SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
April 13, 2012· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

April 13, 2012 – Daily Brief

By IHeartSCV

Several stories from yesterday’s brief have updates:

  • The Castaic man who shot himself after threatening suicide and being pursued by the CHP has been identified as Timothy Florian.  He was a Castaic business owner and was married with two sons.  SIGNAL
  • Memorial service scheduled for Judy Riley, who was the 14-year president of the SCV Scholarship Foundation.  Details
  • Protest hearing scheduled for residents from areas slated for annexation into the City of Santa Clarita.  Update

And now, onwards:

  • “Officials were still researching procedure Thursday for replacing the first sitting mayor ever voted out of office,” writes Karen Jonas.  Does this imply that it won’t be a simple nominate-and-vote process to determine the next mayor?  SIGNAL
  • The City has laid out the timeline for processing outstanding provisional and absentee ballots.  Don’t expect a final tally until April 18th at the earliest–that’s when the remaining verified ballots will be counted.  CITY BRIEFS
  • TMS Editorial Board congratulates Bob Kellar and TimBen Boydston on their victories, offering a vehicular analogy: “Boydston’s adoption of Kellar’s clean-campaign model was reminiscent of a NASCAR racing drafting technique, in which one closely follows the other, but both end up moving faster and farther ahead for it.”  Smooth.
  • Tammy Marashlian begins a 6-part series examining the intersection of education, budget cuts, and the SCV.  She starts by looking at how schools impact the local economy.  SIGNAL
  • In Whites Canyon, a badly injured border collie appears to have been the victim of a mountain lion attack.  The dog was saved by a vet.  KHTS
  • Magic Mountain is finishing work on its latest attraction: Lex Luthor Drop of Doom.  Once completed, it will be the tallest vertical ride…in the world!  Dizzying photos of construction at KHTS
  • If LA County Supervisors agree to the plan at their next meeting, Hart Park will get an upgraded entrance.  Improvements include replacing the chain link fence and adding new signage.  SCVNews
  • Oh yeah, it’s Friday the 13th, so feel free to comment on the unlucky events befalling you today.

Comments (46)

