From Nepotism to Cronyism

The School District educators that just wouldn't learn

by J.A. Mirisch

They did it again.

They just can’t stop themselves.

Just months after the nepotism scandal, the BHUSD administration, with the tacit and not-so-tacit support of the School Board majority, has thrown impartiality out the window and has refused to pay even lip service to the importance of continuity in the District. In so doing, in the recent hiring of the High School’s new assistant principal, the administration, along with their Board majority protectors, the Nooshins and Myra – whoops, I mean the Myras and Nooshin – have created an impossible web of self-contradictions which even the most skillful escape-artist would have difficulties extracting herself from.

A few months ago, when the District was forced to pink-slip teachers, the District pink-slipped special ed and French teachers rather than two elementary school instrumental music positions that easily could have been cut back without any negative effects on the students – especially since two instrumental music teachers had previously served the four elementary schools for decades. The bizarre decision to sacrifice other positions, including the French and special ed teachers, became a lot more understandable when it emerged that one of the teachers whose position was being protected is the sister of Assistant Superintendent, Ilene Straus.

One would think that this embarrassing revelation would cause the administration to be extremely sensitive when it came to any future potential personnel conflicts of interest. Au contraire, as the fired French teachers might say.

The most recent hire, Kelly Tabis, comes from the Santa Monica school district, which is the immediate former home district of none other than Ilene Straus. Tabis was the head of the special education department at Santa Monica High School. Considering that the special ed teachers got the axe when it was time for budget cuts in BH, you might think that Tabis would have had a strike against her when Straus, Superintendent McVeigh and the other members of the search committee looked over her resume.

I guess being a special ed teacher really only would have been a disadvantage if Tabis had already been a BHUSD employee. But since she was from the Santa Monica school district, from Samohi, no less, she seems to have had an advantage over the other candidates for the assistant principal job – including, notably, the candidates from within our own District. Andi Kay, Assistant Superintendent Ilene Straus’s sister, kept her job and was awarded tenure on her sister’s watch, despite convincing arguments that eliminating her job would have had the least impact on the students. And now Kelly Tabis, formerly of Samohi, without any true consideration of or competition from any candidates from within the District, is awarded the position of assistant principal. And one of the major decision-makers is Ilene Straus, formerly of Samohi. Kelly Tabis, formerly of Samohi, gets the job, in part at least, thanks to Ilene Straus, formerly of Samohi. And no BHUSD candidates are given serious consideration to be promoted from within.

It doesn’t look good, does it?

Even Superintendent Kari McVeigh somehow seems to instinctively understand that the Samohi connection could lead to charges of favoritism. In defending herself – and Straus – from the charge that Tabis’s appointment was rigged, McVeigh is reported to have said: “Straus hardly knew Tabis.”

OK, so they hardly know each other – which is strange when one considers that Tabis was hired while Straus was principal of Santa Monica High School.

OK, well maybe they did know each other. How do we spin that now? Easy: just ask Board majority member, Myra Lurie, who remarked, “You look to people you have experience with.” So Straus did have experience with Tabis, whom she hardly knew. And now, suddenly, any appearance of favoritism doesn’t really matter, because it’s outweighed by the advantages of the administrators’ hiring someone they know.

Sorry, folks, I’m not even going to begin to try to unravel these contradictions and good luck to Kari McVeigh, Myra Lurie and Ilene Straus if they ever make an attempt to do so themselves. Their answers could easily become textbook case studies for… well, I’m not sure what. Maybe a new Abbott and Costello routine.

Who's on second?

And, hey, Ab-bott, let’s not leave the other Board majority members out. How about Nooshin Meshkaty’s statement that “we want to encourage our own but at the same time we are obligated to pick the best in the process”? She continues: “We all want the best people to work in our district” and for that reason there is no problem recruiting from other districts.

Here’s a quote from a recent edition of BH Weekly: “As an example, Meshkaty pointed to outgoing assistant principal Amy Golden, who was hired from outside BHUSD and became a ‘great leader’ in the district. Golden has since accepted a principal position in Northern California.”

