After bidding a gracious farewell to the much-loved retiring Fire Chief of Culver City, Jeff Eastman, in his final week, and fending off a south Culver City crowd of objectors to a proposed cell phone tower atop Cash ‘n Carry, promising a later hearing, the City Council last night aimed and fired at two simmering controversies.
Bloodlessly and speedily, they took the rare — possibly unprecedented — action of canning a member of an obscure commission for published comments about gays before stepping into every gadfly’s favorite sandbox:
Deciding time limits for public comment.
With loud, aggressive assistance from a core of every-week activists in the audience, the Council heatedly bandied about ways to streamline Monday night meetings without losing a fatigued, frustrated audience toward the end of the agenda, a pattern of many years.
Except for murmuring from the most arcane wonks in Culver City, the Council, still weeks away from voting, centered on finalizing two forms of public comment limits:
Over a minority protest, the Council seemed to settle on what has been casual policy for years, 3 minutes per individual for subjects not on the agenda. Three minutes is the outer edge for most Los Angeles area communities.
Although the Council will not vote on the new structure of meetings until Jan. 4 — the next meeting date — members also essentially agreed to retain the present 20-minute maximum for public comment at the top and at the caboose end of meetings.
Double Time? No, Says Council
Activists contended that when City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings are held on the same night, the 20-minute limit should be doubled. The other side, which seems likely to prevail, countered that since the agenda is the main attraction of meetings, that is where the greater clock emphasis should be placed.
Councilman Gary Silbiger, almost frolicking again like a schoolboy, undoubtedly enjoyed this exercise more than the rest of the Council combined. He has been complaining for 7 1/2 years about aspects of the meeting structure. He made no fewer than 16 suggested changes in the way meetings are run.
Mr. Silbiger also was a central actor in the next drama, a case of alleged discrimination.
In a snappy, emotion-free 14 minutes, the Council unanimously, almost mechanically, voted to oust 80-year-old Dee Seehusen from the obscure Landlord/Tenant Mediation Board.
The reason: A brief letter she wrote to the Culver City News last month after two gay candidates won election to the School Board. On Election Night, one of the candidates characterized their success as a triumph for the LGBT community. This prompted Ms. Seehusen to say in her letter that they should have disclosed their sexual preferences before the vote, in which case she did not believe they would have won.
Ms. Seehusen’s letter, in the Nov. 19, edition, said:
“The reason I am writing this letter is to say that my husband and I voted our choices for new School Board members via lawn signs and our absentee ballots. As fate would have it, we did not vote for either of the homosexuals (Paspalis and Silbiger, Nov. 5 Culver City News).
“A note to Silbiger regarding your statement in the Nov. 5 issue that you have ‘always been open with anyone who asked about my sexual orientation.’ I think the public would have liked to have known before the election. Why? Because I do not believe you would have been elected had the public known, and that is what I think.”
Days after the letter appeared, the City Council ordered City Manager Mark Scott to investigate the elderly nurse to determine whether cause — perceived predjudice — existed, thereby triggering her firing from the Landlord/Tenant Mediation Board, which seldom meets.
Bigotry in Action?
His mission, he said, was to decide whether her remarks created a conflict with her board duties. Ms. Seehusen, who has become a cause celebre in the last two months following a series of oral and written statements, was appointed to a 3-year term just last May.
The pivotal point for the City Manager appeared to be the following concept:
“Keep(ing) in mind our board operates under policies at the local, state and federal level that require non-discrimination.”
Mr. Scott said he “regretted” recommending her ouster.
The City Manager did not label Ms. Seehusen a bigot. Nor did any of the 5 Council members. Nonetheless that appeared to be the communication elephant in Council Chambers, the motivation for ousting her.
The closest any voice in Council Chambers came to defending Ms. Seehusen belonged to Robert Zirgulis, erstwhile School Board candidate. Citing Voltaire’s historic admonition about defending persons regardless of his own view, Mr. Zirgulis accused the Council of conducting a “witch hunt.” He said his comments were driven by fairness and free speech, not because he necessarily concurred with her sentiments.
Mr. Scott wrote a lengthy letter to the Council posted nearby — “City Manager’s Written Report on Seehusen to the City Council” — that purports to explain his decision.
