| PVP LWV Candidate Forum
League of Women Voters - (310) - ext. | |
|
October, 12, 2011 
7:00 pm - 9:00 pm
Hesse Park Rancho Palos Verdes
none
Opportunity to hear candidates for RPV City Council.
Government,Education,Public Service
For the last two weeks or so I had been under the impression that there were two candidates' debates set for the eight candidates for the three seats up for election to the Rancho Palos Verdes City Council.
I was pleased to find, through the sport of surfing, that a third debate has been scheduled.
The October 12 debate is being sponsored by the League of Women Voters and I am comfortable that this debate should not be taken by anyone on any side as something other than honest and respectful.
If you remember that I have been writing that this election was going to get ugly and then I wrote that is has gotten ugly?
Perhaps the debate by the League of Women Voters will quell some of that 'ugliness' at least for a few seconds.
One of the 'big uglies' revolves around the apparent creation of two separate slates of candidates in this election.
One slate 'appears' to be being supported by supporters of Marymount College's "The Marymount Plan" (please read on-campus housing for students into that plan), along with members and supporters of the group Palos Verdes Peninsula Watch. (Please read into this, a group apparently writing and offering opinions about issues in Rancho Palos Verdes and with the PVPUSD, but having little, if any, interest in P.V.E., R.H.E. or Rolling Hills).
The four candidates that are now apparently associated in this faction are Ms. Dora de la Rosa, Ms. Cynthia Smith, Mr. Eric Alegria and Mr. Jerry Duhovic, whether any or all admit it or not.
The other faction or slate is made up of the four other candidates, all opposed to The Marymount Plan (read on-campus housing).
The four are former Mayor Ken Dyda, former Mayor Susan Brooks, Mr. Jim Knight and Mr. Dave Emenhiser.
Here's how the ugly got going:
Mr. Dave Emenhiser is associated with the Longpoint HOA and that group is sponsoring a debate to be held at the P.V.I.C., scheduled for September 7, beginning at 7:00 PM.
I have learned through several independent sources that the some of the folks endorsing some or all of the four members of the Marymount/PVP Watch faction have objected to having the debate sponsored by a group in which Dave Emenhiser is greatly associated with.
Some believe that it is unfair for an HOA that may very well endorse Mr. Emenhiser is sponsoring what is supposed to be an open and honest debate held in a neutral manner.
Councilman Brian Campbell agreed to moderate that debate and that may also be problematic because of his strong opposition to The Marymount Plan.
Dr. Michael Brophy, the President of Marymount College has reportedly offered direct quotes that Marymount College will not endorse any candidate and will remain completely neutral in this election.
Dr. Brophy and others then went ahead and scheduled a debate now tentatively scheduled for October 13, on the College's campus.
This debate would be historic in that Marymount College has never hosted a candidates debate for City Council in the College's history, even after any of its Presidents was apparently quoted as stating the College would not be involved.
The four members of the group of candidates who oppose on campus housing at Marymount might very well be suggesting that there might be some lack of fairness, with this debate.
So, I think the League of Women Voters debate may be the only one that has any chance of being viewed as non partisan to any of the candidates, most 'neutral' in nature and function and it should be taken as being as independent as possible.
If my 'other' life allows, I plan on being at each and every debate, video camera in hand, extra batteries in my pocket and plenty of drive space to record the debates.
Thank you, League of Women Voters for sponsoring a debate and offering the opportunity to make this race a little less ugly...hopefully.
I am using the titles for Mr. Ken Dyda and Ms. Susan Brooks in this post not out of disrespect for any other candidate.
ReplyDeleteMs. Dora de la Rosa has been the President of the Palos Verdes Unified School District's Board of Education. That is NOT a city office and she is running in a city eletion.
Mr, Jim Knight and Mr. Dave Emenhiser are members of the Planning Commission of the city of Rancho Palos Verdes. Mr. Emenhiser was also a member of our city's Finance Committee.
If Ms. Smith, Mr. Alegria or Mr. Duhovic have participated in committees or commissions within our city's structure, I do not know what those affiliation are but I would certainly be happy to provide those affiliations on this blog.
As of several minutes ago, I still do not see any new information revolving around the URL of the Web site now listed as 'under construction' for Mr. Duhovic.
I have been unable to find any Web site nor any URL listed for Ms. Smith.
Mark Wells
Here is the ruling in a recent Federal Appeal's Court case involving the First Amendment.
ReplyDelete"It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information.
As the Supreme Court has observed, “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.” First Nat’l Bank v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765, 783 (1978); see also Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557, 564 (1969) (“It is . . .well established that the Constitution protects the right to receive information and ideas.”). An important corollary to this interest in protecting the stock of public information is that “[t]here is an undoubted right to gather news ‘from any source by means within the law.’” Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1, 11 (1978) (quoting Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665, 681-82 (1972)).
The filming of government officials engaged in their duties in a public place, including police officers performing their responsibilities, fits comfortably within these principles. Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting “the free discussion of governmental affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 218 (1966).
Moreover, as the Court has noted, “[f]reedom of expression has particular significance with respect to government because ‘[i]t is here that the state has a special incentive to repress opposition and often wields a more effective power of suppression.’” First Nat’l Bank, 435 U.S. at 777 n.11 (alteration in original) (quoting Thomas Emerson, Toward a General Theory of the First Amendment 9 (1966))."
I posted this as a reminder to everyone considering attending any of the candidates' debates that the old U.S. Constitution is still (somewhat) viable and useful.
Don't forget the CHOA debate on October 5, 2011 at Hesse Park
ReplyDeleteThanks, Anonymous. I did miss that date.
ReplyDeleteMark Wells