Meshkaty’s spiel contains two singularly important points: 1) Amy Golden was hired from outside the BHUSD, and 2) she is leaving the District.

And I thought that even the Board majority wanted to combat a recent problem within the BHUSD, namely the District’s increasing inability to retain key teachers and administrators and its becoming what is know as a stepping-stone district.

Wouldn’t the best way to combat this be to promote from within? Wouldn’t promoting from within encourage key staff to stay, because it would send the message that experience within the District is valued and that there are opportunities for career advancement? Wouldn’t looking to local talent also help strengthen the collective institutional memory and continuity which is – or at least was – so important in achieving the status as a Lighthouse District once upon a time?

Oy McVeigh

Clearly, we are dealing both with a Board majority and administration that place little value on any kind of meaningful institutional memory. The Beverly alma mater states that the High School’s “customs, traditions bring glory to thee.” Clearly, not in the eyes of Superintendent McVeigh or Assistant Superintendent Straus.

Which brings us to the next puzzler, which finally allows Board president, Myra Demeter, to get in on the act.

During the recent debate about the School District’s decline into semi-mediocrity and away from the Lighthouse status that it had enjoyed for decades, Myra Demeter, during the Board member comments section of a recent Board meeting, gave a cheery speech about how “we really are the best.” In glowing terms and in complete denial of the District’s recent record of test scores and college admissions, she philosophized about how, without any hard and fast criteria, she simply felt we are the best.

Well, test scores and college admissions to the contrary, if Demeter’s intuition is correct and we really are the best, then why can’t we find capable candidates for an assistant principal vacancy from within?

Unfortunately, if none of all of this seems to make any sense, it doesn’t.

We have a Board majority that will say anything to support the antics of an administration that seemingly cares neither about logic, nor continuity, nor the best interests of the students, but instead gives the appearance of running the District as their own personal – albeit slightly loony – fiefdom.

Thank goodness we have Steven Fenton and Brian David Goldberg as the voices of sanity on the School Board. At the Board’s July 8 meeting, both Goldberg and Fenton pointed out the flaws in the District’s appointment process. At each turn, they were met by more excuses, denials and contradictions. G-d forbid that McVeigh, Straus or the Myras or Nooshin should have admitted that the selection process could have and should have placed a greater emphasis on trying to promote from within. G-d forbid that they should have admitted that not giving a single internal candidate an interview was, plain and simple, a bad mistake.

Oy Canada

No, instead of taking time to reflect on the implications of their “anything goes” policy, the superintendent and Board majority seem to egg on, or at least tolerate surrogates who try to swiftboat Fenton and especially Goldberg. Particularly permit parent extrordinaire, Marc Forman, has taken several occasions to criticize Fenton and Goldberg’s stance on out-of-district permits. Forman, who lives in BHPO, evidently and for some unknown reason feels that his kids are entitled to attend BHUSD schools. Forman’s attacks invariably seem to be directed at Goldberg, whom Forman has gone so far as to call a “racist” and “hypocrite.”

Evidently, Forman’s little pro-permit outbursts are the Board majority’s guilty pleasure, and they seem to bask in at least some kind of roundabout appreciation of their own no-permit-left-behind policy, even if it does come from the somewhat predictable source of… well, a permit parent. It also seems like they savor the oh-so predictable attacks on Goldberg and Fenton, who have strongly opposed the majority’s permit policy.

At a recent Board meeting, Forman was given the honor of leading the assembly in the flag salute. Forget the whole matter of the appropriateness of Board president Demeter’s consciously giving someone who had savagely trashed her Board colleague a duty which is usually reserved for distinguished guests. What is even more ironic about Forman’s taking the lead in pledging allegiance to the United States of America is that Forman isn’t even an American citizen: he’s Canadian. Perhaps he should have belted out his best version of “O Canada,” though he could have spared the Board the French version, which, considering the proposed cutbacks of French teachers, just might have been a bit frustrating for the grammar school Francophiles.

