Dear Editor:
It shouldn’t be necessary to vote for Scott Malsin in the coming April election for Council Members in Culver City. Scott had a long term yet to serve. If he had acted in agreement with the rest of the Council, he’d still be on the Council.
Instead, Mr. Malsin chose to resign. In effect, he admitted that he was serving “for the benefits.” Now he obligates the Culver City to pay thousands of dollars of medical benefits on his behalf for the rest of his life, which could easily be 30 years more. He could have acted along with the rest of the Council, who wanted to rein in governmental over-spending on pensions and benefits, a movement occurring all over the US, and in other countries.
He has stated that he was able to reduce the time he spent on his own business due to the amount of medical coverage he received from Culver City—which is a little difficult to understand. Your “day job” is the major source of support for most people. How does a part-time job pay sufficient benefits to offset short-changing one’s own livelihood?
Or—is this just a way of adding to a list of the many ways in which this individual “serves” the people of Culver City? Accept it if you want, but I don’t get it.
This should be a sufficient example of the extent of sincerity in a man who states his intention to help our city through “tough times,” yet is taking money (in medical benefits premiums) from the City as he proposes to “save” the city through his actions on City Council.
The existing policy until the end of 2011 was to provide lifetime medical coverage for City Council members. Scott’s resignation should have been the end of it—he should have taken the money and settled into private life and left it at that.
Sincerely,
Jerry Gottschalk
Culver City
310-839-5390