Re “Two Reasons Dem Club Declined to Endorse Malsin”
As a past President and board member of the Culver City Democratic Club, I would like to correct the record regarding issues Karlo Silbiger, also a past President of the cluib, wrote about recently.
Karlo, who was not even on the club Board at that time, wrote:
“Mr. (Scott) Malsin (now a candidate for election to the City Council) served as the editor of our club’s newsletter almost 10 years ago. This was one of the most tumultuous times in our club’s history, and Mr. Malsin was accused of stifling free speech by editing and/or omitting letters to the editor with which he disagreed.”
First of all, the characterization of those times as “tumultuous” is ridiculous. Our club membership was strong. Our meetings were well attended. The idea that those were “tumultuous times” clearly comes from someone who
a) Felt like they were not getting their way, and
b) Would like to place the blame on Scott.
Yes, there was essentially an even split on the board on some subjects. Scott, I and others felt we should be as respectful and inclusive of all Democratic viewpoints as possible; the other half of the board treated the club like their private soapbox. They tolerated no dissent.
The accusation that Scott “stifled free speech” is absurd.
Scott did a great job editing our newsletter. He never made any changes unless the author was consulted and agreed with the change.
This accusation probably stems from an incident concerning a piece authored by then and current board member Daryl Cherness. Daryl wanted the club to publish an unsigned editorial in which he referred to a vote by U.S. Sen. Diane Feinstein as being “much to her everlasting shame.”
Considering she was our sitting Senator and worthy of respect, Scott simply suggested changing the phrase to: “to her discredit.” First, I think Scott was right. Saying it was to her “everlasting shame” is self righteous and judgmental; “to her discredit” is critical and the expression of an opinion.
Second, when Daryl rejected his suggestion, Scott asked that the entire board discuss the issue; the end result was the piece was published as Daryl had written it but listing his name as the author so that it would not be perceived as an opinion of the board.
It was not.
I think Scott handled the situation correctly, openly and democratically. I certainly can’t say the same for some other board members, some of whom are still serving.
In closing, I want to encourage my friends in Culver City to vote for Scott in the coming election. Scott is intelligent, hard working and focused on the community’s greater good. He is a creative thinker and an effective implementer.
Unlike Mr. Silbiger and Mr. Cherness, he is open minded and tolerant of other people’s opinions.
Mr. Heagy may be contacted at wheagy@earthlink.net