I really have to wonder where the whole sense of entitlement comes from, as if non-BH kids should have some kind of innate right to attend BH schools. Part of his “argument” seems to be that he and his family make a contribution to the schools through participation in the PTA, the schools’ cultural life, etc. Interesting tack and whoop-di-doo. I’m sure that many Americans would be happy to contribute to Canada by rooting for the Leafs – for all the good it’d do. I wonder if Forman thinks that they all should be entitled to go to Canada for free medical care, ay? I wonder if he thinks that Americans should have the right to vote in Canadian elections, ay? I wonder how he distinguishes between a “right” and a “privilege,” ay?

Now I admit that this would seem to be the appropriate juncture to let rip a whole string of Canada jokes and “South Park: The Movie” quotations, such as “When Canada is dead and gone, there’ll be no more Celine Dion.” Or maybe even for new, Beverlyized verses of “Blame Canada”: “When Beverly is Basic Aid, will Forman stop with his charade?” But I’ll save such timbits – I mean tidbits – for a later column. Let’s just say that in his efforts to swiftboat Brian Goldberg, Marc Forman rather comes off as Doug McKenzie on angry pills.

Poor Fenton and Goldberg are going to have to suffer through another 16 months or so of this kind of mischugas, condoned by their Board majority colleagues, but the clarion call of “4-1 in ‘09” is already ringing throughout the City and the continuing shenanigans of that wacky Board majority and the zany administration just make it that much louder and clearer and urgent.

Goldberg-Fenton: biding their time

Goldberg and Fenton are going to have to suffer through another 16 months or so of inveterate note-passing during Board meetings between McVeigh and the various Board majority members. Yes, what you don’t see on the telecasts of the Board meetings is the frequent passing of notes between our superintendent and her Board majority supporters. And I thought that the whole point of Board meetings was to have open discussions. And I thought that note-passing in school was frowned upon. And I thought that the way teachers dealt with note-passing was to confiscate the notes of the offenders and to read them in front of the whole classroom. “If what you have to say in the note is so interesting, maybe you can share it with the whole class, too.” I can just envision making a PRR to be able to read all of these communications: Public Records Request #586C for note passed between BHUSD Superintendent Kari McVeigh and School Board Member Myra Lurie. I’m not sure, though, that I'd know what to make of all the doodles and drawings.

When Goldberg and Fenton were elected to the Board last year, I had hoped that the message that their election had sent would be heard by both the other Board members and by the administration. Goodness knows, both Fenton and Goldberg have reached out to their colleagues and tried to forge compromises on a variety of issues. However, with each such attempt, it becomes increasingly clear that the main raison d’etre of the Board majority seems to be to thwart any Goldberg/Fenton initiative simply because it is a Goldberg/Fenton initiative. And the administration seems more concerned with keeping their jobs and getting jobs for their families and buddies than in actually restoring the BHUSD to its status as a Lighthouse District, with all that this implies.

"4-1 in '09"

Yes, it seems increasingly clear that the clarion call of “4-1 in ‘09” is also a call to clean house, and I’m not just talking about a lighter spring cleaning of the somewhat cosmetic variety. No, it’s going to be time for a wholesale house cleaning, complete with the requisite yard sale in order to deal with the lingering effects of years of a Board majority and administration that seem so obsessively committed to utter mediocrity.

Superintendent McVeigh evidently already has seen the writing on the wall. She is reported to have been shopping her CV all around the State, with no takers up to now. This could be one motivation behind the record $334 million bond that the Board, at McVeigh’s prompting, in a night and fog action and – yet again – without doing the proper homework, want to put before the voters on Nov. 4. In superintending circles, the passage of a big bond issue is considered a big feather in the district superintendent’s cap. Passage of the $334 million bond would undoubtedly make it easier for McVeigh to find her next job. In the meantime, the Board majority, clinging to the last vestiges of a legacy that is best forgotten, seems to be trying to set up Asst Supt Straus for the top job in the event that McVeigh bails.

