Arrogant, Hypocritical City Council Members

Site Search:

It is clear that the current Simi Valley City Council Members just don't get it and are really just in it for themselves. While the people elect them to represent the people and serve the interests of the people, those elected seems far more interested in serving their own selfish interests.

There are two issues which make this clear to anyone who reads the quotes by the City Council members, as if the statements made regarding the landfill expansion was not enough (it was the worst thing ever, until they got what they wanted, which was not related to the expansion, so what exactly is happening with all that money?). The first is related to the term limits and the second is to the Council benefits.

One important aspect to mention a the start is related to Becerra's comments in which he asked the city staff to look into the idea of becoming a charter city. Did he happen to miss that this is how the City of Bell managed to do what they did to the residents? Or is that exactly what he wants to do?

The following articles and letters from the Simi Valley Acorn are good reading for seeing where the Council is really coming from:

Council sees no need for term limits

Time right to vote for term limits

City Council ready to put kibosh on some benefits

Take outsourcing to the next level

Term Limits
The letter to the editor called the issue very well, but there is some additional which needs to be mentioned. The article on term limits states that of the 16 council members who served more than one term, only 6 served more than two terms.

To this, Sojka is quoted as saying:

"Where is the demand or the need (for limits)?"

First, perhaps the council should ask the people instead of talking about this issue in the middle of the night, without making any real effort to inform the people that they were going to talk about it. Yes, I am sure it was posted to the agenda on the Friday before they talked about it on Monday. They really should post the agenda a week or two in advance. This is the type of communication which they consider acceptable, but I doubt that most people do.

A closer look at the numbers is in order. There are 3 of those 6 currently on the council. Paul Miller was on the council for more than 2 terms. So that accounts of 4 of the 6, which indicates that the problem is a recent problem. So who are the other two people?

What is wrong with limiting a person from being on the ballot after two terms and allowing the person to do a write in campaign? If the people really wanted the person, they could still be elected. It is clear that those in office have an advantage over others.

Becerra claims that he has not heard the call for term limits, but perhaps that is just because he is not listening. Huber and Judge were quoted as saying that they had heard of the issue in the last election. The classic quote if from Williamson who says that a survey would be like opening Pandora's box. Quite clearly she knows that she does NOT want to hear what the people think.

One reason for term limits is to make it harder for those in power to remain in power. If you look at some of the quotes regarding Barbra Williamson's illegal campaign contributions and listen to people who have businesses, it seems like it is a common issue that people are afraid to say no to her because of what she might do to them should they refuse to donate money or allow for her sign to be on their property. Her comments showing that she either does not know what is going on in the city (council benefits, salaries, etc.) or she is a liar (which is shown by her comments regarding the landfill expansion, such as the clearly false statement that if the expansion was approved that it would be the largest landfill in the Western United States).

But Williamson said that would be like opening Pandora's box.

"If the community was hot and bothered about this, they'd be in this room," Williamson said.

Yeah, don't inform people that the issue is going to be discussed and the discuss in in the middle of the night, so then you can claim that they would be in the room if they cared. If they cared, they would inform people that it was going to be discussed and they would do it at a time in which people could attend.

Imagine how many people would have attended if it had been announced in the newspaper or other means.

Council Benefits
One of the main issues I have with the discussion of the council benefits is the attitude that is shown by council members.

The first is that it is clear that the current council does not want the removal of the benefits to apply to them. They want to make the change to only apply for future first-time elected City Council members. At worst, it should apply at the next election for ALL. Becerra said that he did not run for council for the benefits, but if that was really true, then he should have absolutely no problem with giving up the benefits. His statement that they were there before he got there is not an excuse to not correct the situation.

The second aspect is shown by Judge and his statements. I talked to him at a Simi Valley Town Hall Dance featuring the Simi Valley Side Step by Huber, where he told me that he was not going to tell others on the council that they should not accept the benefits. I told him there and I say it again now, he was elected to represent the people of this City, NOT to represent and protect those on the Council. This attitude is also shown by others as well, but Judge just speaks far more clearly on the issue.

Index for Save Simi Valley

Written: 02-Dec-2011

Updated: 19-Jun-2018

If you want to submit your own article, please read the first article and send email

Send Mail

Anti Spam