Last Night's Forum

The League of Women Voters sponsored a Forum for candidates in the upcoming City Council election.

I made an error about Mr. Alegria's participation and he appeared at that Forum but he told me he would not be at the Marymount Forum for candidates, but more about Eric and Marymount, further down the post.

Most of the evening's offerings were basic repeats from much of what was said at the previous two Forum, but some clarity was brought out by some candidates and one (former) major issues was absent...THANK YOU CANDIDATES!

The Annenberg Project was not mentioned last night and that allowed for other items to be talked about instead of that now-very-dead issue.

I counted 11 questions being asked from cards submitted by attendees. Most of the questions dealt with issues already discussed but there were a couple of new questions that candidates offered their opinions on.

When questions regarding our city's staff came up, including the prospect of unionizing staff members, there were some views I found quite different that one might expect coming from some candidates.

Ms. Susan Brooks stated she would welcome an 'association' or watching staff members join and 'association'. It appears that she had no intention of stating that staff members may 'unionize' or join a 'union'. Good try and changing the words, but whether you call it an 'association' or not, it still can be more easily known as a 'union'.

I wonder what more conservative supporters of Ms. Brooks might think if they simply change her word 'association' to 'union' and realize that Susan supports staff workers joining a union?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought many on the more conservative spectrum of politics do not like unions and unionization of workers.

One of my questions finally got asked about Marymount College, in a Forum environment.

"What is your opinion on whether Marymount College should be allowed to increase its student enrollment to 1,200 students?"

I'll write what I remember from each candidate, to this question.

Mr. Jim Knight stated that he didn't believe they 'needed' the increase. As an 8-year member of our Planning Commission and one of the majority of the candidates to remind folks that Marymount College officials may not be living to the guidelines of the current Conditional Use Permits granted by our city and Marymount's inability to adhere to the guidelines previously established for off-campus parking, he was just one of the candidates who seemed to regard Marymount's current problems in some reasoning to object to the allowance or granting of more students at the campus.

A general thought prevailed that since Marymount representatives have not done what they have been asked to do with parking issues and other things, those representatives should not be granted other requests until they demonstrate positive results to the things already on their plates.

Ms. Susan Brooks also commented that the C.U.P. is not being followed with parking issues and other things, but then she offered what I can only call a political statement from a candidate who really doesn't want to answer the question, specifically.

When I wrote down what I though Ms. Brooks offered as no real answer to the question, I made sure to ask her directly whether she favors allowing Marymount's student enrollment to increase to 1,200 students. So, I asked her directly, after the Forum ended.

Susan Brooks told me that since she might serve on the Council and the issue would be brought before the new Council, she would not offer her opinion one way or another and she did not say 'yes' or 'no' to the question.

Well, there you go folks with a 'politician' not being willing to offer a 'yes' or 'no' answer. But don't call out Susan just right yet. She was not the only candidate that avoided a direct answer to a question. But Susan was the only candidate who did not offer a true answer, one way or another to the 1,200-student question.

Mr. Dave Emenhiser felt that "Twelve Hundred Fifty" students were too many at the campus.

OOPS! I have no idea where Dave came up with the extra 50 students, but I feel a need to mention that one of 'my' candidates made an error, in fairness to the other candidates.

Mr. Eric Alegria also joined in the comments from just about every other candidate that Marymount officials have not dealt with the on-street parking issues adequately and he offered a very smart and simple response: "keep enrollment as it is."

Ms. Dora de la Rosa offered no set opinion, in my mind. She commented that the 'processes' should be done better and if I remember correctly, she opined that she wanted more study and possibly a commission or other panel looking into the issues. More about this too, down the post.

Mr. Jerry Duhovic Did not sound all that objectionable to allowing Marymount College's increase in enrollment to 1,200-students SOME DAY in the future, but certainly not now.

He also illustrated Marymount's lack of adherences to the C.U.P. and other things and that he would not be supportive of Marymount's request until he was assured that steps already mandated towards Marymount were accomplished in a more positive and complete manner.

