Following a lengthy prologue that featured a dramatic buildup, , first-year City Councilman Mehaul O’Leary once again Monday night cast the deciding vote on a critical agenda item.
He gave Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger and Councilman Chris Armenta heart palpitations before reaching his destination, a vote that put approval of a Culver City animal control officer over the top on a 3 to 2 evening.
Mr. O’Leary covered a vast amount of political ground during his 335-word introduction to his landing position, which had been anticipated by all four of his colleagues.
Three statements may warrant closer inspection.
• He admitted that public notification “probably” had been insufficient, as Councilman Andy Weissman had argued at the beginning of the discussion in a vain attempt to have the item postponed for several weeks. However, Mr. O’Leary did not speak up when Mr. Weissman made a plea for support.
• A major theme of Mr. O’Leary’s presentation was his loyalty to his campaign promises and to the people who voted him into office. However, in taking umbrage at a comment made by one resident, he misquoted her, and then lashed out at her. Said the Councilman: “But what stuck in my gut was the idea that I would make campaign promises just to get elected.” The woman actually said: “I know a number of you made promises during the campaign. But honestly I hope you have the courage to react to new information.”
•Finally, near the end of his introductory comments, Mr. O’Leary said, firmly but without elaboration, that he was “not prepared to vote” for Mr. Silbiger’s general, inspecific plan for employing a Culver City animal control officer. Without explaining his opposition, in the next sentence he proposed a more limited version, a two-year experimental pilot program. Mr. Silbiger later grilled City Manager Jerry Fulwood to determine if there were any meaningful difference between the two proposals. Mr. Fulwood assured him there were not.
Mr. O’Leary’s full prologue:
“According to my numbers, there were 77 in favor and 13 against, which should be a win for the animal control officer. However, that is not how it works. I am very cognizant of the issues brought up, not only by the speakers here tonight, but also emails and letters I got regarding this issue. The fact that the notice has been apologized for, I understand that. The notice probably wasn’t given sufficiently for this project. There was a concern we were trying to push this through. Well, if there was any project being pushed through, there was the Entrada project.
“Mr. Violin brought up the issue that he didn’t know if there was a need for this animal control officer. Then there is the current fee we pay the County. How will that be reduced, if any? And then, of course, there is the economic climate we are dealing with, and the debt, the loss of $2 million in sales tax revenue.
“But what stuck in my gut was the idea that I would make campaign promises just to get elected. I’m hoping the person who made that comment is not running for any elected office in the near future. The reason I brought that up is, yes, I got notification of this late. But I have been thinking about this for a long time. This is not late for me. This is not late for the residents of Culver City. This was discussed, ad nauseam, in all campaign forums we had. Everyone knew where I stood on this. Everyone knew I would be looking, very seriously, at an animal control officer. I promised that on any given issue I would listen to my colleagues, and to take in their perspective.
“At this moment, I am not prepared to vote in favor of the Vice Mayor’s proposal. I will, however, be proposing a substitute motion, and it will involve the directions to staff to conduct a 24-month pilot program.”
