Newsletter No. 58

Ballot measure a mess.

Background on PAC proposal.

Machiavelli at work in Torrance.

Measure TC is a train wreck.

TC is the third item on Page 1 of the ballot. A quick read would lead an uninformed voter to think that all its proposals are benign. And the City’s mailer, intended to explain the City Charter’s changes, claims that the revisions promote transparency.

Not the case. The description of the proposals is so complicated and nontransparent that Susan Niemeyer pointed out the transparency failure in her one minute in Orals at each of the Council’s recent meetings.

In the County-issued booklet, with theoretically everything you need to know about the measure, this appears: “If you desire a copy of the ordinance or measure, please call the elections official’s office at 310-618-2870 and a copy will be mailed at no cost to you.”

The phone number is for the Torrance City Clerk’s office. I called and asked if we could find the information online. Clerk Rebecca Poirier provided this link – https://www.torranceca.gov/government/city-clerk/election-information and then said to click on Resolution 2024-47-CharterAmendment Ballot Measure near the top of the page.

A few days later she sent out what we needed from the beginning: The redline version of the Charter now and proposed. To see it, go to the link above and look at the second line – right under the Resolution information I mentioned above.

It’s a lot to wade through, and I have started that process.

But for now, here are the main proposals:

·      A huge pay raise for the mayor and councilmembers. Details can be found in Newsletter No. 57 at www.TakeBackTorrance.com.

·      Removing city manager and city attorney from civil service protections.

·      Requiring PACs to follow the same fundraising rules City candidates must adhere to.

·      A laundry list of other items that cover things such as removing obsolete language from the charter, eliminating the Airport Fund, ethics training and a ban on nepotism.

Two of the issues have raised the wrath of voters: The pay raise and the Airport Fund.

Even voters willing to consider a pay hike are upset by the measure’s deceptive language: Rather than indicate the wage hike actually represents a $2,600 monthly raise, the wording describes it as “restricting” Council wage increases.

And the City says – correctly – that this won’t cause a tax increase. What it doesn’t say: The money spent on raises will come at the expense of necessary services.

The pilots, enraged by the Airport Fund proposal, have plastered signs all over the City calling the measure deceptive and asking for no votes. The pilots see this maneuver as a first step toward shutting down Torrance Airport.

While their fears don’t appear to be justified, the word games played on the pay issue have eroded my willingness to simply dismiss their concerns.

The PAC proposal:

Current Torrance law limits donors to $1,000 contributions for their favored candidates.

PACs, however, have no limits and that means business interests, such as developers, can pay big dollars to help elect candidates they believe they can lean on. The 2024 election saw candidates Andrew Lee and Tony Yeh benefit from thousands of dollars from PACs.

Fortunately, the businesses received zero return on their investments. Both men lost to stronger candidates. District 2’s Bridgett Lewis handily won re-election, defeating Lee. Yeh came closer but still decisively lost to District 6’s Jeremy Gerson who was one of three candidates running for Mike Griffiths’ termed-out seat.

Many residents were unhappy about the introduction of PACs to Torrance and were pleased to see Gerson introduce the $1,000 limitation to the ballot measure.

There were four votes for it. The three who opposed it were the PAC supporters – Mayor George Chen, District 1’s Jon Kaji and District 5’s Aurelio Mattucci.

PACs for 2026 are already getting commitments they will have to forgo if the measure passes. 

Four offices will be on the ballot: Chen and Kaji have filed for re-election in 2026 and have identified candidates to run for District 5’s open seat (Mattucci will term out) and for District 3’s Asam Sheikh’s seat. That will be a repeat of 2024 when Chen and Kaji attempted to oust Lewis and also gain the open seat.

Lewis had been appointed and so had less than two years under her belt when she ran, but she was rewarded with re-election.

Sheikh may have a tougher time against a Chen-Kaji-backed opponent. He disappointed many – gay and straight – by his aligning with Chen on opposing Pride Month.

Machiavelli spotted in Torrance:

I owe one of my sources an apology. This person has never been wrong, but I scoffed when I was told that Chen, Kaji and Mattucci want the ballot measure to fail.

As much as they pushed for the pay raise, they know it shares ballot space with an anti-PAC provision. And my source said they desperately want to save the PAC money, which is already being solicited for the 2026 campaign.

I shouldn’t have been so dismissive because another source, who is in a position to know the trio’s thinking, confirmed the story.

