Search Results for: furey

Partisan politics played a significant role in the recent election even though the Council positions are supposedly non-partisan.  This was especially evident in the mayoral race as the two republicans effectively split the vote opening the door for democrat Pat Furey to take the election.  With the upcoming appointment, it is likely that partisanship will once again affect the outcome.

Twelve individuals submitted applications to receive appointment to the council position.  The one that would probably engender the most support in the community is Leilani Kimmel-Dagastino.  Many would consider her the people’s choice after she finished 5^th in the recent election.  As a women and a minority she would also bring needed diversity to the Council.  Perhaps in an attempt to curry favor with the Council, she stressed in her application that during the recent election she “did not say anything bad about the current council or any of my fellow candidates.”

The 6^th and 7^th place finishers in the election would also bring diversity to the Council.  Restaurant owner and former rocket scientist Alex See could be a voice for the Asian business community.  The Council could also choose to make history by appointing Milton Herring who would be the first member of the black community to serve on the Council.

All of the above choices, however, were heavily backed by the Republican Party in the recent election.  Mayor Furey, as well as recently elected Councilmembers Weideman and Goodrich, are democrats.  Mayor Furey, and the other democrats, will almost certainly want to appoint someone that adheres to their same political ideology to ensure they have the votes on the Council to fulfill their agenda.  This may be the reason why other names have surfaced as possible appointees.

An appointee that will likely be more acceptable to the democrats and that will also bring the needed diversity to the Council is Ray Uchima.  His selection, however, may now be tainted by rumors in the community that a back door deal was cut several weeks ago in a “pay for play” scheme to make him the appointee.  In his application, Uchima touted his ability to “attract High Technology and Solar Electric Industries to Torrance” that will provide high paying jobs in the community and replace those jobs that will be lost with Toyota’s departure.

To avoid the controversy surrounding Uchima, the Council may opt for one of several intriguing compromise candidates.  The most well known of these is probably recently retired City Clerk Sue Herbers.  Sue reiterated several times in her application that she “will not under any circumstances seek a seat in the 2016 election” and that her decisions on the Council would be based “on the best interests of the City and not for any future political gain.”

Jimmy Gow also offered himself as an appointee.  As the current President of the Torrance Democratic Club he campaigned hard on behalf of Furey, Goodrich and Weideman and was instrumental to their success.  He claims he would bring a commitment to “uniting the members of the Council in a non-partisan partnership.”  That assertion, however, is hard to believe given his current role in the Democratic Party and the list of references he provided that includes such names as Maxine Waters, Janice Hahn, Al Muratsuchi, Betsy Butler, and Sandra Fluke.

Should the Council want to avoid partisan politics completely, then Mike Griffiths would make an attractive choice.  He was the highest finishing non-party affiliated candidate in the recent election and brings a wealth of City experience as a current Planning Commissioner and a previous lengthy stint on the Environmental Commission.

Recent candidates Rahmat Kahn and Ryan Mand also applied for appointment.  Rahmat Kahn shot himself in the foot with falsified endorsements in the past election and Ryan Mand continues to make a name for himself by showing up for council meetings in his now signature chicken suit costume.

The slate of applicants is rounded out by Environmental Quality Commissioner Charles Deemer, Cable TV Commissioner William Dan Feliz, and retiree Mario Obejas.

Should the Council not be able to come to a consensus they still have the option of placing the burden on the public through a special election.  The main deterrent to this option continues to be cost.  Though it will likely be expensive, the exact costs of this option are not known as the Council has not sought firm quotes from potential vendors for the various means (i.e. vote by mail, vote by precinct) that could be utilized to conduct a special election.

Mayor Furey announced at the last council meeting that Torrance will host a public meeting tomorrow night to provide information about and receive public comment with regard to Car2Go.  The timing of the planned meeting is somewhat odd given that the city has already provided authorization for the company to begin operating within its borders as evidenced by the many smart cars parked in residential areas with the distinct Car2Go logo that have been spotted throughout Torrance.

Car2Go was last discussed by the Council at the April 9th, 2013 meeting.  There, several members of the public voiced support for the company, including the Executive Director of the South Bay Cities Council of Government who claimed that Car2Go was supported by area businesses as it provided low cost mobility.  He also noted it could reduce the need for secondary cars and serve as a compliment to public transit.

