I cannot bring myself to vote for former City Councilman Scott Malsin for elected office again.
It is not that I don’t have respect for the knowledge and dedication he showed during his years on the Council. It is not that I don’t think he’d bring that same mentality back with him. I just can’t reconcile his decision to think it is fair to quit, find a loophole in the system, and return.
I spent a significant part of my life in team sports. I tend to approach things from a “what’s best for the team” mentality. Perhaps Mr. Malsin doesn’t have this experience and just doesn’t view this in the same light.
Mr. Malsin was part of the city “team.” He was elected to office to serve. While he certainly didn’t receive much of a salary, he was an “employee” of the city, receiving its benefits. The City Council made a prudent financial decision to reduce (not eliminate) retiree medical benefits for current employees effective last Jan. 1. All retirement-eligible city employees, such as Mr. Malsin, who were facing a reduction in retiree medical benefits had a choice:
Retire by the end of 2011 and lock in the benefits, or continue their careers with the many other city employees that must do so with a lower, but still very exceptional, retiree medical benefit.
I don’t fault Mr. Malsin, or any other Culver City employee, for a choice that it was in their best interest to “retire.” But given that no other member of the city “team” that retired can choose to come back and work in the city (or any other PERS agency in the state) without losing their retiree medical benefits, how can Mr. Malsin do so? Is he so important that he deserves different treatment than someone who has dedicated 25 years of his life to the city?
It’s kind of like the kid at the playground who has a ball, but doesn’t get chosen for a team. Some will sacrifice for the good of the rest and stay. Others will take their ball and go home. Once you take your ball and go home, don’t come back.
Clearly Mr. Malsin thought long and hard not only about the financial decision to lock in the benefit, but what loophole might exist so that he could turn around and come right back. He obviously found some scenario under which he could keep the “retiree” medical benefit and come back into city service. I wonder if city staff time or resources were spent investigating this personal matter for Mr. Malsin? I hope not.
At any rate, Mr. Malsin can take his retiree medical coverage for life for he and his family and go home. Time for someone else to join the city team.
Mr. Campbell may be contacted at mcampbell68@gmail.com