Beverly bye, Samohi

After the Tabis hire, my main fear if Straus takes over from McVeigh would now be that the aforementioned BHHS “customs, traditions” that supposedly bring glory to the High School might be tweaked a bit to conform more to the Samohi way. In fact, under a District run by Straus, the Beverly alma mater might be changed to:

“Oh Samohi,” sorry, I mean “Oh Beverly.”

“Dear old Beverly Queen of the setting sun.
For you we toil, for you our banners fly.
We win for you when victories won.
All hail to thee, Mighty Beverly.
Faith in the ne'er will fail.
For the love that we give is thy po'er to live.
To thee, All Hail!”

I’m guessing we’d also have to be prepared for a BHHS team name change in a Straus BHUSD. And for all of you who would bemoan the change of the High School team name from the Normans to the Vikings, may I remind you all that at one point the Normans were the Tatars. So what’s the big deal? What’s another small change from one group of marauding invaders to another?

In addition to the advent of Victor and Vicky Viking as the High School’s new mascots, a Straus BHUSD would include interesting nuggets of Samohi trivia on the back of hall passes. In fact, there might even be an elective course entitled “From Sean Penn to Robert Downey, Jr: Famous Samohi Alumni.”

The Samohi “Seniority, Maturity, Honesty, Sincerity” motto would be adopted as our new Beverly credo, but we would have to figure out some kind of credible rationalization not to lose the first word, since “seniority” doesn’t seem to be high on the list of McVeigh or Straus’s values.

And as much as I’ll miss the old alma mater and long for the good old days of our Beverly Hills Unified School Lighthouse District, there may indeed be an advantage to the impending Santa Monicazation of the District: maybe we can also get the good citizens of the City of Santa Monica to fund the impending $334 million bond issue.

Because I sure know what the answer to the question is when I ask myself whether I want to have my taxes raised in order to entrust a school administration that evidently doesn’t really understand the concepts of “accountability,” “impartiality,” "process" or even, scarily enough, “homework” with $334 million of our residents’ hard-earned money…

Gardening the Garden City

Summer Reflections on BH Green, the JPA, Basic Aid and the Sacramento/BH Connection

by J.A. Mirisch

Summer is upon us and that generally means a shortage of local news. Indeed, the ongoing saga of the Hilton mega-expansion and the possible referendum will provide a headline or two or three after the City Council meets tomorrow, July 8. And, yes, there was a recent email from Beny Alagem to his constituents that is of interest. I may not be able at some point in the future to resist deconstructing Beny’s latest missive (which, in all honesty, was most probably written by his PR wags) and I will most certainly return to the Hilton expansion, which may represent a major watershed in the battle over Beverly Hills’s soul; but for today, at least, I’m going to take a vacation from the referendum, Waldorf condo towers, dirty tricks, conflicts of interest and FAR’s – well, for the most part, at least.

And, no, for that vacation I won’t be staying at a Hilton. Local events have completely destroyed any brand equity the Hilton might have, and if I never stay at another Hilton again, it will be too soon. Not to worry: as someone who does a fair bit of traveling, I have to admit that whenever choosing a major chain, I always did prefer the Starwood group’s hotels, not to mention the Hyatt group. The whole Hilton expansion and the ham-fisted methods they have used to try to get their way may just be a local phenomenon, but the Hilton’s naughty behavior just seems to confirm my own hotel preferences; the nastier the Hilton gets in their campaign, the more damage they may end up doing to their own brand – and not just in BH. And this, in turn, will make it just that much more difficult for Hilton to achieve their long-standing goal of becoming just like the Starwood Group when they grow up…

In any event, rather than simply react to development projects which are not in keeping with the character of Beverly Hills, I’d like to use this vacation from the Hilton and 9900 Wilshire to look at some ideas which actually might serve to enhance the character and feel of our City.

