The sparse but strategized endorsements parsimoniously parceled out last night by the Culver City Democratic Club are as close to a reflection of the candidates’ performances as Beirut is to Birmingham.
An alarmingly high number of the 79 ballots in the first round of voting checked just two names, Meghan Sahli-Wells and Jim Clarke, normally a dependable sign of bullet voting.
They were the only endorsees even though four seats are open in the April 10 City Council election.
It is not as if two stars and three clowns were debating in last night’s meaningless forum. As it belatedly turned out, the forum served only as a practice session for the five candidates, not an information vehicle for the audience of presumed curious voters.
In an arguable confirmation of the suspicion that the pre-determined voting was unrelated to the candidates’ performances at the meeting is this gem:
Three contenders made powerhouse showings. But two of them – incumbent Andy Weissman and recent incumbent Scott Malsin – were overtly snubbed in the voting.
Ms. Sahli-Wells attracted a stunning 82 percent of the votes, mostly or entirely by members who may not have linked their choice to the evening’s presentations. She wasn’t bad, but she was not at the level of Messrs. Clarke, Malsin and Weissman, especially for someone who would poll such an other-worldly proportion.
It is not, of course, illegal to target vote but it does represent a misrepresentation. The two-hour forum, an airing of the candidates’ views and differences, seems to have been a hollow time-waster.
The meeting descended to the level of farce, a mockery of the voting system in the second round of balloting.
Nearly half of the 65 decidedly not-astute members cast their vote for No Endorsement instead of Mr. Malsin or Mr. Weissman. How could that possibly be? Drawing 32 votes when 39 were needed for endorsement, Mr. Weissman scandalously finished with only three more votes than No Endorsement.
Here is an evaluation of how each of the five performed.
Mr. Weissman, incumbent: Had he been surrounded by makeup people, rhetorical coaches and madly screaming throngs, he could not have given a better performance. Roundly informed, quick-thinking, his rapier-fast wit is the cherry on a serving of immaculately clean and comprehensive knowledge of exactly how City Hall runs. He knows the players, the intricacies of the system. Crucially, he communicates his dense information in a calming, enlightening, empowering and accessible manner. He is as comfortable at the microphone as he is in his favorite easy chair at home. His worst rating would be co-No. 1. Grade: A-plus.
Mr. Malsin, an incumbent until Dec. 12. Because of his recent unorthodox history, he walked into the meeting at the Senior Center with a bullseye on his stomach, on his head, on his back. Nobody wanted to be Scott Malsin. He showed them. Sure-footed and confident-spoken as he always has been, Mr. Malsin was brilliant. He not only survived the pressure-cooker, he defeated it. Even when fierce arrows were aimed at him, he stood squarely, proudly, honestly in his space, candidly baring his soul, detailing his reasoning. He neither apologized nor conceded one square of ground. Steeped in popular and technical dealings of the city, he roared down the tracks the way his supporters hoped he would. Grade: A-plus.
Mr. Clarke, longtime, well-connected Culver City Democrat, a first-time candidate. He was stunning, extraordinary in his exacting grasp of the City Hall culture and the needed solutions. He was Beethoven wandering in from the street, idly asking the symphony orchestra leader for a job. Exuding the command, the insight and the polished confidence of a 10-term incumbent, if he is elected in two months, he will look as if he has sat on the dais the entirety of his adult life. Grade: A-plus.
Ms. Sahli-Wells, rebounding from a frustratingly narrow Council run two years ago. After observing her hyper, ubiquitous, meaningful community activism for several years, there cannot be doubt that she returns to competition armed with mountains of knowledge – especially about her favorite causes. But her ability to communicate sturdily, with an air of competence and confidence, remains a work in progress. She has been associated with special causes for so long, she needs to gain a surer command of the traditional issues. Charming and personable, her self-doubts still surface too often. In mid-presentation, she blurted out “I’m nervous.” Praytell, why? Is it chronic? This was her home turf where she is an officer and is adored. Nary a foe was in the house. This is her second campaign. Her steady improvement throughout her freshman run for office made her a first-rate professional, impressive enough at the end to come within 2½ dozen votes of a seat. Whether the nervousness is attributable to rust or is inherent does not matter. Grade: B.
Mr. Murray, businessman and the only rookie in the field. This was his one shot to make a favorable imprint on a large, influential section of the community. He made left turns when he should have gone right. He drove north when he should have gone south. Since everyone in the room was evaluating him, a stranger, for the first time, it was unusual that he chose brevity over expansion in nearly all of his responses, even his unilluminating introduction. When that shaky debut was topped at the end by an intemperate outburst against Mr. Malsin, it completed a confusing, disappointing Opening Night portrait. Undoubtedly there is promise beneath the surface, and its arrival is anticipated. Grade: C-minus.
