My two cents about the Scott Malsin retirement health care controversy:
All of us are aware of the crisis in healthcare coverage and insurance. Some of us are lucky to have healthcare and a pension funded by a large, stable company or a public agency.
But many people, especially those who work for small companies or are self-employed, working out of a bedroom, spend a lot for healthcare insurance, and more each year (or go without).
Scott Malsin is in that situation. Each Council member has different personal circumstances. Scott still is many years away from Medicare and faces an uncertain future regarding health insurance.
If I had an opportunity to lock in some good coverage, I’d grab it. That’s what he has done, and I think it’s reasonable. He accepted what was offered not just to him but also all current and previous Council members – with a string attached.
Should he be elected again?
That bears no relationship to his decision to secure his family’s health care. Council members spend a lot of time on city matters for a nominal stipend, about $100 a week. They don’t just show up at Council meetings. They also must spend many hours reading and understanding materials, following the progress of city affairs, attending events, responding to constituents’ concerns, and representing Culver City at various public agencies.
The hourly wage is just a token. You can hardly call them “employees”; they’re really Super Volunteers. Why should $5,000 a year morally obligate them to turn down some security in life?
No two people will agree on everything, but Scott is hardworking and knowledgeable. Before his six years on the Council, he spent four years on the Planning Commission. We need knowledgeable Council members with good ideas to get us through tough economic times. Yes, re-elect him on April 10.
Ms. Gold may be contacted at bobbigold@ucla.edu
