[Editor’s Note: As the Farragut Drive Parking Restrictions debate continues unabated, Grace Lutheran Church member Dan O’Brien said he will not respond to Paulette Greenberg’s “ridiculous claim that I’ve never disclosed my relationship with (City Councilman) Jeff Cooper. I did two years ago on thefrontpageonline.com, on Sept. 11, 2014.”]
In the context of my letter regarding the dispute over parking on Farragut Drive, it has come to my attention that I should acknowledge my relationship with Councilmember Jeff Cooper as well as my affiliation with Grace Lutheran Church.
Through my involvement in various volunteer organizations, including Culver City Great Parks Assn., Culver City Education Foundation, Culver City Homelessness Committee, and United Parents of Culver City, I’ve had the great pleasure of getting to know each of our City Council members.
I consider all of them friends since sometimes we work side by side to better our community.
I first met Jeff when he was a member of the five-person Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Commission. Jeff, along with his fellow committee members, was extremely open and willing to help me and others improve the conditions of our parks. It was through that initial connection that I got to know Jeff. I have always respected the effort that Jeff puts into his community service. Because of this respect, my wife Beverly and I offered to host his campaign kickoff party in the last City Council election.
It should be noted that all of the City Council members know me by name. We have shared conversations on innumerable occasions.
I am also a member of Grace Lutheran Church. When we first moved to Culver City, Beverly and I decided it was finally time to reaffirm our faith so that our children could grow up experiencing that environment of love and support. We chose Grace Lutheran because we loved the quaintness of its architecture and the proximity to our home, just blocks away.
I have to honestly say, that I have never experienced such a feeling of acceptance and warmth from a church as I did at Grace. From the very beginning of each sermon, the fatherly Pastor Jim greets his parishioners with a warm, “Good Morning,” calls all of the children up to the front of the congregation for a heartfelt and relatable mini-sermon directed at the children, before everyone in attendance. I am getting choked up with joy recalling my young children experiencing this from the time they could crawl.
It is because of the wonderful ministry that Grace offers to the entire community, – people of all races, economic status, and even religious beliefs that Beverly and I stay involved in the church — Beverly more so than I. Beverly is listed as the Sunday School Superintendent at Grace. She spends nearly every Sunday morning keeping the little ones engaged while their parents listen to the adult portion of the sermon.
With all of this in mind, I would like to take this opportunity to invite anyone from the community who has maybe thought about going to church, but hadn’t gotten around to it, or didn’t want to go through the ordeal of test-driving different churches, to come on down to Grace this Sunday or any other. It is actually Beverly’s and my turn as greeters. If you come to the 9 a.m. service, we’ll see you at the front door.
Mr. O’Brien may be contacted at beverlyanddan@icloud.com
O’Brien does not get it. O’Brien is not a city official. The problem is that Cooper was specifically asked whether he has present or past relationships with members of the church and he (and Weissman) said nothing. He, not O’Brien, is the one with the undisclosed conflict of interest that should have been publicly revealed. We expect Council Members to act without bias. Cooper’s failure to reveal his relationship is a total indication of his bias. Further, when Cooper bases his decisions on unspecified “social media” chatter, and that chatter comes from the church and its members as moderated by O’Brien, one has serious doubts as to whether due process has made its way to Culver City.
As a church-going person, O’Brien should opine on whether Cooper should have revealed their relationship before ruling on a dispute between the church and Farragut residents. He should tell us what he has learned about right and wrong.
And it is important to note that no one doubts the good works of Cooper and O’Brien. The issue for many is the Council’s new policy of allowing non-resident business entities to intrude on residential parking. For years Grace Lutheran has used neighboring streets as its parking lot, except for Farragut Dr. And now it wants to grab Farragut. I can only hope that the residents of Franklin and other nearby streets let the City Council know that enough is enough by not voting for any candidates endorsed by, and with long-time association with, the Culver City Chamber of Commerce. And take a look at Alyssa Katz’s book on how the U. S. Chamber of Commerce has been instrumental in the corporate capture of American life.
Pretty sure we’re all familiar with the phrase “Six degrees of separation from Kevin Bacon” the actor. Our City is just not that large. For anyone with a modicum of civic activity, there will be at best one if not zero degrees of separation from a member of the City Council. Why is that? It’s not some nefarious plot. It’s because our Councilmembers hit the streets and make it their business to reach out to residents. Is it any wonder that they may know and even have a cordial relationship with those who come out of their homes to be active in the civic life of our City? This isn’t a Farragut issue, or a Grace Lutheran issue, a progressives issue or a Chamber of Commerce issue. It’s very simply a fact of life issue of living in a small city where we all benefit from being able to reach out and touch our Councilmembers. It’s one of the reasons (that and the school district) why I moved to Culver City when we moved to SoCal in 1986. We should revel in it, not revile it.
Crystal,
Let’s get specific.
