Ms. Cynthia Smith is still listed on the ballot but that seems to be the only place where more than a handful of folks can view anything about her.
Mr. Eric Alegria did not attend tonight's Forum because he was attending an important meeting of a Statewide Commission he belongs to.
For me, tonight's debate provided more separation of philosophies between those who could be thought of as 'moderate' in my opinion; Dave Emenhiser and Jim Knight and others.
I think the audience attending at Hesse Park and those who will watch the Forum on our city's channel will be able to tell which candidates are from somewhat conservative, to very conservative, because of many of the answers and opinions expressed during the Forum.
When the opinions about our city's staff possibly becoming unionized, it provided a stark contrast in opinions, among the candidates.
Jim Knight basically did not touch that with a ten foot pole. I don't feel he is all that objective to workers organizing into unions or having a union come in to represent staff members.
Dave Emenhiser sounded a bit objectionable to staff members becoming unionized but his remarks were more humorous in that he seemed to say he didn't feel it would come to that.
Dora de la Rosa says she has to deal with two unions as President of the School Board. I didn't get a resounding approval of unions from her.
As totally expected, Ken Dyda, Susan Brooks and Jerry Duhovic oppose staff members becoming unionized. This is not remarkable at all when folks consider that any of them being elected to the new Council would probably mean more work by staff members in becoming unionized.
I feel there is a fear factor coming from some city staff members after what they have seen and heard from Brian Campbell, Anthony Misetich and the three candidates I have mentioned.
I don't blame those staff members, one bit.
For the vast majority of questions and answers at tonight's Forum, there could have been a repeating parrot during most of the evening, concerning some of the issues.
But there are also differences coming out between the candidates on some issues and that is a very good think in deciding which candidate to support.
Stadium lighting at PenHi was such an issue. While most objected to the permanent placement of lighting on the field, various reasons were stated by some of the candidates.
Some candidates stated that, even though the lighting would be located in Rolling Hills Estates, that lighting would be in opposition to our city General Plan.
Dora de la Rosa stated she could not technically comment about lighting, due to litigation, she offered that she felt that as a 'community issue' lighting went against the wishes of the R.P.V. community members living near the school.
Jerry Duhovic, a former H.S. and A.F. Academy football player, opined that he would like to find a way for non-permanent lighting. His focus seemed to be more towards football events.
Dave Emenhiser or Jim Knight opined that since there are mandates on lighting for sports other than male-football, there might be other requirements to light the field, which can not be ignored.
None of the candidates were pleased with the outcome of the latest staff salary and pension decisions, for one reason or another.
I found that Susan and Jerry's opinions on this suggest they follow what Brian and Anthony supported, including Mayor Pro Tem Anthony Misetich's attempts with what he brought forth.
I think the candidates and I all agree that the entire matter was done poorly, for one reason or many reasons. This might also be one reason that some on city staff are looking favorable at unionizing, I believe.
The Skate Park issues also seemed to be a place where the more conservative candidates held views that are different than some candidates who are closer to the middle of the road or to the left.
While all stated some sympathy, NIMBY came more from those I feel are more conservative and others.
The question posed about whether the candidates were running to eventually run for 'higher office' seemed fairly even on the surface, it did bring a though to me I have to share.
All of the candidates in attendance stated they would not run for 'higher office'. But Dora had a different answer which begged in me a question I am still wondering about.
Dora de la Rosa that since she spent four of her eight years on the School Board as its President, she seemed to admit that being an R.P.V. City Council member might be regarded as a 'step down' by some, perhaps.
And that got me thinking. Aren't there lots and lots of Californians who object strongly to politicians 'office hopping' as in members of the State Assembly turning to the State Senate until their they are termed out, or vice versa?
While I am sure Ms. de la Rosa has wonderful intentions in her quest for a seat on our Council, she also admitted some lack of knowledge in what is currently going on in our city and that she sometimes participates in our city's municipal activities by watching it on T.V. or on the Internet, rather than actually participating.
Maybe that is also a reason I have opined that I don't think any former elected person should sit on this new Council.
