I have been following with interest how Scott 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 who 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 loophole. 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?
Mr. Raiken may be contacted at sraiken@renyco.com
