Nearing the end of a quiescent election season that has not stirred a breeze, much less a hurricane, a mildly salted dispute, tingling with irony, may at last be brewing.
Karlo Silbiger is mad at City Hall for failing to post pertinent election information on the city’s website (culvercity.org).
City Hall says it is the responsibility of the City Clerk.
Mr. Silbiger is the campaign manager for City Clerk Christopher Armenta, one of nine candidates for three seats on the City Council in the April 8 election.
Judging by the contents of an email (see below) he fired off an hour after Monday night’s City Council meeting, Mr. Silbiger was steaming when he composed the 629-word missive.
He messaged the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager and the City Attorney, criticizing them for their failure to act.
Father to Son
Mr. Silbiger had just finished watching the televised City Council meeting where his father, Councilman Gary Silbiger, was scorched by his colleagues for bringing up the same argument.
Mayor Alan Corlin and Council member Steve Rose said firmly that it is Mr. Armenta’s responsibility to provide the information to the community.
“The City Clerk is the one official who is hired to run elections — end of issue,” the Mayor said, cryptically. “The City Clerk’s office, the Council and the City Treasurer’s office all have equal access to putting information on the city’s website. If Karlo is interested, he can call me on my cell phone, 310.367.6359.”
“There is no reason Mr. Armenta can’t post the information, even if he is a candidate,” Mr. Rose said. “There is nothing partisan about putting up fundamental election information.”
Why hasn’t Mr. Armenta himself taken the initiative?
Dep. City Clerk Ela Valladares solved the mystery.
She told the newspaper this morning that “since Christopher is a candidate, he sent a memo last summer saying he wanted me to handle the election. But I just got too busy. The information should be posted later today, tomorrow at the latest.”
Here is the email Karlo Silbiger sent to six city officials:
Sent: Monday, March 24, 2008 10:09 PM
To: jerry.fulwood@culvercity.org; martin.cole@culvercity.org;
carol.schwab@culvercity.org
Cc: gary.silbiger@culvercity.org; alan.corlin@culvercity.org;
scott.malsin@culvercity.org
Subject:
Dear city staff and council members,
I watched the council meeting this evening and was shocked to hear the back
and forth about the election information on the website. I've never heard
it called illegal (or potentially illegal) for the city to have an unbiased
list of ALL the candidates running for office. In fact, the city website
has had that for the past 2 municipal elections. I was blown away by
mention that putting neutral information about each candidate (through their
ballot statements) could be illegal since those are public documents
available through the clerk's office that were sent out to all registered
voters by the city. How could it be legal to send that information out by
mail, but illegal to have it on the website for all to see?
I did a little searching on the website and found that there are 2 mentions
of the election currently. There is the document that Mr. Cole mentioned
this evening on the city's front page that lists an upcoming election (it
was made and posted before the filing period was completed). It has some
very basic information (like the date), but nothing more. There is also a
video from Thursday's league of women voters debate, a great resource, but
it is hidden on the clerk's page.
Here is my suggestion.
On the front page, have a large item that says
"Important Culver City Election Information" with a link to a page with the
following documents:
- The names of the 9 candidates (which is public information available in
the sample ballots and when calling the clerk's office)- The League of Women Voters Debate Video (which is already there)
- The 9 candidate ballot statements (which are public records available in
the sample ballot and at the clerk's office)- A link to the League of Women Voters website at www.smartvoter.org for
more information (a non-partisan site)- A list of polling locations and contact information for the elections
department
In the past, the city has also had financial documents on the website so
that people can see who is contributing to each candidate's campaign. This
is not partisan information. This is not electioneering. This is unbiased
information to inform the voter and ALL is public information.
What makes this debate even more ridiculous is that most every other city
and governmental agency has this information and more available. Culver
City is doing legal research into an issue that would put most government
websites out of compliance. Just as a few examples:
- Go to the LA County's site at www.lavote.net to see their listing of every
candidate with contact information including websites (which you say is
illegal)
- Go to the LA City Clerk's website at
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/election/index.htm to see a list of links
including smartvoter.org (and many others). One of those links is to the LA
City Ethics Commission (http://ethics.lacity.org) where they have a list of
every candidate filing to raise money for next year's municipal elections
(including websites) and their financial status.
The best of all is Lancaster which has exactly what we should have. Go to
www.cityoflancasterca.org and you'll see a link right from the homepage with
ballot statements, a list of candidates, campaign financial statements, and
general information (all in English and Spanish).
The list goes on and on. This is not a legal question, but a moral one. Do
we want people to be informed about the election or don't we? I seek a
response from someone on this e-mail at your earliest convenience (remember
that the election is just 14 days away) about what specifically is being
done in this regard and why. Getting this minimal information up on the
website should be easy and should be done by the end of the day tomorrow.
Karlo Silbiger
