First of two parts.
With yesterday’s announcement by City Clerk Martin Cole that seven candidates – not eight – have qualified for the April 12 City Council election, Steve Rose stepped up to the podium and gave his opinion of a prospective Council member’s qualifications.
A two-term Council member a decade ago, the CEO/president of the Chamber of Commerce was specific.
“After watching Council meetings for the last 30 years,” said Mr. Rose, “the Council members who have contributed most to the growth of Culver City came to the Council with the broadest perspective of the community. They clearly understood the area in which we live and the dynamics that drive it.
“They did not come with the view that ‘This is where I want to go. Now let me make the facts work that way.’”
Only some of the seven contenders fit into Mr. Rose’s profile.
“Of the candidates – three in particular – I never have seen show up at Council meetings, listening to what the issues are,” said Mr. Rose, who has a designated seat in Council Chambers.
“Nor have I seen these people at broad-based events the city holds.”
Mr. Rose identified Jay Garocochea, Daniel Lee “and to a lesser extent Thomas Small.”
When a Council member is elected, “you should have a view of the entire city,” he said. “When a special interest comes in and wants a certain program, you need to look at how that places in the entire spectrum of what the city does and can do. It is not right just because you want it.”
As the rarest of Culver City politicians, a conservative, Mr. Rose said he has not decided how he will mark his ballot for the three open seats.
“Even if I had,” he said, “I would not have revealed it until after my employers (the board of the Chamber of Commerce) held their (endorsement) vote.”
(To be continued)
How can Mr. Rose be so certain they have not watched the recorded versions of the meetings. If his concern is they need to be aware of the issues being discussed, one can be aware by reviewing footage of the meetings. His point is lost.
I think anyone looking to be elected to the Council must understand the issues from an “up front and close” view. To do so they need to directly participate by showing up at Council, Commission and community meetings and becoming actively engaged with the stakeholders. Only watching something on television is not real participation but merely voyeurism. For anyone to say they “know” the issues of Culver City from merely watching TV is ridiculous.
Couple of point to be made here:
The City Council broadcasts the footage of its meetings precisely to allow access to those of us who work long hours and/or have kids and/or are busy in the community and are not able to attend council meetings. Has Ms Stuart also considered that for our older and less able bodied members of the community, broadcasting allows for this inclusion? To make a sweeping statement that anyone who doesn’t turn up to Council Meetings is merely a voyeur is an insult to the hugely important work that is being done by many many people in the community shows an extremely narrow and frankly undemocratic view.
Secondly, is Mr Rose taking notes on who does or does not attend council meetings? Does he have a list? Do we get points for attending? Isn’t the remit of the Chamber of Commerce to represent the Culver City business community locally in Culver City and LA, nationally and beyond? Isn’t the Chamber supposed to be a non-governmental institution? The fact that the Culver City business community has little visibility even in LA is not surprising considering the myopic meddling that seems to be going on here.
As I said – and you failed to read – anyone running for office should show up!
Nope – you said ‘anyone looking to be elected to the Council’. You didn’t stipulate current candidates.
LOL! Well, now I am.
Oh Patricia – and anyone looking to be elected or seriously thinking of running should show up too. How else would they have any real concept of the issues without being in the thick of things?