The second subject was a succinct but stern warning to avoid engaging in political activity when in uniform, when on duty, when on city property. Feelings for and against Measure V are running high.
Both warnings, significantly, came from the office of the Chief Administrative Officer, Mr. Fulwood. Heretofore, the CAO has not been known to publicly use the catchy phrase “million-dollar shortfall,” which has a memorable ring and perhaps handy marketing value.
The three dynamite subjects appear to be related.
When thefrontpageonline.com put the question of a pay hike to Mr. Fulwood this afternoon, he did not say no and he did not say yes — exactly.
What he said was:
“Measure V does not have anything to do with me.
“All considerations for the city come first, ahead of me. They come before I could even think of asking for a raise for myself. I am looking at the fiscal issues that are facing the city. They are my complete focus now.
“The financial integrity of the city is what I am working on. Bargaining is also continuing with our (six) unions. I am a professional. I am here to do a job.
“Measure V has nothing to do with me. My obligation is to address the issues facing the city before I address anything
for myself.”
Last month when the City Council drew up Mr. Fulwood’s new three-year contract, which takes effect in June, the members anticipated the question of a pay hike in the event Measure V is passed
by Culver City voters.
Having received pocket-sized incremental raises at six-month intervals during his first term, Mr. Fulwood’s $175,000 salary remains well below that for chief executives of comparably-sized communities. Sources said that a boost to $200,000 would put him more in line with his peers.
What about the two surprises in city employees’ pay envelopes?
Some veteran workers characterized the million-dollar shortfall pronouncement as a not-too-subtle prod to get behind Measure V.
As for the warning against doing any politicking while representing, or appearing to represent, the city, that is the law — No. 902 in the current City Charter.
Sources gave conflicting accounts of whether a specific incident caused Mr. Fulwood to warn city workers.
