On Animal Control, Fulwood and Staff Need to Remember Who Is Working for Whom

I do not know Deborah Weinrauch personally, but I am assuming she is a resident of Culver City. I know that City Council members Gary Silbiger and Chris Armenta are residents. I think City Manager Jerry Fulwood and his staff have lost sight of who they work for. They have chosen to publicly criticize their employer for performing work that city staff should have completed years ago.
They were criticized a few weeks ago for not doing any background research on the animal control program when, in fact, the city staff work had been completed years ago. This subcommittee is made up of volunteers and two Council members who are paid less in a year then Mr. Fulwood makes in a month. They had the nerve to go out and continue to do the city staff’s job for free. Now this group is attempting to force their radical animal control program to a vote of the Council before Mr. Fulwood and his staff can derail this financially irresponsible program and it bankrupts the city in these bad financial times.
Mr. Fulwood’s staff related a few weeks ago that Culver City, sitting on the Westside, is in a good financial situation because of our location in Los Angeles County. Our closest neighbors on the Westside, the cities of Santa Monica and Los Angeles, both have animal control programs and their own shelters.
Now this program that is budgeted for $126,000. Then there is former Councilman Alan Corlin’s finding of a cost of $400,000 for the animal control program, which, he says, “will impact the overall financial standing of the city at the conclusion of the fiscal year 2008/2009.” (Mr. Corlin did his own free research for staff.)

I guess, contrary to the rosy picture Mr. Fulwood’s financial staff paints every time they come to the community with their programs for more staff and big staff pay and benefit increases, that whenever the residents of Culver City want a new program or the city needs new utility user ‘s tax, Mr. Fulwood’s financial staff paints a grim picture of a decaying crime ridden City.
I am not saying that the city of Culver City is in a good financial situation; to the contrary, the two- year budget that ends in 2008/2009 is already greatly impacted by poor fiscal mismanagement. This criticism by staff was made earlier by Councilmember Andy Weissman and Mayor Scott Malsinwhen they said that if this program goes forward, it will impact the 2008/2009 budget. That statement was put into tonight’s City Council meeting agenda as the city staff’s I-told-you-so clause. Mayor Malsin and the city staff know that this two-year budget is already impacted and the city is in trouble. My guess is the original money allotted for the first year of the animal control program ($129,000) is not there anymore because it has already been spent on other things. When this is discovered by the community at the end of 2008/2009, staff will blame the community for bringing it on themselves. After all, they can’t blame Mr. Fulwood . By then, he will be gone, having retired.
Where did the money go? And how can we find the money for the programs that the community wants?

The answers are hidden in that two-year budget. For example, I know of four and possibly five members of the city management staff that will retire in this budget year. The bonus payouts for these individuals will exceed $500,000 for the year. That would easily pay for the $400,000 animal control program that was talked about earlier by Mr. Corlin. You may ask, where is the bonus money listed in the city budget? The answer is it is not. It is paid out of other accounts with different names that are overinflated to cover these costs.
Editor Ari Noonan is partially correct in his assessment that Vice Mayor Gary Silbiger, a member of the subcommittee that is in dispute, seems to push programs that are resisted by staff as not being necessary, saying they are of little value and too expensive. I don’t agree with Ari that this idea of an animal control program is a boondoggle. I do agree that Mr. Silbiger is not patient and demands programs now.
I think that there is a way to solve a lot of the city’s financial problems. Councilmember Silbiger can lead this community to financial responsibility.
First, Mr. Silbiger can use his support and, as Ari put it, from Mr. Silbiger can use his “Now” Time Zone to address the mismanagement of public funds in Culver City. There should be the immediate removal of city staff members responsible, not in five minutes or five months.

Also an examination of this current city budget now and not tomorrow.

Mr. Silbiger should not rely on Mr. Fulwood’s financial staff for information as they will speak to the Council in terms of where the money was budgeted to go and their opinions as to what the city’s financial situation is. The Council should immediately request a report from the city’s Accounting staff as to where the money in this two-year budget has actually been spent.
The city’s Accounting staff has this information. They are the only reliable source as to where the money goes.
It’s my opinion that if Mr. Silbiger is just himself and pushes immediate accountability of city staff and the review of the mismanagement of the city’s finances, that this request would not be categorized as ignorant, wildly unnecessary, or dangerously expensive. Also, in the end I think that Mr. Silbiger will find that more than enough money exists in the city budget for the kind of programs that the community wants.
Everyone agrees that an animal control program for Culver City will cost money.

Is this something that the community wants? Are they willing to pay for it? Those are debatable questions. Politicians in Culver City do not have to look far for indicators as to how the public feels.

Prop. 2, (standards for confining farm animals) on the Nov. 4 ballot was portrayed by its opponents as ignorant, wildly unnecessary, and very expensive to consumers. Citizens of California passed this measure overwhelmingly 63% percent statewide and 66 percent in Los Angeles County. As the opponents to this proposition put it, Californians will have to pay more for eggs so chickens can have more room in their cages. A majority of voters in California said yes.

Greg Smith