  1. MikeApril 13, 2012 at 7:34 am
    I’m neither a physicist nor a motor sports enthusiast, but I was under the impression that drafting only benefits the car behind and is done so that the trailing car can pass the car it’s drafting.
  2. DubiousApril 13, 2012 at 8:02 am
    In today’s editorial, The Signal is intent on belittling TimBen Boydston on all fronts. There’s no mention of the fact that TimBen ran a clean campaign two years ago and if anyone did any coping this time around, it was Bob Kellar. The editorial board slams TimBen for being confrontational when he was formerly on the council. What selective memory. It was Frank Ferry who often attacked Boydston simply because he wasn’t following the status quo and rubber-stamping whatever city staff put before the council. As many of us found when addressing the council, it didn’t matter how many facts we brought to the dais about a project, the majority of members had their minds made up to go along with Ken Pulskamp’s executive summaries. Only TimBen asked questions and did his own research. TimBen an agitator? It takes an agitator on a washing machine, to get things clean. Maybe we ought to remind the Signal of that fact more often.
  3. Alan FerdmanApril 13, 2012 at 9:24 am
    Dubious I could not agree more. The Signal needs to get back to reporting news and printing all “Letters to the Editor” that are properly submitted. The idea that community members and their subscribers need to buy ads to get their opinion published is one reason the Signal is shrinking in size before our eyes. Mike In reference to drafting. As a road motorcycle rider, it is always exhilarating when unintentionally getting in the draft while passing an 18 wheeler. It normally occurs when you are just off to the rear quarter panel of the trailer going at freeway speed. What you feel is the motorcycle accelerating, while you react by shutting down the throttle and still continue to accelerate. One can only think about how it great it feels to be in a race car, getting in the draft and hammering the throttle to slingshot around the car in front of you.
  4. NateApril 13, 2012 at 11:12 am
    TBB had a part in the confrontation but he should not have it all put on him.
  5. Jim FarleyApril 13, 2012 at 1:55 pm
    As with Alan, I couldn’t agree more. I worked on the campaign this year and two years ago. TimBen ran an honorable and clean campaign both times. For the Signal to suggest that he patterned his campaign on Bob Kellar’s is an outrage. TimBen ran an honorable and clean campaign because that’s the way he is, period. I can’t begin to say how joyed the volunteers are that democracy really works. This one was a truly grassroots campaign with a wide diversity, both politically and geographically, amongst the volunteers. That TimBen won and spent a fraction of what Ender did speaks to just how important the volunteers were.
  6. ToddApril 13, 2012 at 9:02 am
    Depends on how closely you’re drafting. The trailing car can draft to increase their aerodynamic efficiency, which will provide better fuel economy (team drafting), or to disrupt that efficiency of the lead car… and cause them to lose grip, causing them to have to slow (and creating the pass opportunity).
  7. ToddApril 13, 2012 at 9:45 am
    Think of it from the cycling use… where the breakaway pack will rotate the position at front out of mutual benefit. They work together until the very end, when its every man for himself!
  8. LarMccApril 13, 2012 at 7:46 am
    That Magic Mountain ride is sheer madness. I’ve said it here before, but it bears repeating, Magic Mountain is a good bargain and they really work hard to keep the place clean. I think it was about $55 per person and we got a season pass with no blackout dates. It’s not Disneyland, but my family still had a great time when we went. I worked there in the 80′s and was skeptical when my wife first suggested we go. But I was sold after going once and we now go back every year and get season passes. However, I do not envision myself going on this “tallest vertical ride…in the world.”
  9. Phil EllisApril 13, 2012 at 8:31 am
    When my kids were younger, we used to get them annual passes to Magic Mountain. When they were old enough to be on their own, it was even nicer.
  10. NateApril 13, 2012 at 11:18 am
    Are they just adding on the superman ride?
  11. LarMccApril 13, 2012 at 9:53 pm
    Apparently, it will ride on the same framework as Superman. It will drop you over 400 feet up to 85mph. Superman is the one ride I still refuse to go on. They have video of what the ride will look like: http://www.sixflags.com/magicMountain/rides/LexLuthorDropOfDoom.aspx No thank you.
  12. MisterJeremiahApril 14, 2012 at 9:56 pm
    Aw come on Lar! I will hold your hand if it gets you on the ride ;o)
  13. Timothy Myers SRApril 13, 2012 at 7:50 am
    Did anybody see this story about some kid named David Myers who (along with Cameron Braun) comprises “the most formidable doubles tandem” in the Foothill League? (hee hee) http://www.the-signal.com/section/19/article/63521/
  14. Phil EllisApril 13, 2012 at 8:32 am
    No, I didn’t. Are they any good?
  15. ToddApril 13, 2012 at 9:04 am
    Meh. Tennis. Only McEnroe cares.
  16. Whiskey Tango FoxtrotApril 13, 2012 at 8:00 am
    To honor out going councilmember Ender and to elect our new Mayor, lets have a straw poll during the public comment part of the next council meeting. Our new Mayor will be the individual who has the LEAST amount of support during public comments.
  17. Phil EllisApril 13, 2012 at 8:33 am
    The Mayor is elected by the other council members. The next council meeting could be very interesting.
  18. David GaunyApril 13, 2012 at 9:12 am
    Now THAT is a true statement indeed! In fact, the next couple of years will be a lot more interesting as well! Go TimBen the Agitator!
  19. AnnetteApril 13, 2012 at 9:24 am
    Let’s get that “Boydston” brand washing machine working on getting things clean
  20. LarMccApril 13, 2012 at 10:49 pm