The Green, Green Grass of BH

For starters, we actually have to look no farther than across the street from the Hilton. No, not towards El Rodeo or the Wilshire side of the Hilton triangle. I’m talking about the Santa Monica side. Starting out at Starbucks, which is where the sorely missed Wilson’s House of Suede and Leather was located, there is a strip of land between Little Santa Monica and Big Santa Monica which stretches westward to Century City. On the Little Santa Monica side, across from the Peninsula Hotel, old Friars’ Club and old YMCA, there are a number of small boutiques and restaurants. I suppose this is the appropriate place to lament the loss of the Eva Redick Music Studio, which used to be located on this strip. On the Santa Monica side of this little island, there is… well, not much. The Santa Monica side of street stretches from Century City to the Wilshire-Santa Monica intersection and is directly across the street from the length of most of the Hilton’s property. The area is fenced off and the view today is essentially the backside of the buildings housing the boutiques and restaurants on Little Santa Monica.

Yes, there is ample room for improvement. I don’t know how many times during the recent Hilton and 9900 Wilshire discussions we’ve heard people talking about “Gateway Statements” at the varied entrances to our City. In reference to the 9900 condo towers and Hilton, much of the talk seems to have been directed at the Wilshire gateway, but the eastbound Santa Monica entry to BH is also a gateway deserves to be discussed. And, as said, it is not a pretty sight.

The barren strip across from the Hilton seems to have been home to trolley tracks at one point in our ancient history, shrouded in mystery. I seem to recall tracks that extended further westward down Santa Monica towards where the Century City mall is now located. I understand that the property is zoned T2, which means that it can only be used for transportation, parking, or possibly as the site for an Arnold Schwarzenegger museum. I also understand that the property was purchased several years ago on the cheap by a development group that was speculating that they could get the property rezoned for commercial or residential use. And with the voting record of our City Council and the dominance of the Developer-Land Use Lawyer Complex at City Hall, who can blame them?

In fact, it’s a pretty good business model: buy land that is zoned T2 dirt cheap because the use of the land is restricted, and increase the value of that land exponentially by getting it rezoned for commercial or residential uses. It’s an instant way to create tremendous wealth, with the added beauty of not having to share any of the wealth with those who create the preconditions for such an increase in value – namely the City Council. As we know, the City Council – with the noted and extreme exception of Councilmember Nancy Krasne – as they have shown time and time again, see no reason for the City to significantly share in the wealth that special entitlements create. And this wimpiness with developers has only served to make the developers even bolder in their expectations and demands. OK, at least the City Council has treated us to a lesson in Basic Human Behavior 101.

But rather than this free lesson, I think we and our City would be better served by a Council with at least a little Vision with a capital “V” and maybe even some guts to match. Vision and guts.

Park Avenue

As suggested by a number of people, including, notably, Planning Commission Chair Noah Furie, who does share a vision for the City, the Santa Monica strip should be a park, all the way from the BH border in the west to the intersection of Wilshire and Santa Monica. The City should purchase the land and build some much needed underground parking to serve the area, and the above ground stretch would be an extension of Beverly Gardens, which runs along Wilshire. The restaurants on Little Santa Monica could be encouraged to extend their service to sidewalk cafes facing the park. The gateway to BH would even be perfect for a bridle path; whoops, there I go again, delving into a past that never was… OK, let’s make it a bike path, which would really be a revolutionary concept in Beverly Hills.

While a Beverly Garden gateway from Century City into Beverly Hills would be a wonderful enhancement to our moniker of “The Garden City,” it would also be a specific and massive improvement for both the Hilton and the 9900 condo towers because it would beautify the eyesore across the street. It would be, well, a transformation from concrete to gardens. Let’s see: where I have heard that before? Since both the 9900 condos and the Hilton would be the primary beneficiaries of the Santa Monica extension of the Beverly Gardens, the Council could have shown a little vision and guts by including this plan in all of the negotiations with the 9900 condo tower and Hilton negotiators. As a precondition for any entitlements over and above previous zoning and the General Plan limits, the City Council should have made the Hilton and 9900 developers foot the bill for the purchase and repurposing of the T2 strip to gardens.

Alas, no guts, as they say, no glory. And no gardens.

