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.
Friday, March 16, 2012
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)