I also had a strong objection to the former Mayor who offered something about 'on the job training' during her closing remarks.
Ms. Brooks, I don't agree with Brian and Anthony all the time, but they both have earned more than a few stripes and a whole heck of a lot of on the job training during these last two years. Neither of them need anyone showing them the ropes because they have been climbing on them, pulling them and working with three other Council members at securing the ropes in our city, quite well!
I found the question about our city's relationship with Donald Trump to be quite interesting, again in a split political way.
When Jerry Duhovic commented that he lives directly accross the street from Trump National and that he feels The Donald was treated bad by our city, Jim Knight stated that at the very first meeting with The Donald, in R.P.V. that he attended, Donald Trump "lambasted neighbors across the street".
Dave Emenhiser pointed out that he believes there is a read difference between the Trump Organization at Trump National and Donald Trump, himself. I felt Ken Dyda agreed with that.
Susan Brooks' opinion included her thought that there may have been "too much testosterone".
I didn't quite get Susan's reference to the American Flag The Donald illegally raised. I hope I can find clarification in her remarks. I hope she understands that people still need to follow the laws of our city, no matter what they hang on their land.
With the question that was posed about what did each candidate disagree with, in what the current Council has decided, it also was along more political lines.
Ken, Dora, Jerry and Susan all held disagreement with the Council's recent decisions regarding the pension reforms.
I got that Ken and Dora also objected to the 'quickness' of the decision-making and Jerry wanted to see more discussion and possibly approval of Anthony Misetich's motion.
Susan, in her disagreement with the pension reform decisions also stated displeasure with what she may believe was a 'gang-up' by three Council members at Tuesday's Council Meeting.
And then she did it. She states something we have heard from others who have had disagreements with three of the current members of our City Council.
What she stated is now recorded and I wrote it down. She mentioned the possibility that there may have been a "violation of the Brown Act".
When I hear those words coming from someone who has political differences with three current members of our City Council, I am reminded of events that happened not all that long ago which sent our city into a very dark and troubling place.
If Ms. Brooks has proof, then she needs to state it up front, demand an investigation, immediately or simply put it to rest. We don't need another Freedom of Information Act and collecting of documents order in our city, again. This is no way for anyone claiming to be a mediator should say, in my opinion.
Both Dave and Jerry objected to the way our Council acted concerning the Ladera Linda property and the pre-school, formerly there.
I don't have a real clue as to how that could have been solved. it was a private business that didn't have the funds to make the necessary repairs it needed to contribute to, to stay in the city's building. I know that is tough but why should our taxpayers subsidize private businesses, just to keep them operating for the few who would use them?
I would have loved to see the preschool stay, but our taxpayers should not fund a private business if folks are really truly concerned about municipal spending.
Even though I have stated that I cannot endorse a former elected official gaining a seat on the new Council, I continue to feel that if folks vote Dave Emenhiser, Jim Knight and Ken Dyda into office, I think we will see city staff lean away from becoming unionized and I think our city infrastructure would get the very best oversight and management with these three gentlemen joining Anthony Misetich and Brian Campbell on our Council.
I do continue to feel that Ms. Susan Brooks might be the top vote-receiver and if that is the case, I hope she joins Dave and Jim as the three 'new' Council members.
I know Jerry is a great fellow and he has great feelings towards our city and its people. He remains far too conservative for me to wish him great success at getting elected on our Council.
I continue to learn more misgivings about Ms. de la Rosa and that new wonderment about 'office hopping' now concerns me.
As I have written about Eric Alegria, I hope to vote for him onto our Council in at least 6-8 years and I do think he will make a remarkably wonderful servant to our residents and business owners, down the road.
The ONE question that was truly asked is the ONE question EVERY candidate MUST answer, either on Oct. 12 or before and certainly by or during the October 13 Forum at Marymount College.
It's a simple question, really: What is your opinion on Marymount College's request to increase the time frame for The Marymount College Facilities Expansion Project to 20 years AND do you favor Marymount's request to increase the student population at the Palos Verdes Drive East campus to 1,200 students?
No comments:
Post a Comment