The City Council blew an opportunity to get the Hilton and 9900 developers to pay for the extension of the Beverly Gardens on Santa Monica, but that doesn’t mean that this or a future Council should drop the idea of turning the eyesore into something that could and would make our City a greener, more beautiful place.

First of all, the Council should make it clear to the speculators who own the property, that no way, no chance, no how will the Council even consider rezoning the property from its current T2 status. The Council should then work out a deal with the property owners to purchase the property. Yes, the City should give the speculators a fair return on their investment, but this should be based on the actual purchase price and not what the property would be worth if rezoned. Now, since the City probably doesn’t have enough money to purchase and develop a park and parking, it would probably be necessary to put the project on the ballot as a bond issue. On the other hand, a large portion of the funding could probably be found by redirecting some of the tens of millions of dollars that have been earmarked for a grandiose, but unnecessary makeover of Roxbury Park.

Old-school green

While we are at it, and in keeping with the vision of enhancing our City’s stature as “The Garden City,” the bond issue should also include funds for the purchase of property in East Beverly Hills for the creation of a park, and perhaps parking, if appropriate. There are no parks in South BH along the stretch between Roxbury Park at the very west end of the City and La Cienega Park at the east end. Why not, for example, purchase the property on the north side of Olympic between Wetherly and Almont, which is currently being used as a parking lot for a car dealership? Including funds for a park in a bond issue (or, better yet, taking them from the “Roxbury Park Fund”) would create balance by creating new green spaces in both the western and undergreened eastern portions of BH.

For all the talk of making our City “G.R.E.E.N.” (and for the life of me, I can’t remember just what this cutesy acronym stands for: was it maybe “Good. Renewable. Energy-efficient. Effective. Nice.”?) how about also making our City greener in the original, old-school sense of the word?

Pardon me if I may express a modicum of skepticism that the Council majority may not share my vision of Beverly Hills as the Garden City. It’s almost as if their own conception of BH as the Garden City is a riff on their interpretation of New Jersey as the Garden State after only having driven on the NJ Turnpike. Of course, Jersey is a garden state, but you’d never know it if your sole experience of the state were the Turnpike.

Anyway, let’s hope that a true, old-school version of green and not a Turnpike Beverly Hills is what awaits us and, more than just hoping, why don’t we all try to help create a greener BH. It really is time that we actually start, to quote the great Beny Alagem, turning concrete to gardens. And, yes, without any strings or condos attached.

JPA – Not a blank check

When it comes to the recently approved JPA, there were a few strings attached, and also a few warnings, particularly from Councilmember Linda Briskman. In one of those “anything is possible” moments, pigs were flying and I found myself in broad agreement with Briskman, though I felt she forgot at least one very important point in her stern comments. Never mind. The other councilmembers seemed to be more interested in happy talk than in assuring that the increased JPA funds would go to good and sensible use and would not simply be used to pad an already bloated School District administration.

Briskman was all “tough love” and correctly addressed the need for accountability and for the School District not to come to rely on the JPA as a crutch or “bail out”; she used the occasion of the JPA renewal to admonish the District to put its own house in order. Well done.

What neither Briskman – nor any other of the councilmembers – addressed was the issue of an increasing number of permit students admitted to the District. The math is fairly easy: with the number of out-of-district students within the BHUSD approaching 20%, a $40 million JPA over 4 years means that the City is effectively giving $8 million to the Los Angeles Unified School District (OK, there may be some permit students from other Southland school districts, but by far the bulk of the permit students would otherwise belong to the LAUSD). That is $8 million that the City could have used on services for residents that we are now using for non-BH kids. That is $8 million that the City, which is constantly crying poor in order to justify spot-zoning, undoubtedly could have used within the City.

Unfortunately, the issue was totally ignored, but the fact that $8 million of the City’s money is effectively going to LA kids is not acceptable and simply highlights why the permit issue needs to be dealt with on a number of levels.