Many other members of the community spoke in opposition to Car2Go.  Several residents expressed concern that would it further restrict available parking spaces, especially in such areas as downtown and around El Camino College.  Representatives from Honda, Enterprise Rent-a-Car, and All Yellow Cab all expressed concerns that there be a level playing field.  Enterprise complained that they there were required to provide off street parking at considerable expense for their fleet of 550 cars while it appeared that Car2Go would not. All Yellow Cab explained that taxi companies pay an estimated $220K in annual fees to Torrance including a per company $35K annual franchise charge.  Honda, who is affiliated with Car2Go’s closest competitor ZipCar, urged the Council to open the South Bay market to all competitors on comparable terms.

The Council ended up effectively tabling the issue by directing staff to create a draft of a non-exclusive franchise agreement for car-sharing programs for consideration at the May 7th, 2013 council meeting.  The minutes for that date, however, reflect that the item was not heard at that time.  It came up again on the agenda at the July 2nd, 2013 meeting but was deferred.  I could find no record of it being discussed since that date which raises the question of why the agreement was apparently never brought forward for public comment and approval by the Council as was done in neighboring cities such as Hermosa and Redondo Beach.

The Beach Reporter noted that Redondo Beach requires Car2Go to pay an annual fee of approximately $40K to operate within their city.  Torrance, on the other hand, is only requiring that Car2Go secure a business license at $108 per car.

The Daily Breeze also reported that City Hall has received several complaints from residents due to Car2Go cars parked in residential areas since the program was implemented.  In response to those complaints Mayor Scotto promised to, “meet with them [Car2Go] and suggest areas where they could park their cars that would be less intrusive to residents.”

How will that less intrusive parking plan be implemented?  Why does it appear that other cities were able to negotiate much more favorable franchise terms?  Did the Council ever approve this?  These are just a few of the questions that I’m sure residents will want answered at the meeting tomorrow, the details of which are as follows:

Location: City Hall West Annex Commission Room 
Date: Wednesday, July 30, 2014 
Time: 7:00 p.m. 

The newly elected Mayor and City Council will be formally installed at the upcoming meeting on Tuesday.   One of the first matters that will come before them is what to do about filling the vacancy created by the unexpired councilmember term of now Mayor Pat Furey.  Filling this vacancy is critical as the individual could easily end up serving as a councilmember for the next 10 years as the initial two year period would not count against the two term limit.  The Council has two options: they can either use their authority to appoint a new member; or they can decide to hold a special election to fill the position.  Either way, the decision is sure to cause a stir within the community.

After a recently concluded divisive mayoral election, selecting someone by appointment may lead to further fissures in the community.  Should the Council choose this option, a possible selection, and probably the least controversial choice would be Leilani Kimmel-Dagastino.  It could be argued that she earned the appointment by finishing 5^th in the recent election – only one slot shy of the winner’s circle.

Dagastino, however, is a Republican and was heavily supported by that party in the recent election.  Newly elected Mayor Furey is a Democrat.  He may risk alienating his base by selecting a Republican, such as Dagastino, to the position.  No other viable Democratic candidates remain among the pool of 12 unsuccessful candidates in the past election as the field was dominated by Republicans.  That may be why rumors are swirling that Furey is looking beyond the recent field of candidates in search of an appointee.  Some voices, such as those found here, are claiming that a backdoor deal has already been cut to appoint Ray Uchima.  Such a decision will likely not to be a popular one amongst the community at large.

Given the above, I hope the Council will give more consideration to allowing the voting public to decide the matter through a special election.  Sadly, the idea of a special election seems to have gained little traction with the Council due to the expense.  The City Clerk, who provided an unsubstantiated estimate of $200K for the costs, admitted in the staff report that the City has not solicited a firm quote. I believe it would be a shame for the Council to move to appoint someone, especially an individual that didn’t run in the recent election, without exercising due diligence in order to gain a full understanding of the actual costs associated with conducting the election.

A quick Internet search reveals that the costs of an election can vary widely depending on how the election is conducted.   Vote by Mail options reduce costs significantly.  The cost of that option can be reduced even further by requiring voters to provide their own return postage.  I found some information showing that cities utilizing the vote by mail option reported costs as little as $1.25 per voter.  California cities such as Lake Forest and Livermore recently held special elections at a total cost of $39K and $50K respectively.  To further reduce costs, Torrance could even consider options such as limiting the special election to only those that voted in the June election.  My point here is that there are options available that are worth fully considering before the council rushes to make an appointment.

Just in the last few months, Torrance has approved expenditures such as $75K for AYSO banners put on city street lights, $146K to promote ridesharing amongst city employees, and $75K to hold an hour and a half optional ethics class.  The Council didn’t blink an eye in approving these, and other more costly measures, yet seems to be balking a great deal at the cost of holding an election; something that is at the core of our democratic and governmental process.  Why is that?