    Now that the election is over, we all need to predict something else. With that being said, what will happen at the next council meeting? a) Ferry goes on a yelling tirade against Boydston. b) Ferry storms off the dais in a fit of rage. c) Ferry ignores Boydston. d) All of the above. I think it will start with c, then progress to a and will end with b. This is a man who does not tolerate people who disagree with him very well. It will be an interesting meeting, I am considering attending in person.
  21. MikeApril 13, 2012 at 9:10 am
    As someone interested about such things ( http://scvtalk.com/2012/04/11/ender-concedes-whats-next/ ), I’m really disappointed that this article ( http://www.the-signal.com/section/36/article/63479/ ) didn’t attempt to bring any real information into the conversation. We get, “Although the city has a mayor pro tem, officials said Thursday they were researching the method for replacing Ender,” but then no further context. The “officials” aren’t named, much less quoted. The role of mayor pro tem isn’t defined, nor do they explore whether there is an automatic succession, much less why there wouldn’t be (as far as I can tell, there isn’t). Who makes the decision? Has it happened before? What does Frank Ferry think? Bob Kellar? Not the most interesting or consequential stuff, but you’re going to run an article about an open question, you should do more than point out that the open question exists.
  22. AdamApril 13, 2012 at 9:50 am
    Not really very shocking considering the rather poor reporting that goes on at the signal.
  23. David GaunyApril 13, 2012 at 10:28 am
    From TMS article: “Two days after the City Council elections, Santa Clarita city officials were still researching procedure Thursday for replacing the first sitting mayor ever voted out of office.” What is the issue?! The council members select a new Mayor and Pro Tem just as they always have. It may not be the one I want but let them again forego the right choice for another political ally like they did with Ferry in place of Kellar… let’s see where that gets them! Unfortunately, I fear all this “research” will result in Pulskamp coming back with other “example cities” (carefully chosen of course) demonstrating that the current pro-tem should take over. What a travesty that would be!!! Heads On A Stick would then be the only solution.
  24. MikeApril 13, 2012 at 11:15 am
    Pulskamp might report that it’s the custom, but there’s nothing in the law that makes it automatic, so the council will vote on it anyway, however they decide to word it.
  25. David GaunyApril 13, 2012 at 11:38 am
    Mike, I totally get that there is no specific law about the process and this is precisely what concerns me about days of research. Rather than just let the council decide (which they have every right to do), history suggests that staff will come in with “researched” suggestions that then allow the majority to vote for what that “evidence” supports. This is precisely what happened with the hospital, the libraries, and the increase on contribution limits. In all of these cases, staff gathered largely inapplicable data and then used it to shape the council’s decision. No matter what, this could be a prickly council meeting if the incumbents are stupid enough to go try to fix the vote. Popular support is clearly not with them.
  26. BertaApril 13, 2012 at 12:00 pm
    David I disagree with you. Since there is a pro tem, I say let Frank finish Laurie Ender’s remaining six-month term. I am sure that Frank got the message that a change in attitude is expected and if change is not forthcoming, he only has six months in the big chair serving out Ender’s term. The Council WILL no doubt nominate Bob to pro tem and unanimously elect him in December as mayor for the full 12-month term he should have served during the same period he would have been mayor if Frank had not self-nominated. A landslide victory is a clear message to the remaining council members not to disrespect Mr. Kellar again. After all Frank did say he wanted one last term in case he did not run next time, and this remaining six months would be it. I also would urge the Council to agendize the topic of how the mayor and pro tem positions are arrived at since the current sometimes rotation, sometimes not, does not work fairly and has been too politicized. We need a clear fair system that everyone understands and agrees to follow. And further as I suggested to you during your council run, I think council should allot 30 minutes at the beginning of the meeting for the first 10 folks wishing to address the council on matters NOT on the agenda and also have unlimited 3 minute public speaking at the end to accommodate folks who cannot arrive earlier and have something they wish to address publicly with the council. This would allow folks who pay for attorney’s, consultants etc to have their agendized issue heard at a predictable hour, and the public a before and after opportunity to address council.
  27. TiredOfTheHypocrisyApril 13, 2012 at 12:08 pm
    That’s all, Bertha?
  28. BertaApril 13, 2012 at 12:19 pm
    TOTH you are so witty and brave…It is really a shame you did not further your education and work on your spelling and reading comprehension skills.
  29. David GaunyApril 13, 2012 at 12:14 pm
    Berta, just to be clear, I never made a suggestion of who should be next in rotation. I simply indicated that the decision be the council’s alone without manipulative data from staff. Regarding public comment, I do (and did) agree with you about a hybrid approach to this and stated it publicly. It seems this is the fairest way to address all in attendance (both agendized and non-agendized).
  30. ToddApril 13, 2012 at 12:31 pm
    Serious question about public comment: Who pays the salaries of the staffers getting overtime to sit in the council chambers and listen to people ramble on endlessly? My take: 3 mins on agenda items at the beginning, 60 seconds on anything else that is City business at the end.
  31. BertaApril 13, 2012 at 12:48 pm
