applicants” by the votes of certain Councilmembers.
There are several solutions that should be implemented.
First, each Councilmember should be able to select one of the five Commissioners and Committee members for each entity in place of the current practice of having all positions selected by majority vote. After all, each Councilmember is 20% of the Council and should receive that amount of selection power. If each Councilmember could make one selection, the Commissions and Committees would be more diverse and reflective of our community. For instance, during the past few years, many very qualified individuals, such as Tom Camarella (former Democratic Club President), Jim Clarke (newly elected Councilmember), Michael Hersh (labor lawyer), Rebecca Rona (Culver City’s Martin Luther King Celebration Committee member), Karlo Silbiger (President of Culver City’s School Board), Mary Ann Webster (leader of the Sierra Club), and Michelle Woolner (environmental leader), failed to be chosen for a seat based on the political views of the Council majority,. By the way, I also unsuccessfully applied 3 times for a seat on the Parks and Recreation Commission prior to my terms as a Councilmember.
Of course, there have been, and still are, many excellent Commissioners and Committee members. Yet, the existing system gives too much power to a majority of Councilmembers while too often excluding the opportunity to make Culver City a more politically diverse city. Many Culver City residents have told me that they would love to serve as members of a commission or committee but know that the makeup of the Council precludes their selection. However, we need everyone’s participation to become the most vibrant community.
Having Council equality in choosing Committee members has at times been effectively realized. For instance, each Councilmember made individual appointments to the City’s Charter Review Committee, the City’s extensive Ten Year Visioning Project, and Culver City’s Committee regarding Free Speech and signs in the public right of way - all of which functioned excellently.
Second, the City should send a letter to each unsuccessful candidate encouraging them to remain active in Culver City and list the many opportunities available to them. They should also be placed on the e-mail notification list for the commission or committee they applied for.
Third, each commission and committee should discuss additional areas of work needed to be accomplished and form subcommittees to fulfill these tasks. The commissions and committees could then contact each “unsuccessful” applicant to learn of what work he or she would want to do and then place them in that interest area or subcommittee. The more volunteers we have, the better Culver City will become.
Our greatest resource is the people who live in Culver City. Let’s be creative and use the abilities and interests of everyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment