Part three
Previously, “On His Journey, Councilman Evaluates the Crowd Factor at City Hall”
One reason political observers around City Hall enthusiastically welcomed Andy Weissman to the City Council a year ago this month was that he was viewed as member of the rarest species in politics, an authentic voice of moderation.
“Moderation” is a euphemism for dirty traitor in many political gatherings.
The most fashionable posture in contemporary politics is to believe the world is white or it is black. Gray is so yesterday, wimpy in the view of some.
Like 75 percent of Culver City voters, Mr. Weissman is a Democrat, a meaningless designation, though, in the present circumstance. Taken in the conventional sense, this slotting would lend some predictability to his voting record the past year. But it has not.
He has been the Monday night balance wheel for the rest of the Council,.
Not often a pivotal vote, his calmly spoken, reasoned commentaries have restored order when order is trying to run out the door.
No flair.
Not long on color.
Introspective.
Economizing of word.
Gibraltar solid.
For the past six months, the City Council, with tempers at the boiling point, has argued over the degree of what the populist influence should be on the decision-making process. Two, and sometimes three, of the five members have maintained that activist residents should at least affect Council voting, if not strongly influence it.
Here is Mr. Weissman’s opinion:
“We are elected to make decisions that we believe are in the best interests of the community. On occasion, that may not be the decision the majority in the audience will think is right.”
That may sound like an idealistic campaign blurb that would fit handsomely on a cereal box, except that Mr. Weissman has faithfully followed that principle.
Supporters say that he embodies the notion of voting independently more than any colleague.
Isn’t it tempting for anyone on the dais to be swayed by emotional, confrontational partisans from the audience? How do you maintain a balance?
“It is an individual thing. There is no rule about it. It is difficult not to accede to the wishes of those who are standing in front of you, telling you this is the way it needs to be. I suspect it is basic human nature to not want to pick fights or make enemies or disappoint those who are directly in front of you.
“Unfortunately, from a public servant viewpoint, when you are elected to do something, you frequently have to make decisions that make some people happy and disappoint others. Just goes with the territory. Now how you reach that decision is purely a matter of personal predilection.
“I try not to be swayed strictly on the basis of emotion, but I can understand how it happens. And I am sure it has happened to me before. I have felt one way and voted another — because I was swayed.
“Not necessarily by volume, though. It isn’t always the ones who yell the loudest. It could very well be because a decision makes sense, not because they are yelling at you. It is not because they have a particular point of view. It is because, upon reflection, what they are saying is right.
“It may look as if we were bowled over, intimidated. But it may not be quite that dramatic. It may be that they were right. They made the right points and were able to persuade me. Maybe the way I was looking at things was inappropriate.
“This is about the process, and process is what I really enjoy, the rhetoric, the back-and-forth. I enjoy listening, and I particularly enjoy asking questions. That is part of the delight at being a Councilperson, getting to engage in that kind of process.
“Making a decision in a vacuum, taking only the information fed to you by City Hall, is not a good way to decide.”
An unusually close, intertwining three-way relationship was forged recently among City Hall officials, the developer and the residents in the case of the 4043 Irving Pl. project. Do you believe this presages a new kind of egalitarian power relationship where residents will hold a hand that matches the builder and City Hall?
“I hope not. Keep in mind that I was not able to participate in the discussion because of the location of my office.
“Philosophically, I don’t think the 4043 process is a paradigm we ought to follow. What we have moved toward is a process providing the community with opportunities to engage with developers.
“I am hopeful we eventually will have some developers. Right now, we have nothing going on, to speak of, in Culver City — because of the economic calamity we are in.
“But this gives us the opportunity, when development picks up again and we actually have projects to be considered, that we can have a process in place that works.
“I mean a process that engages the developer, the community and (city) staff at an early stage so the developer knows the type of project that the community would support.”
(To be concluded)