A Basic strategy for the District

The simplest, best and most elegant solution is for the BHUSD to become a basic aid district. In short, this would mean that the District would be fully funded by local property taxes, rather than have to depend on revenue from the State based on the number of students (actually, the “average daily attendance,” acronymed as ADA). It would mean there is no financial incentive to admit out-of-district kids, since additional students would just dilute the property tax funding available to the District. (I would, however, continue to allow teachers and staff to send their kids to the District schools; this is a perk that they deserve).

Under such a scenario and with good planning, we would have a year or two’s notice before we switch from the current, State-funded method of financing to basic aid. That would allow the families of current permit students a transition time to plan ahead for the elimination of permits. Families could either make preparations to send their kids to other schools, and would have plenty of time to investigate and apply to private schools, if that was their choice, or – and this is by far the most preferable solution – they could actually move into Beverly Hills and truly become both invested in our Community.

Basic aid funding would have the likely advantages of having increased per pupil spending, smaller class sizes and more individual attention. It would also likely protect us from arbitrary State budget cuts, such as the District is now painfully having to experience. Of course, becoming a basic aid district does not excuse the School Board and administration from the need and responsibility to put the District’s budget to the best possible use, something they seem to have had a problem with in the past. Then, as now, the focus needs to be the classroom, as opposed to administration.

The prospect of the BHUSD reaching basic aid status is not, as some have suggested, a reason for the City Council to approve out-of-scale development projects that aren’t in keeping with the character of our Community. We don’t need to sell out the soul of the City to achieve basic aid status, as despite the general economic downturn, property prices are much more stable in BH than in other parts of the country. Also, wouldn’t reducing the number of permit students, i.e. “right-sizing” the District as Board member Brian Goldberg has suggested, bring us that much closer to becoming a basic aid district? Unfortunately, it doesn’t seem as if the administration has sufficiently done their own homework and seriously explored the basic aid option, taking into account any number of relevant issues and options. Unfortunately, the solution of the District administration, and, by extension, the School Board majority over the past few years has simply been to open up the floodgates of permits to get the additional ADA money, a “policy,” if you can call it that, which seems both ill-advised and short-sighted.

We will get to basic aid sooner or later, but until that happens, the Council should have demanded that an increase in the JPA funding be linked to a decrease in out-of-district permits. Yes, as Briskman pointed out, there needs to be accountability for the funds – and I’m sure that all of those parents and residents that lobbied the Council for increased JPA funding also agree that the money should be well-spent. But if, as Briskman pointed out, the BHUSD shouldn’t look to the City for a bail out, then there is no reason whatsoever that the City should be spending its money to help bail out the LAUSD.

A $40 million shot in the arm from the Council is all the more reason to heed the immortal words of BH Weekly publisher Josh Gross: “We want Beverly Hills schools for Beverly Hills kids and we’re not backing down.”

Tying the JPA to permits is the kind of “tough love” that the District would need and we didn’t get it from any of the councilmembers, not even Linda Briskman. And as well-placed as Linda Briskman’s “tough love” speech on the JPA was, it does seem somewhat incongruous with her “free love” approach towards developers and land use lawyers.

Persisting permit problem

Both Board members Brian Goldberg and Steven Fenton continue to try to make good on their campaign platforms to deal with the permit problem, but there is very little headway to be made being a part of a 2-3 minority. The legacy permits that were recently passed were an attempt by Fenton and Goldberg to ensure that permit recipients should at least have some ties to the Community, if out-of-district permits were unavoidable, as they seem to be with the current Board majority. However, the end product of the legacy permit discussions led to regulations that were so restrictive that Goldberg ended up voting against them. It was an effective strategy on the part of the Board majority to kill the original intent of the legacy permit proposal. So now, in order to qualify for a legacy permit, your grandparents have to have been BH residents for at least 20 years AND one of your parents has to be a BHUSD alum AND either your first name has to be Beverly OR your last name has to be Hills AND you have to have qualified for an “opportunity” permit anyway AND… Essentially, this watering down of the legacy permit concept means that there is no change in the status quo – which, of course, was the Board majority’s goal all along.