Although I feel Marymount might never find the parking and other improvements necessary to allow a greater number of students attending the campus, I think Jerry's opinions are fine because he offered that he know what he needs to see before he might positively consider any change to a greater student body enrollment.

Mr. Ken Dyda included that we all must 'be careful' with Marymount's current Conditional Use Permits and whether Marymount is currently following them and/or will, in the future. He stated that he does not feel any increase in enrollment at Marymount's main campus should be raised anytime soon. I personally doubt he or any other candidate acknowledging the issues regarding the current C.U.P. issues, would approve any increase in student enrollment while they served on our Council.

The last question asked was whether the candidate supported or opposed passage of 'Measure M', the new parcel tax of the School District.

Two candidates I spoke to after the Forum had different views on whether that question should have been asked to candidates running for City Council in one of the four cities using the PVPUSD schools.

I don't know if, during a Forum for candidates to the School Board, questions were asked or appropriate for those candidates to opine on who should or should not be elected to each city's Council and why.

It is with that thought that I agree with Susan Brooks in that I felt the question was inappropriate for our Council Forum candidates.

Also, since City Voters in the Eastview area of R.P.V. cannot vote for School Board candidates or Measures for the PVPUSD schools, that question reminds folks there are still quite a few disenfranchised residents of the area who provide the children that keep several schools within the PVPUSD open, rather than being shuttered and having more "Hill" kids seeking longer commutes to more crowded classrooms.

The question about Measure M was answered by Dora de la Rosa.

Do I even need to write what she feels should be done?

Jerry Duhovic and most others were more than quite concerned that the new measure would replace two taxes that have 'sunsets' applied and be replaced with a tax that contains no sunset clause. He does not seem impressed with the measure and he offered little support, if any, for passage.

Ken Dyda and Jim Knight do not support passage of Measure M and they both spoke well and short about the measure.

Dave Emenhiser and Eric Alegria both spoke well and short but both of them support passage of the measure.

Susan Brooks again appeared to take the 'mediator' in her and some added 'politician' in her when she basically did not answer the question directly.

Naturally she opined about the lack of a sunset clause before she added a possible increase to the tax via a cost-of-living portion but during the Forum and when I asked her directly about it, she provided neither a 'yes' or 'no' to the questions posed.

Since I, along with those of us who send kids to keep some PVPUSD schools open truly have no voice on the matter because we have no vote but if all Eastview parents of kids attending PVPUSD schools pulled their kids out and sent them to L.A. Unified or private schools, just imagine the turmoil that would be created in the PVPUSD schools when the funds provided to them by 'our' kids attending 'their' schools, would vanish. That is a nightmare nobody wants to have.

Last night's Forum was the third of four major Forums of the seven active candidates for the three seats on our City Council.

The Forum also demonstration some greater crystalization in my mind about all the candidates.

I really, really, really, I mean REALLY wish I could endorse Mr. Eric Alegria for one of the seats.

Last night on the questions he knew reasonable information about, he was clear, to the point and offered his direct views. I does appear he made need to study our General Plan more and learn more about some very major issues he seemed to fumble with, last night.

Eric will make a great City Council member someday. He truly will, if he stays in R.P.V.

Mr. Jim Knight remains solid in his facts and opinions and as an 8-year member of the Planning Commission I know he would make an active and very informed member of our City Council.

Mr. Dave Emenhiser, along with Jim have my full endorsement even though I cringe a bit when Dave starts talking about taxation on a more conservative base than I would like. Dave is also a solid veteran of service to our community and his knowledge of finances and his leadership in missions with other agencies make him a sure bet that he will provide all of our residents and businesses in our city with the leadership and governance we need today and tomorrow.

Mr. Jerry Duhovic is still a great fellow and he remains far too conservative in his opinions for me to endorse. He is well spoken and knowledgeable about our city.

His statement that rather than doing something else, he would rather smile and walk away finds me troubled that he might try to ignore those he disagrees with, smiling all the way, but without really interacting in the best manner I would like to find in a Councilman.