The Farragut residents came before the City Council. At the 9/8/14 meeting, we specifically asked whether any Council Member had a past or current relationship with any member of the Church. We wanted to know if there was any bias. Do you think that we were entitled to full truthful answer? Sahli-Wells told of a minor matter. Weissman and Cooper sat silent.
We later learned that Weissman had a business and political relationship with Ken Smith, who is a senior (not in the sense of his old age) position of authority at the church. Smith spoke before the Council that night. Cooper had a relationship with Dan O’Brien of the church, who through a kick-off campaign fund raiser for Cooper. (We recently learned that Cooper depends of O’Brien’s restricted social media Facebook page for his decision making.)
We are not politicos who know all the incestuous political relationships in Culver City. We are just people who expected to be treated impartially by local government.
Do you think we were entitled to be told of the relationships so, if necessary, could ask for recusal? If not, why not?
During the 3/14/16 meeting, we confronted Weissman with documentary evidence of his relationships with a member of the church–Smith–and asked for his recusal. He did not deny the relationships or excuse them, but just sat there.
Do you think that we should have come away feeling that “we all benefit from being able to reach out and touch our Councilmembers”?
We’ll be most interested in hearing you response.
Documentary evidence? Andy and Doneil Weissman have been friends of ours for years, and I hope will be for many years to come. You continue to talk about the “industrial-strength” business relationship between Andy and myself, and I respectfully requested that you prove it. So far no proof has been forthcoming. It simply does not exist.
Let’s start. Have you ever engaged Weissman’s services with regard to any business entity you own or otherwise engaged his services? Have you and Jozelle Smith ever thrown campaign finance kick-off parties for Weissman? Has Mrs. Smith served as Weissman’s campaign manager?
Weissman did not deny the relationships when we presented documentary evidence to the City Council on 3/14/16. If its no big deal, then why did Weissman not reveal the relationships when he was specifically asked to do so.
You state, ” Andy and Doneil Weissman have been friends of ours for years….” So, why did Weissman not reveal that before he aggressively did the Church’s bidding? Haven’t you been very active with the Church for many years? Did you ever reveal that information to Weissman?
The City Attorney’s stated policy is to allow each Council Member to decide for her/himself whether s/he has a conflict of interest. No public disclosure and each decides for her/himself! Wow!
At the end of the day, once people start wading through all this weirdness and (frankly embarrassing) name-calling, it seems that a lot of residents are concerned that parking restrictions can now be challenged following pressure from a NON-RESIDENTIAL BODY. Like…hmmmm…let me think…oh yeah…. a BUSINESS.
And we all know that the business sector is changing Culver City forever following this crazy rate of development with no apparent planning for parking or traffic flow.
This goes way beyond the issues between the church and residents who live next to the church. This is about setting a dangerous precedent that means that a business can now challenge parking restrictions in any neighborhood.
So stop bitching about details that only about 10 very vocal people care about and look at the bigger picture. Together. Like a real neighborhood is supposed to.
Now let’s all sing.
‘Kum Ba Yah ma Lord’.
PBeale,
It is even a bigger picture than you suspect. You state,”This goes way beyond the issues between the church and residents who live next to the church. This is about setting a dangerous precedent that means that a business can now challenge parking restrictions in any neighborhood.”
How was the precedent set? It was sneaked through at the 3/14/16 City Council meeting under the agenda item announcing only a traffic study! I think that a lot of POed residents would have attended the session to give the City Council a what-for if they knew what the City Council planned to do.
Now, a few bold residents of Farragut will probably have to bring Brown-Act litigation against the City to cure the problem. We will try to protect residents from Weissman, et al. He’ll soon be gone, and we’ll see how competent the next crew is.
OK Les, let me go through this with you point by point and see if it qualifies as an “Industrial-Strength” conflict of interest.
1.) When I decided to form an LLC for my insurance agency, I hired Andy Weissman, and Hal Berman, a friend who is an accountant, to help with the paperwork. The entire fee for all of their services was under $ 1,000 and that was 8 or 9 years ago. I think it would be a stretch for anyone but you to think that qualifies as an “Industrial-Strength” financial relationship. Andy is currently the “Agent of Service” for that entity, however the agency was sold to another agency in Santa Monica. There are no fees related to being an Agent of Service.
2.) Yes, we have invited people to our home for “meet and greet” type events during both of Andy’s campaigns. We feel it’s an important part of the process to introduce a candidate we are supporting to friends and neighbors. It’s a good way to get to know a candidate that you may want to vote for.
3.) Jozelle was Andy’s “Honorary” campaign manager. This means her name was associated with his campaign, but she had no responsibilities with respects the actual running of the campaign.
