[img]9|left||remove link|no_popup[/img]Dear Editor: In response to your comments about City Councilman Gary Silbiger (“The Silbiger Legacy: How to Remain an Enigma,” Editor’s Essay, Sept. 26):
I, for one, greatly appreciate Mr. Silbiger's questions to staff because I learn from them.
I did not know that the developers pay for the traffic studies.
Could it be that Mr. Silbiger is, in fact, asking these questions as a roundabout way of helping the public understand how the system works?
If the developer is paying for the traffic study, then, quite plausibly, the study could favor the interests of the developer.
Could Mr. Silbiger be posing these seemingly naive questions for the purpose of helping the public decode the many baffling intricacies of city government?
I would like to think so.
Ari Noonan responds:
Ms. Osgood: I, too, would prefer to believe Mr. Silbiger is asking questions sheerly out of consideration for the little people, the voiceless, who comprise the core of his constituency.
Since the Councilman first announced he was running for office, I have found him to be a willing, compassionate, kindly listener.
Directly and enthusiastically, he serves a rabidly active section of the Culver City community that no one else on the Council addresses. Three of the other four Council members are Democrats. But they never have identified with the aggressive liberals who adore Mr. Silbiger. There is no disputing that the liberal faction belongs to Mr. Silbiger almost as exclusively, almost as proudly, as his children do.
Those are beautiful assets.
Even the most modest politician would love to make such a boast, that he has his own devoted cheering section. Accurately, Mr. Silbiger can claim to be the only Culver City pol with his own true following. They will go over a cliff or down to the ocean floor with him.
I have studied Mr. Silbiger most Monday nights for the last 5 1/2 years he has sat on the dais.
He is an anomaly, a likable guy who seems to resist being liked.
I like him even though he is by far the least public relations-conscious Councilman. Returning telephone calls is not among his Top 25 priorities.
If you did not know anything about the five Council members going into a meeting, Mr. Silbiger would be first to seize your attention because he asks questions a typical audience member would pose if invited to the dais. That is better in theory than in practice.
Mr. Silbiger is supposed to be conducting a business meeting, providing leadership, not emulating Lunchbucket Larry.
From his first Monday night on the Council, the timbre of his guileless, uninformed questions hit me like a punch in the arm. His inquiries were — and are — distinct from those of his colleagues, from the newest to the oldest.
At first, his colleagues believed Mr. Silbiger was asking puerile questions to expose the inner workings of City Hall for the benefit of the many who have no idea.
It did not take long, however, for that false impression to be replaced by what still is the conventional Culver City wisdom: Mr. Silbiger, alone among the Council members, prepares minimally for the weekly meetings.
Because Mr. Silbiger’s political philosophy is well wide of the convictions of all other members of the Council, one would think he would try to co-opt two of them into forming a majority on issues vital to him. I never have seen him attempt this tactic. He drives straight down the highway, eyes never veering left or right. He never has shown a willingness to compromise or to attract other members to his issues. No compromises. No dealmaking. This is what his agenda has in common with the graves at Holy Cross Cemetery and Hillside. Neither has budged.
Some of his questions may sound probing. In fact, in many cases, he should have entered the meeting with such information already caged in his mind.
Last Monday, one of Mr. Silbiger’s colleagues was privately horrified that the Councilman had not even glanced at one of the complex issues on the agenda. This happens regularly.
His concentration span is far smaller than anyone else’s. His attention drifts. He does not listen closely to exchanges by others. He needs to have information repeated. For Mr. Silbiger, many Council meetings seem to be wheel-invention time. Knowledge does not seem to accumulate.
Has he confused acute concern for The Voiceless in the community with behaving like one of the Voiceless. Often he poses questions that a casual, un-connected neighbor might ask.
Take last Monday’s question: Who hires the consultants to conduct traffic studies for redevelopment projects? A good question.
It was revealing to me, too, to learn the developer makes the selection. But after more than five years on the City Council, why didn’t Mr. Silbiger know the answer to such a fundamental question.
He was elected to lead, to teach the community, not to sit in the cheap seats with the residents and learn with them.
Mr. Silbiger, unfortunately, appears to have little curiosity about the workings of his job. Curiosity, however, is crucial to his elected position.
After being the strongest down-the-line critic of redevelopment throughout his term and a half, shouldn’t he know the basic points of every redevelopment project? Emphatically, he does not
Mr. Silbiger’s Council teammates don’t ask the questions he raises because they already know the answers. They study. They talk to City Hall leaders. They consult with staffers outside of meeting times.
Vice Mayor Carol Gross may know more about the hows and whys of operating City Hall than the top three executives combined, which is not a criticism of the City Hall officials. After 5 1/2 years in office, I doubt whether Mr. Silbiger could moderate a rounded discussion about operation of the city.