    Todd I disagree. The Council is elected to do We the People’s business. I believe the public has a right to the “ear” of the council but I also believe that folks who pay fees etc to have an item on the meeting agenda have a right to have their item heard at a reasonable and predictable hour especially since they are also paying attorney’s and consultants to wait around for their turn to speak. 30 minutes at the beginning gives folks with pressing concerns at home, young children, those that do not drive after dark, depend on public transit, etc the opportunity to address council without unduly delaying the business portion of the meeting. Time for the public at the end also allows folks who work out of the area or cannot arrive by 6 pm to still have an opportunity to have their concerns heard too. It also allows folks like me who like to hear what everyone else has to say before opining the opportunity to speak at the end of the meeting.
  32. ToddApril 13, 2012 at 3:08 pm
    Perhaps it is because you’re among them that you cannot see the detrimental effect that ‘gadflies’ have on governance. You have the right to voice your opinion, absolutely. And there are many channels by which you can do that. Email, telephone, snail mail, schedule a meeting… however I don’t believe that it is the right of a few to derail the business of many to ramble on for any amount of time. Case in point: Watch Burbank’s City Council meeting’s public comment and see a delightful man named Gary ramble on for his allotted time (they give 5 minutes) about signing karaoke renditions of “My Heart Will Go On” at the senior center… and inviting a council member or two to join him in a trip to Las Vegas to see Celine Dion in person. Clearly, that needs to delay the business of the people because that has absolute need to be heard before the council deliberates the issues on the agenda, right?
  33. Jennifer KilpatrickApril 13, 2012 at 9:47 pm
    Todd, as I’m sure you know, there’s a state law which requires every public body to hold a “public comment on anything session”. The “you get 3 minutes rule” comes from a Court of Appeals decision, so your opinion and mine on how long “gadflies” should be allowed to exercise their right to petition for redress of their grievances really doesn’t matter. The public comment mandate law comes from the “redress of grievances” clause in the Constitutions. The reason many public agencies are sticking “public comment” at the end of the meeting is because they don’t want to hear it, and a Court of Appeals panel recently said it’s OK to frustrate the public’s right to speak by delaying the exercise of that right to the tail end of the meeting. As to “gadflies” I’ve found that most politicians and public employees use the term to describe people who actually know what’s going on. When I was very young there was an old man named Bill Gress who the Simi Valley City Council detested, because he would lambaste them every week. Once I started listening to what he said, I realized that he really knew what was going on behind closed doors at City Hall. I’ll never forget the night when he told the Council that “Rocketdyne” had surreptitiously buried highly radioactive nuclear waste in “the old County dump behind the Drive-In”. Mr. Gress even told the Council and the public that the person who ordered the gates to the “old County dump” left unlocked, for the midnight haulers of nuclear waste, was the then-City Manager of Simi Valley. Simi is blessed with many engineers and geologists as its residents, and in reliance on the comments of the “gadfly”, a “midnight drilling crew” of citizen geologists and citizen engineers took their drilling rigs, and pulled deep soil samples from the grassy public right of way where the foot of the old dump touched the Arroyo Simi, which carried rain water to water avocados in Moorpark and strawberries in Oxnard. The citizen scientists used their own money to pay for certified laboratory tests of the soil samples, and sure enough the soil samples were so highly radioactive, the EPA got involved right away because of the risk to the farm fields and downstream drinking wells’ water supply. Ventura County, the Rancho Simi Park District and the City of Simi Valley all ended up paying for the physical restructuring of the “old dump” into a properly closed Class I nuclear landfill. In my pantheon of heroes, the late Bill Gress stands tall, because he saved the people of Moorpark from continuing to drink radioactively contaminated well water from that “old County dump” which the high level public employees wanted to ignore. Yes, he was an old grumpy guy who took his full 3 minutes to talk every week, but he was right. Currently, the LA County Board of Supervisors “gadflies” are knowledgeable, do their homework and are well organized, and even though they don’t live in SCV they are watching out for Santa Claritans’ interests.
  34. Timothy Myers SRApril 13, 2012 at 1:07 pm
    Todd: Nearly all of the staffers who attend City Council meetings would be FSLA exempt employees, so they would not be getting overtime.
  35. SCV Republican SupporterApril 13, 2012 at 2:17 pm
    I supported Bob and Laurie. Clearly Bob should be given the opportunity to be Mayor, or if he wants a full term, Mayor Pro Tem to Frank’s Mayor. It is important for the 5 of the now elected councilmembers work this out amicably. The election is over. Now the hard part. Governing.
  36. ToddApril 13, 2012 at 3:03 pm
    Nearly all, but not 100%. And the City Attorney who has to sit there the whole time bills by the hour, right? How about SCTV? Do they not bill by the hour to manage the production? The deputy is paid hourly, right?
  37. Alan FerdmanApril 13, 2012 at 3:13 pm
    Todd We just have different priorities. I believe that the public deserves to be herd. Your worried about overtime. In my view, the public gets the number 1 priority.
  38. BertaApril 13, 2012 at 3:18 pm
