Dear editor,
Here we go again.
The residents of Culver City have been fortunate in having a succession of city councils that have consistently improved our city. Most voters don’t even bother to participate in elections of local officials because of a combination of satisfaction with the status quo and apathy. This is pitiful but that’s the way it is.
Last summer, the majority of the council members took a leadership position to adjust the benefits package of city employees to be more in line with decades of business practice to trim city expenses. This responsible stewardship of city affairs demonstrated that they were truly serving the city first, without regard to their personal interests. The one exception, Scott Malsin, instead launched a three-part manifesto in local papers – a gloom-and-doom prediction of police and firemen leaving in droves due to reduced benefits. This was done at the same time the council was in negotiations regarding benefit reductions. It didn’t make final resolution of the matter any easier. But the mass employee desertions didn’t take place.
The lone voice against acting in the greater interest of the residents of Culver City instead resigned, to preserve his personal interest ahead of reducing city costs in difficult economic circumstances. Now he wants to run again, so he can “help us through these tough times.” He also mentions the value of his experience in fulfilling “our collective vision” when the redevelopment agencies end in the beginning of February. It would seem that his expertise was more in planning for and spending the funds from the state of California. Now, the council members are put into a position of fundraising from investors to replace the money no longer available from the state.
Because we have five names of people running to fill four vacancies, we must consider first those individuals who have already shown their loyalty to the city and their personal interests secondarily. We don’t need to restore to the council someone who has very recently acted in opposition to all the fiscally sound measures in process by the rest of the council.
I have spoken to a number of people in regard to this situation and have found no one in support of Mr. Malsin’s behavior. I cannot imagine who his supporters might be.
I can only wish that more of our residents would inform themselves of what is going on in the government of the city we all enjoy, and vote in April for a slate of candidates who are willing to preserve this good life.
Jerry Gottschalk,
Culver City
