A number of my progressive friends were unhappy with (last) week’s coverage of the Culver City election.
I reminded them that the paper goes to bed Tuesday nights, and that since the results were not final at that time, Daniel (Lee) could not be announced as the absolute winner, even though it seemed apparent that he would be. (I have no idea at what time that evening the article was being reported and written.)
I expect that you will more fully cover this story for the May 3 issue, following the candidates’ swearing in Monday, April 30.
There are certainly plenty of people who can interviewed.
I imagine it will be possible to obtain video coverage of the April 30 council meeting for the electronic version, if you’re interested.
I/we were concerned at the emphasis on the award given to a police officer — especially given the fact that it became obvious during the 4/13 City Council meeting that the CCPD’s newly-written policies on contracting with the company Vigilant to purchase/rent license plate readers were deeply flawed.
Vigilant also contracts with ICE and other municipalities, including third parties that could obtain Culver City’s information and provide it to ICE.
There were also serious flaws in the CCPD’s policies as they relate to the city’s use of drones. Even though the city council meeting occurred a month ago, I hope you will feel that this merits another article. There were numerous individuals — some Culver City residents, some not — testifying during the city council meeting. One was the ACLU attorney who had written a letter to the city about its policies. That letter could be obtained.
One motion for contracting with Vigilant did not pass; the motion for the use of drones did. I wonder when that use will begin.
I realize that the reporting, writing and editing of such an article would require a lot of time and effort, but I hope it’s do-able. Thanks for your understanding.
Rebecca Rona-Tuttle
Culver City