The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles County, an Inter-League Organization, and constituent Local Leagues as available in communities holding elections on April 11, 2006 and asked of all candidates for this office.

See below for questions on Charter Reform, Light Rail, City Election Schedule

Click on a name for other candidate information.   See also more information about this contest.

Answer from Gary Silbiger:

I am proud to be voting yes on Measure V and to be working with the Citizens for a New Charter to get it passed. While not perfect, this document represents reasonable compromises and was pased unanimously by the Charter Review Committee, composed of members appointed by each Councilmember. The most important change is the move to a City Manager form of government rather than the current CAO form. This will allow the City Manager to oversee the day to day operations at City Hall and to supervise all staff while the part time City Council can focus on setting policy. As a member of the council for the past 4 years, I have seen the confusion that has arisen from our current system. It leads to inefficiency that hurts our productivity and makes it nearly impossible for the City Council to do our jobs. That is probably why nearly every city of our size in California uses the City Manager form of government. Please join me in voting yes on measure V.

Answer from Micheal A. "Mehaul" O'Leary:

As a American citizen who deeply treasures the right to vote, I do not believe that it is my place TO TELL YOU HOW TO VOTE on Measure V.

However, I will VOTE NO on MEASURE V, because:

The proposed new City Charter is presented as an all-or-nothing, very complicated change to our city government.

Because of this, I cannot support Measure V in its present form. Being all-or-nothing, voters can't fix any of the parts that they do not like.

Culver City residents are being denied separate votes on the principal component parts of Measure V.

The voters should be allowed to make informed votes upon the merit or lack of merit for each key element in the proposed new city charter.

The proponents of Measure V are implying that there must be something wrong with the way Culver City government has been managed all these years.

IS THERE SOME URGENT NEED TO SPEND THE EXTRA MONEY TO HIRE A CITY MANAGER?

DO WE WANT TO TAKE MONEY AWAY FROM NEEDED SERVICES THAT KEEP CULVER CITY SAFE, SECURE AND PROSPEROUS?

When I look at our clean, tree-lined streets, our well-kept parks and safe playgrounds, our top-rated schools, and our clean, safe and quiet neighborhoods, why would I want to take money away from needed City services and give it to the proposed new City Manager and the expanded administrative staff?

I certainly DO NOT want to increase the size and cost of city bureaucracy - that is why, I am voting NO on MEASURE V.

Answer from David Scott "Scott" Malsin:

I support the passage of Measure V for the following reasons: 1) Our current City management structure is costly and inefficient. The confusing lines of authority have lead to the loss of highly skilled managers and have made it difficult to attract the best talent. A switch to a city manager form of government will lead to cost savings and more effective and responsive delivery of services. 2) We need to make sure our City Treasurer is the most qualified individual we can find. Electability should not be an issue.

Answer from Micheal A. "Mehaul" O'Leary:

Having regional transportation that serves CULVER CITY RESIDENTS is important to our economic development.

However, I will work with determination to PRESERVE and ENHANCE the QUALITY OF LIFE in the NEIGHORHOODS OF EAST CULVER CITY and RANCHO HIGUERA that are adjacent to the MTA Expo right-of-way.

I will work diligently to make the MTA BUREAUCRACY respect our City.

CULVER CITY deserves an ABOVE-GRADE MTA Station at the optimum location: VENICE & NATIONAL.

The MTA should also plan for SHUTTLE SERVICE to and from the Venice/National Station and Downtown Culver City, Sony Picture Studios, Culver Studios, the Actors Gang Playhouse and the Kirk Douglas Theatre.

Answer from Gary Silbiger:

I am proud to be Culver City's representative on the Exposition Construction Authority, working with other elected officials and the MTA to get this project moving forward. I know that light rail will not only help the environment by reducing air pollution, it will also reduce traffic, help Culver City businesses, create jobs, bring in new tax revenue, and help those who are unable to drive. That is why the City Council passed the EIR with an overwhelming 4-1 majority.

Answer from David Scott "Scott" Malsin:

The Expo line can and should be a boon to Culver City. However, the MTA has put politics first and the interests of Culver City second. Our current Council has been hoodwinked by the MTA. By not demanding that the MTA put in writing that the Culver City station will be built north of Washington Blvd., it has accepted less than the best on our behalf. Rest assured that as your Councilperson I will be a tough negotiator when dealing with outside agencies.

Answer from Micheal A. "Mehaul" O'Leary:

YES - I favor keeping our Municipal election in April.

YES - I favor continuing to have Culver City elections controlled by the City Clerk's Office. Because the DISADVANTAGES far outweigh any "advantages":

LOSS of LOCAL CONTROL of Culver City elections.

LOSS of neighbor-volunteers serving our NEIGHBORHOOD POLLING PLACES.

ELECTION COSTS would be controlled by Los Angeles County and we could not control the cost of Culver City elections.

Our City Council, City Clerk, City Treasurer elections would be BURIED SOMEWHERE near the bottom of an EXTREMELY long ballot for the US President, California Governor and other state-wide offices, California propositions, United States Congress, Los Angeles County offices and judgeships, and a host of other LA County city elections and other city ballot measures.

CULVER CITY RESIDENTS would pay more for elections not under our own local control.

OUR CULVER CITY CANDIDATE CAMPAIGN SIGNS would get "LOST" in a forest of all other the campaign signs for US President, US Senator, US Congress, State Governor, State Senator, State Assembly and County Supervisor.

If they had to compete against the big time politicians for money, OUR CULVER CITY CANDIDATES would have much more difficult time in raising the necessary money to run for City Council.

We might have an "efficient" election on one, LONG PAPER BALLOT, but we would lose much of CULVER CITY'S DEMOCRATIC PROCESS.

That is too big of a price to pay. KEEP OUR APRIL ELECTIONS.

Answer from David Scott "Scott" Malsin:

Culver City politics are clean, and our campaigns are grassroots efforts funded at the local level. I am concerned that, if our elections were consolidated with those of the state and federal governments, local politics would be lost in the sea of mailings we receive each November, or, even worse, would become dominated by big dollars from outside interests. I favor keeping our election schedule as it is.

Answer from Gary Silbiger:

The main purpose of an election is to have as many people participate as possible. Most Culver City municipal elections attract between 20% and 30% of registered voters. In contrast, November general elections often attract upwards of 60% of registered voters. By changing the date of the election, we would be automatically doubling participation. Some say that this would move Culver City candidates to the bottom of the ballot and shift the focus of the electorate from our contest. However, in reality this change would produce the opposite result. Since double the number of people would participate, double the number of voters would pay attention to the election, read the literature, and attend candidate debates. Santa Monica has scheduled their municipal elections to coincide with the general election for decades and has found no decrease in interest, participation or focus, but a huge increase in participation.

The order of the candidates is random and changes daily.