Councilman responds to incident
Last week, we were witness to a vulgar display of free speech. I wish to repudiate in the strongest terms the profane language used against my fellow Council colleagues and the men and women of the Culver City Police Department. That behavior has no place in Culver City but especially in our Council Chambers.
From a secular perspective, this room is the holy temple of public policy. This is where people of goodwill and good intentions meet to discuss and debate the critical issues that affect our City and our residents. What happened last week was a desecration of this chamber.
We on the Council hold different views and often disagree, sometimes vehemently, with one another. But, despite our differences, we respect one another and do not ascribe nefarious intentions to others’ comments or votes. We are all acting in what we believe are the best interests of our City and its residents.
And, although we may disagree, those disagreements do not give license to anyone, either resident or non-resident, to make personal attacks or slanderous statements about my colleagues, our staff or other residents. I have some idea, based on the national temperament, why certain residents feel they can say whatever they want, whenever they want, wherever they want and on any social media platform they want, but that is not something that any of us in Culver City should tolerate or allow to continue. I call out this bad behavior and verbal abuse for what it is: hate speech!
Now, we see that this abuse has permeated into our upcoming election for City Council. It is disheartening to read the headline in this week’s Culver City Observer – “City Council Race Turns Ugly.” I was particularly upset at the second headline “Did City of Kindness Evaporate in Front of Our Eyes?” As someone who has been working hard along with the First Lady to brand our community as a City of Kindness, I have to ask: “Is the City election so important to you that you are willing to soil your own reputation and the reputation of the City where you live?” And you will soil your reputation, given that the Observer says it intends to name names. When we established the City of Kindness, I asked the questions: “What is the alternative? To be known as a City of violence or a City of angry people?” Well, if this behavior continues, I’m afraid we will all see just what that looks like.
So I call upon all of our residents who love living here and appreciate the benefits we enjoy from being Culver City residents to join with me and say “Enough is enough”! We shall no longer tolerate your profane, defamatory and personal attacks. We are a City of Kindness, and kindness will overcome.
— Jim Clarke
I am a 35 year resident of Culver City, and from what I have experienced and observed around me, I am convinced that those persons who are vehemently and angrily opposed to CCPD proposal to use license plate readers, and other related surveillance equipment, are mostly from neighboring cities who pass through Culver City on their way to and from their homes in these neighboring cities. I am all for the CCPD use of these high tech surveillance systems. Those persons who are paranoid and fearful that their rights might be infringed upon only have a one-sided view of personal and public safety: they are fearful of CCPD discovering their personal (even criminal) proclivities and so safety of Culver City residents and taxpayers be damned.