Second of two parts
Re “Opening Night for Meghan. Felt Like a Veteran. No Reason for Jitters.”
[img]1307|left|Meghan Sahli-Wells||no_popup[/img]Meghan Sahli-Wells was one of the best-known and most closely tracked political activists in Culver City before she was elected to the City Council last month, only the fifth woman in the last 95 years to win office.
Those for whom the environment, sustainability and community participation are animating issues thought they knew how she would perform at her inaugural Council meeting two nights ago.
Equally, residents who believe those subjects are inflated dreaded Monday night’s dawning because they feared she would be hardline.
By late evening, both may have been wrong. An objective observer would judge that she strode the center aisle, alluding to her interests on a number of occasions, but almost inferentially.
“All of the anticipation I had a week ago disappeared when the meeting began,” Ms. Sahli-Wells said, “because I knew the questions I had and the statements I wanted to make. I was comfortable with my colleagues,” a point she made several times.
Closing a Loophole
Just before adjournment, Councilman Jeff Cooper introduced the idea of somehow tightening the regulation that he said allowed former Councilman Scott Malsin to abruptly resign last December and run for re-election in, almost, a single fluid motion.
A number of City Hall-types believe Mr. Malsin finished out of the running on Election Day because of communal resentment over the perceived facileness with which he executed his unprecedented move.
Initially, Ms. Sahli-Wells not only shared Mr. Cooper’s viewpoint but said that a policy should be adopted soon in lieu of waiting until the next scheduled review of the City Charter in four years.
“This subject is something I certainly want to address,” Ms. Sahli-Wells said. “I hope we can find a way of doing that effectively, with kind of minor costs.”
The proposed change probably will not happen as soon as she would like.
She was informed by veterans on the Council that since the Charter was approved in a popular vote, any intended amendments also would need to be approved by the people.
The next logical opportunity likely would be the November ballot. But it is deemed an expensive venture for a city swimming in a deficit sea.
Will Ms. Sahli-Wells press for a determination?
Her instinctive reaction was caution.
“I really want to take a good look at it,” she said. “I definitely want to make the change and get rid of the loophole, but not if it is going to cost excessive amounts of money, which, frankly, we don’t have.
Another Complication
“If it is going to take four years, that brings us to the time of my re-election.
“We do know that three of us on the Council are committed to not letting the loophole remain. For that matter, I would be the only one eligible for that kind of loophole.
“If it is too expensive to make that change before the Charter review, which remains to be seen…it is just a question of looking at the numbers and seeing if they work out…I will certainly pledge not to do that,” Ms. Sahli-Wells said with a hearty chuckle.
“We need to make sure, though, for our candidates who will be running in two years. On a political level, we need to make it an issue, make sure people won’t do that sort of thing.”
Why is dissolving the loophole a critical mission?
“Because during the campaign, it was something people mentioned to me personally,” Ms. Sahli-Wells said. “They felt the loophole was not fair, that it went beyond the intention of the City Charter.
“I heard from people who felt Mr. Malsin was gaming the system. A number of voters expressed that concern.”
After thinking about it, Ms. Sahli-Wells said that “this doesn’t merit going to a lot of expense. It is a pressing issue, and it needs to be addressed. We need to get it done. But it is not as pressing as many others in this city.
“We have to be practical. This is the first time it has happened in Culver City, and hopefully the only time.
“Voters made their decision last month, and I imagine that loophole was part of the decision. This was not sanctioned by the voters. I would be surprised if somebody tries to do this in the future.”