    Todd if our primary concern is taxpayer expense, then we should just do away with public meetings entirely. If our primary concern is conducting the public’s business before and with the input of the public then we need to do what makes sense to accommodate all of the parties involved. My suggestion makes sense for the majority of the public’s benefit, the folks with items on the agenda and their experts, the Council, and staff. It also encourages public participation since there are several opportunities, at the beginning, under the agenda item, and at the end for the public to weigh in.
  39. LarMccApril 13, 2012 at 9:08 pm
    Ultimately, we do not want the government deciding who is worthy of speaking or if it is relevant. I think we are all with Berta, you have to allow the public to speak and let the chips fall where they may. Plus, we may end up with a gem like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zA1hyqA6UTY
  40. BertaApril 13, 2012 at 3:25 pm
    Todd as a supposed gadfly if I want to take my three minutes to talk about the newest hit movie, since I live in a country that values my freedom of speech and you do not get to take it away, and Council meetings are PUBLIC meetings, as a member of the public I get my three minutes just like the old guy in Burbank. He probably fought in a war just so that someone like you could have the freedom to criticize him and begrudge him three minutes of your time.
  41. Phil EllisApril 13, 2012 at 3:35 pm
    Todd, should the people who were opposed to the City taking over the library from the County have had their time limited? I mean really, it was just hours of the same thing over and over again (NB, tongue is firmly implanted in cheek)
  42. ToddApril 13, 2012 at 5:51 pm
    Thats not my point. My point is that time should be given to those who are speaking on items on the agenda. The library was agendized, so they would be allowed time to speak. But it makes my point. Lets assume Cemex is on the agenda. Hundreds of people come to the council meeting to have their voice heard on the matter. Is it right that they should have to wait to speak about a relevant topic behind those who would come before the council to demand that something be done about North Korea’s missile launch? What if there were 30 people, each demanding 3 minutes to gripe about North Korean missiles? They have a right to an opinion, they have a right to speak that opinion publicly… If they get a permit, they can have a march down Valencia Ave should they want to. But I still maintain that it is not the business of the city council, and as such, if they want to speak about a topic NOT on the agenda, they can do so at the conclusion of the meeting.
  43. ToddApril 13, 2012 at 5:45 pm
    I disagree. A city council meeting is not a public forum. If you want to talk about the movie… go stand on a soap box on a public street. The first amendment guarantees you a right to speak… but not a right to speak about irrelevant material at a city council meeting. The purpose of a city council meeting is to conduct certain business. You (or anyone) ranting on about something that isn’t related to the business at hand wastes not only your own time (which you’re free to do) but also the time of those who want to speak on matters on the agenda, that are being addressed at that meeting.
  44. BertaApril 13, 2012 at 5:58 pm
    Todd I am really glad you for work for the City of Burbank and not the City of Santa Clarita. We have a couple of folks who occasionally ramble, and I listen to them just as I would listen to you or anyone else that I disagree with. You do not get to decide what is important to a speaker or what they can speak about whether you believe it is relevant or not any more than I get to decide that the regular cadre of complainers can speak or not. Our city employees have shown great compassion when dealing with some of the folks who address Council on myriad topics and as a taxpayer; I prefer to have to listen to the occasional rambler than deny anyone the right to speak.
  45. Jennifer KilpatrickApril 13, 2012 at 10:13 pm
    Burbank, a city with highly competent professional employees and consultants, once including a City Engineer who blamed the City’s engineering consultants, Tetra-Tech, for mis-designing a train track/street intersection so that it was not in compliance with NTSB design standards, which was the partial cause of a deadly Metrolink crash. According to the NTSB report, the Burbank City Engineer denied ever hearing of the NTSB track/street design standards, and said that the “gates” at the intersection only dropped down a few seconds before the 80 mph trains entered the defective intersection, because Burbank voters don’t like to wait at intersections. Burbank’s professional engineering design consultant, under-insured Tetra Tech’s principal engineer on the Burbank track/street design project also denied ever hearing of the NTSB track/street intersection design standards and that highly professional city consultant refused to answer questions in his deposition to the point of being threatened with jail for contempt. Rather than have that highly professional engineering consultant for Burbank be fully deposed, Tetra-Tech’s insurance carrier, AIG, paid $1 Million full policy limits into a “settlement pot” for the victims of the Burbank Metrolink crash. (Does any city which still hires Tetra-Tech ever inquire about the dollar amount of their current liability insurance coverage?) Burbank’s “highly competent professional staff” hid their decisions adopting the track/street design errors behind the doctrine of “soverign immunity” and refused to have their depositions taken. Yep, just like most other cities and counties: Highly competent public employees. It’s no wonder one keystone of the Republican leadership’s national agenda is to cut public employees pay, pension and health benefits.
  46. Alan FerdmanApril 14, 2012 at 2:19 pm
    Todd You are absolutely incorrect. Our City Council Meeting is a Public Meeting. I suggest you read the California Brown Act. From the Brown Act handbook: “PUBLIC TESTIMONY: Public may comment on agenda items before or during consideration by legislative body. Time must be set aside for public to comment on any other matters under the body’s jurisdiction.” (54954.3 Ch. IV & V)

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support