I’m pretty sure I was awake when the City Council, by a 4 to 1 vote, passed a resolution to order a parking study that will finally clear the air with respects whether the Farragut Dr. residents deserve their “Industrial-Strength” parking restrictions. I look forward seeing the results of the study
Ken,
On 9/8/14, all Council members (including Weissman and Cooper) were specifically asked whether ANY has or had ANY relations with ANYONE associated with the Grace Church. One Council member reported some very minor matters. Weissman and Cooper sat silently.
If Weissman did not think that his relationship with you was very minor, then why did he not disclose it? Ask him why, he’s your buddy. He is licensed as an attorney; so, I assume he knew that a relationship with you might be grounds for recusal. That night you spoke before the Council stating that you were a representative of the Church and a member of its Council. (I recently reviewed the video of the meeting.) I assume Weissman recognized you and heard what you publicly stated.
On 3/14/16, we presented the Council and the Council members with written evidence of some Weissman-Smith-Church relations. We asked Weissman to recuse himself. He sat silently. He did not deny the relationships. He did not claim that they were so minor that recusal would not be necessary. Usually, when someone is accused of something and fails to respond, it is an admission of the truth of the allegations lodged against the person. Again, ask your buddy why he, again, sat silently.
If you will note, this thread deals with O’Brien’s (who is really tight with the Church) relations with Cooper, and why Cooper did not reveal them. O’Brien runs a Facebook page where he has allowed many negative comments against Farragut residents. Some are from a very high-ranking Church Council member, who is now back-peddling on how negative she was. We assume that this was the “social media” upon which Cooper stated he relies to make his decisions.
Do you really think that the Farragut residents got a fair hearing before impartial City Council members?
I think you , as usual, are making mountains out of mole hills. You are skirting the real issue here because you know the parking study will show you have had an undeserved advantage of extended resident only parking on your block for many years.
I also think you probably bullied the public works staff into grandfathering your block into the undeserved parking you have now as they didn’t want to deal with your wrath. They did the right thing by basically turning it over to the City Council and City Attorney who will deal with y0u and the parking issue.
There are certain standards that have been established for someone to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. My friendship with Andy Weissman doesn’t even come close to those standards. If you think I offered a bribe to Andy to bring up the parking issue at a council meeting, and more importantly, he accepted the bribe and did my bidding, just say so and we’ll see you in court.
I AM NOT a member of the church council now, nor was I a member when I spoke at the council meeting.
I imagine you think I lied about that on purpose, but no, it was an honest mistake.
I’m also tired of you making Grace Lutheran Church the bad guy here. The Pastor at the time the church as built felt this would be a community church that most members could walk to. He was a good Pastor, but was not a clairvoyant, and didn’t realize we would end up with a lot of members who have to drive to church. We have people that come during the week for an hour or two and they really need to park somewhere. Farragut Dr. is a city owned street, maintained by the city and should be available for ALL to park on for whatever reason they want to.
Let’s face it, we don’t agree on this matter, we will never agree on this matter and that’s the way it is. The courts and city council will decide what happens to the parking on Farragut Dr., so we’ll just leave it at that and see how it comes out.
This will be my last post in this newspaper, so I want to be perfectly clear, lest you turn my comments around again, the above statements are all personal opinions of mine.
It is unfortunate that you feel that conflicts of interest and fundamental fairness are just mole hills.
I did not bully the public works staff into grandfathering anything. Staff does not make the final decision, the City Council does. Weissman, et al. grandfather residential-permit-parking restrictions on many streets in addition to Farragut.
When you speak of wrath, you should discuss the vitriol coming from your church-going friends on their closed Facebook page.
The staff did not voluntarily turn over their responsibilities to the City Council. You pushed Weissman and he bullied the rest. (Remember, we have the emails.) I have no comment about the City Attorney’s competence.
“There are certain standards that have been established for someone to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest.” Oh, yeah? What are they? Carol Schwab is quoted in City Council minutes stating that each Council member decides for him/herself whether he/she has a conflict of interest. That’s a standard?
I NEVER alleged any bribe!
So, on 9/8/14, when you publicly, affirmatively stated to the City Council that your represented the Church and were a member of the Church Council, you mistakenly thought you were, but you were not? So much for your credibility. But the Church’s website then stated that you were a member of its Council.
Grace Lutheran Church is not the “bad guy,” you are. You and others are a product of the incestuous politics in Culver City that has been dominated by the Chamber of Commerce. You know–one hand washes the other and too bad for the vast majority who are not politically connected. No fair hearings in Culver City, just pay backs (not in the bride sense).
Many people drive to the Church as the Church rents to so many people who are not Culver City residents. You have never shown that persons coming to the Church M-F need to park on Farragut. Meals-on-wheels and handicapped have permits.
We do agree that the courts and the City Council will decide this matter. In the interim, you and your buddy will cost this City about $1 million in legal fees and lots of mental anguish. Jim Croche said,”If that’s the way you want it, that’s the way I want it more.”
Bye, Ken.