NOTE* If you think I am 'bashing' another conservative you just have no clue how Brian Campbell and I get into it more than a few times and how we both respect each other's views even though we don't necessarily agree with each other.

If Mr. Ken Dyda gets elected to the Council, that is fine with me and I would support him as he takes a seat on the Council and work with him to provide what he would like to see from our community.

In becoming more crystallized about all the candidates, I am now even more crystallized in sadly, more negative ways towards two candidates.

Jerry Duhovic mentioned VERY WELL that he is NOT A POLITICIAN!. But it appears that two of Jerry's associates on the ballot for Council membership don't appear to be able to make that claim and remain totally honest.

The following are again, my opinions based on what I have read, seen and heard since the election cycle began and during the time all of the candidates filed for office.

Folks, it is clear to me that Ms. Dora de la Rosa may be a career politician, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes we need politicians but in her case, I think she might want to work to become Superintendent of Schools or something County or State wide.

She continues to call for studies, commissions, meetings, and more administrative things rather than providing real examples of actions she would take on city matters

Perhaps she does this because for the last 8 years she has been so involved with school issues she has done little preparation in knowing and learning what really goes on in OUR city.

When asked where she sees R.P.V. being in 10 years I wrote my impression that she had 'no set position' and that is a position she seems to have on other matters related to the governance and workings within Rancho Palos Verdes.

Ms. de la Rosa also mentioned 'rebuilding trust and respect on the Council'. Politics is a messy business. If you don't know that and don't know what has gone on for the last 10 years or so in our city and with our Councils, then I feel you are ill-informed.

A candidate other than Ms. de la Rosa reminded attendees that one of our former Council members brought his attorney to Council meetings. It just so happens that that Council member was the most conservative member serving at that time and it did not appear that the other Council members had fear enough to make them feel they had to bring their own attorneys into city matters.

It is just my opinion but I feel Ms. de la Rosa is seeking to gain a Council seat as a stepping stone towards 'higher' elective office and it appears that during the previous Forum, her words may have indicated as much.

At the previous Forum Ms. de la Rosa opined that since she was School Board President over a District with more residents impacted by her that what would be found as a member of our City Council, she basically admitted, again in my opinion, that she views being an R.P.V. City Council member as a 'step down'.

If she were to get elected to a second office seat, how long might she use her 'two offices' election as a springboard toward some other elected office?

Don't we have plenty of harsh words for termed out elected officials who try to get elected straight away, to another elected office. How is Ms. Dora de la Rosa different in that regard, truly?

Ah, Ms. Susan Brooks. At previous Forums Ms. Brooks talked about the "Special Interest Projects" adopted by the current Council and perhaps, prior Council. She stated both then and now that during each Forum, she would reveal with "Special Projects" she was talking about.

Well, Ms. Brooks, you didn't mention individual "Special Projects" last night or during the other Forums you spoke too little about them, so just what are those "Special Projects" specifically.

Surely as a mediator, trained in how to negotiate and speak, Ms. Brooks should be able to, with little to no effort, ring off the "Special Projects" she started talking about.

Of course readers know Ms. Brooks is far too conservative for me to endorse and I find her use of 'association' rather than 'union' to be particularly unpleasant allowing for the idea that she just may feel our residents aren't smart enough to recognize that she basically supports a unionization for staff but afraid of using anything 'union' to offend her supporters.

Watch politicians and listen to them carefully. They speak differently than the five other candidates for our City Council, I feel.

Do any of you remember Mr. Ross Perot? Of course you do. He was the Presidential candidate who would list all the problems in our country and then suggest ways of TALKING about solutions rather than actively promoting real solutions.

We have lots of major issues to deal with in Rancho Palos Verdes.

Now is NOT the time to bash the Council membership that is termed out or the abilities of the two remaining members.

Along with every candidate who seeks election to our Council, I have been what some would call a 'victim' when dealing with some Council members.

GROW UP, CERTAIN CANDIDATES! This is Rancho Palos Verdes and politics is sometimes a dirty business. If you can't take the heat, rightly or wrongly, get away from the fire pit. Heck, even I know this and I'll never run for elective office.