Re “Sebastian and the Four Farces”
[Editor’s Note: Mr. Weissman, midway through his second term on the City Council, probably has served more years on elected and appointed City Hall boards than anyone in the history of Culver City.]
[img]1305|right|Andy Weissman||no_popup[/img]As someone who has worked with now-state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Culver City) since she first ran for Assembly, I was profoundly disappointed in your characterization of her, and I felt compelled to respond.
While Culver City may not have been a high priority for our other state electeds, such has not been the case for Ms. Mitchell.
I first met Holly after I was elected to the City Council and she was running to represent Culver City in the Assembly.
When we met in downtown Culver City, we spent considerable time discussing the city’s needs and the perception that our interests were not being well served in Sacramento. I came away impressed by her knowledge, her commitment to “remember” Culver City and her determination to partner with and advocate on behalf of Culver City.
Symbolic but significant nevertheless, one of her first decisions after she was elected, was to locate her district office in Culver City.
As both our senator and previously as our Assemblymember, Holly Mitchell has worked with Culver City on a variety of initiatives that were, and remain, critical to our community, from oil drilling, local control funding for our School District, championing our successful redevelopment programs and fighting to preserve its future benefits.
In response to the City Council resolution, Ms. Mitchell authored the most aggressive legislation calling for a ban on fracking until properly regulated.
[img]1969|left|Holly Mitchell||no_popup[/img]When we have asked Holly to stand up for Culver City, she has been there for us. Just two weeks ago, she joined staff and me in a meeting with the state Dept. of Finance in Sacramento to work toward a resolution of our disputes with the DOF in the aftermath of the elimination of redevelopment. Hardly the low bar you suggest. Your characterization seems inaccurate at best, offensive at worst.
Having an advocate like Holly Mitchell makes a difference. Advocacy can be lonely. Oftentimes outcomes, not process, get all of the attention. Such was the case with the elimination of redevelopment and ban on fracking. The unfortunate reality is that the deck seems stacked in Sacramento. Gov. Brown has tremendous influence.
Do we expect more from the state? Absolutely. Do we want our local interests to be better respected in Sacramento? Certainly. In my opinion, it is unfair to lay the dysfunction in Sacramento at the feet of Holly Mitchell. I don’t know how much more one could expect from one’s elected representative to do than her efforts on behalf of Culver City.
Holly has been there with us and for us. I am confident she will continue to be a valued and valuable member of the Culver City team.
I thought you should know.
Mr. Weissman may be contacted andrewweissman@mac.com
Ari Noonan responds: Where is the beef? Where is the payoff? If Ms. Mitchell were running for re-election purely on the basis of the evidence presented above, she would be facing the steepest climb of any politician in the Western Hemisphere. The rhetorical configuration reminds me of coaches interviewed after their teams were drubbed: “We may have lost, by golly, but my boys, by golly, played hard.” I searched Mr. Weissman’s defense for a result, an outcome that was not visceral. Fortunately, her $95,000 salary did not hinge on advances she has made for the community or the Food Stamp President would have gained another customer. She is a lovely person, but she was not elected to be the sweetheart of Sigma Chi. I agree that advocacy is beautiful. Fracking is not banned, and redevelopment is down around someone’s ankles. Toward the end, Mr. Weissman notes that Ms. Mitchell joined a City Hall team to plead for sanity from the untethered state Dept. of Finance. Okay. And? As long as the example was raised, it tells me her megaphone is ineffective. Mr. Weissman notes with regret that outcomes rather than process typically monopolize the public. But this is because what happens during a matter is less important to voters and many observers than the result. By golly, Ms. Mitchell tried. Okay. By golly, I need more evidence before I would alter my position. My assessment may have been strongly erroneous. But I have not yet seen where.
