A Wider Issue
The hot-button contract dispute arose as part of broader update about gradually changing more animal-control services from County control to City Hall. There was no disagreement over any of the other four dimensions of the update.
Friends partisans seemed to repeatedly claim that the sooner Culver City could end, or greatly diminish, its relationship with County Animal Control in Carson, 16 miles away, the more authority hometown residents could assert over the general welfare of their own pets.
Sound Policy
Conversely, the split Council majority countered that for reasons of common sense, fiscal sense and logistics, it would be more prudent for City Hall to retain its professional relationship with Carson/County.
Supporters of this view added one final fillipthat the more animal-control services that were transferred to Culver City, the more expensive the proposition would be. Never, they said, would animal-control be a profitable venture for City Hall.
Speaking of Priorities
Feh, Friends of Culver City Animals answered back.
They said that the welfare of pets of the community is a precious value that should be a Council priority.
After branding the one-note debate an emotional issue, Councilman Steve Rose said everyone has a pet project he believes should trump all others. But you cant run a city that way, he said. Everything cant be a priority.
Calming Down
Mayor Alan Corlin, the Friends strongest ally on the City Council, brought perceived reality to the debate.
Even as he declared that he would vote for the 1-year contract because he had made that pledge to the 2,000-member group, the mayor espoused a more moderate viewpoint.
Unconditionally, Mr. Corlin said that despite the heated rhetoric, the only difference between the two options was psychological. He offered a polite, deferential way of saying the choices were indistinguishable.
Regarding boosting the citys in-house licensing program, Mr. Corlin said he was disappointed Friends members had not carried out door-to-door canvassing, as he had suggested.
Escape Clause
Returning to the contract, why get all het up, the mayor wondered, when an obvious out clause exists in the 5-year deal, either side having the option to cancel with 90 days notice?
Responding to a request from Councilman Scott Malsin, Dep. City Atty. Heather Iker affirmed the validity of the clause. That was all Mr. Malsin needed to hear, and he teamed up with Vice Mayor Carol Gross and Mr. Rose to clinch a victory for the 5-year supporters.
Unconvinced
Even then, however, Councilman Gary Silbiger, the most outspoken advocate of a single year, said, I have not heard any argument that would dissuade me.
This was not the deepest or farthest ranging debate of the year.
As the chief advocates for the 5-year contract, Ms. Gross and Mr. Rose prevailed in the debate by maintaining that choosing a longer contract is a sound, logic principle of business.
Cant We All Get Along?
Hoping to present a united front, for appearances sake and for psychological purposes, Mr. Corlin asked for a revote after his side lost .
Four Council members affirmed their support. But Mr. Silbiger, after being approached privately and publicly, refused to budge, making the final score 4 to 1.
COUNCIL NOTES No City Council meeting next week, not even on Tuesday, the normal alternative date in Labor Day week. But t here will be plenty of keep activists busy. At 6:30 p.m., Wednesday, Sept. 5, the groundbreaking for Parcel B will attract the citys most dazzling personalities. An hour later in the Garden Room of the Vets Auditorium, the Culver City Democratic Club will host the first debate for School Board candidates and later vote on endorsements