With talking to some others, this is what I have pieced together:

The process started shortly after Chen took office as mayor and told his Council colleagues that he intended to do things differently.

One of those things: How appointments were made to city commissions. Torrance’s Municipal Code said it was the mayor’s right to name the appointee and the Council’s right to confirm the choice.

As long as anyone could remember, the whole Council had nominated and chosen the appointees.

To fill a vacancy on the Civil Service Commission, Chen chose Shamindra Mahbahal, a controversial candidate, and four members of the Council revolted. Chen backed down and agreed to a rewrite of the Municipal Code cementing their equal roles.

That could have been on last March’s ballot. But District 1’s Jon Kaji had taken umbrage over what he wrongly perceived to be the handling by City staff of the appointment.

He discovered that the two people who owe their jobs to the Council – the city manager and the city attorney – were not at-will employees and, therefore, not easily dismissed.

Changing their employment rules, however, required a November vote because it potentially affected their wages.

Since money had been introduced, they decided to ask for more money for the Council while they were at it.

At a later session, Gerson pushed for PAC controls. (If the word Machiavelli caught your eye and you skipped over this newsletter’s second item, now’s the time to go back to it and see what is behind the controls.)

These discussions took place over a series of meetings to frame the ballot language. To observers it appeared that Gerson’s proposal would succeed and the salary hike would not.

So Kaji, who saw himself losing on the PAC issue and the wage hike, didn’t attend the pivotal Council meeting where the items would be locked in. Instead, he went to a Dodgers game.

When it came time to vote that night, District 4’s Sharon Kalani said she could support the ballot measure, with the exception of the pay raises. She asked for a separate vote on the pay raise. The overall measure passed 6 to 0, with Kaji absent.

Then came the vote for the pay raises, and Sheikh shocked everyone by voting for it. So, it tied at 3 to 3 with Chen, Mattucci and Sheikh voting yes and Kalani, Gerson and Lewis no, sealing its failure by one vote to get onto the ballot. Obviously, had Kaji been there, he could have given it the fourth vote.

So, Mattucci told his colleagues that Kaji should have a chance to weigh in and asked for a revote when he could be present. Mattucci wanted the ballot measure to fail and decided the pay raise could be the poison pill that saved the PACs.

Oops:

Nick Green was hired on my watch at the Daily Breeze. I am chagrined that I renamed him Nick Peters in Newsletter No. 57. Peters is a local Realtor whom I also know.

Nick was mentioned in an item about the Breeze’s terrible Torrance coverage of the election. The problem: Torrance reporter Teresa Liu was reassigned to the Pasadena Star-News last April and has yet to be replaced. I said I was afraid the paper would cover the election by reprinting press releases.

Last weekend they covered the ballot measure by quoting from the City’s website without interviewing any of the players.

They also had no mention of the School Board election in which Dave Zygielbaum is clearly the strongest candidate to fill the seat Gerson vacated when he moved to the City Council.

Zygielbaum’s competitors are perennial candidate Charles Deemer and Torrance realtor Tony Yeh, who ran into trouble by not declaring properties when he filed his financial disclosure form for his Planning Commission post.

If you want to express your unhappiness over the lack of coverage, contact Frank Pine, executive editor of the Southern California News Group, which owns the Breeze. His email address is fpine@scng.com.

How late was it:

The Oct. 8 meeting adjourned at 8:12 p.m. Bravo!

Before I go:

v Marking your ballot and looking for help with the state props? Check out https://calmatters.org/california-voter-guide-2024/propositions/.

v The City’s deadline for correspondence to be included in the Council’s pre-meeting public supplemental is now 5:30 p.m. the Monday before the meeting. The Council will receive anything that comes in later before the meeting, but it won’t be posted until Wednesday. It will be at the top of the agenda. You can also leave voicemails to be included as Oral Communications in the supplemental. Call 310-618-2404 to leave up to a two-minute recording that will be transcribed. Voicemails have the same deadlines as the emails.

Want to tell the City Council your opinion on an agenda item or address any concerns? Send it to  CityCouncil@torranceca.gov; in the subject line put the agenda item or the topic. If you also want your comments to appear in an agenda item’s Staff Report, send it as well to CouncilMeetingPublicComment@torranceca.gov.

Jean Adelsman

Feel free to share this email -- or tell friends about www.TakeBackTorrance.com. And if you email a response to jeanadelsman@yahoo.com, please indicate whether you are expressing a thought for my eyes only or whether I may share your comments with the whole audience.