The whole legacy permit debate is just another reason why, with the majority doing the bidding of the administration rather than giving them direction, and with another Board election coming up next year, the motto of all those concerned with the District’s welfare should be “4-1 in ‘09”.

And while I’m convinced that a 4-1 majority in 2009 led by Brian Goldberg and Steven Fenton would be just what the District would need and would deal with all sorts of issues from basic aid to college admissions to permits and right-sizing, I have to admit that I’m torn about whether I want to see Steven Fenton on the Board at the end of 2009. No, don’t think I’m proposing a Fenton recall. Yes, I know we need Steven on the Board in 2009.

Political twofer

But I have other ways in mind about how Steven could help Beverly Hills, and how, in the process, he could also do a very good deed for the concerned citizens of our neighboring megalopolis. And, yes, full disclosure: Steven is a friend, so I’m unabashedly biased.

I’d like to see Steven run for State Assembly, say, for the seat representing the 42nd District. That’s right, our District. And, yes, Steven is a friend, so I’m unabashedly biased.

Clearly, Steven won’t and can’t run this November. Current Assemblyman Mike Feuer is running for re-election and he will most certainly win. Fenton also needs to continue his work on the Board. In 2010, Feuer would still be eligible for a further term, before being termed out in 2012. Sure, Steven could run for the seat in 2012 if Mike Feuer decides to stay put until then. But, actually, I’m hoping that Mike Feuer will consider moving back to the LA area from Sacramento. I’d love to see Mike Feuer challenge and defeat BH grad Jack Weiss for the job of LA City Attorney, which would create the ultimate win-win situation. The people of LA would win because they would get Mike Feuer, and not Jack Weiss, as City Attorney. And the people of BH, not to mention the rest of the 42nd District, would win if Steven Fenton ran for the assembly seat that Feuer would vacate in order to save LA from Jack Weiss.

Yes, indeed, our Congressman, Henry Waxman, is often listed as D-Beverly Hills, even though we are but a small part of his district. And Waxman, as cool, trendy and influential as he is, can’t really be considered a “local boy.” There have been a few natives who have served in various capacities in State and Federal government: Alan Sieroty and Mel Levine come to mind. But as I understand it, BH has never had one of its own homegrown sons or daughters go on to represent the City in a higher state or federal office after having served in local BH government. Why shouldn’t we have one of our own move on to higher office? A Steven Fenton move from the BH School Board to the State Assembly would also be a political move that would nicely compliment the achievement of Steven’s dad, Frank, the Rita Moreno of BH politics, who is the only person ever to have been a councilmember, School Board member and City Treasurer.

Assemblyman Fenton of the 42nd district would represent a wonderful opportunity for both Fenton and for the City whose welfare he holds near and dear. You can bet your bottom dollar that Fenton would fight to make sure that Beverly Hills’s interests are heard in Sacramento, not to mention the broader interests of the entire district.

Of course, under this scenario, before Mr. Fenton goes to Sacramento, we need to make sure that a Goldberg-Fenton School Board majority is secure by finding and electing Fentonesque and Goldbergesque candidates in 2009 and beyond. And especially considering our swim gym's supporting role in"It's A Wonderful Life," realizing the vision of "4-1 in '09" would be an ending – and a beginning – for the School District that could only be described as Capraesque.

Once Upon a Time in Beverly Hills

Keep on Shlepping: The Incredible but True Story of the Beverly Hilton and Some Dedicated Shleppers

By J.A. Mirisch

Don’t ask me why, but maybe it’s because baseball season is in full swing. And despite the sinking fortunes of the Dodgers and the sinking feelings of chastened Dodger fans, who have learned what frustration is over the past 20 years, baseball, America’s game, sets the rhythm of days that are now rapidly moving from Spring to Summer. Perhaps that’s why, in thinking about the unlikely grass-roots efforts to gather enough signatures to put the Hilton expansion on the ballot, I can’t help but somehow repeatedly hear the classic words of famed broadcaster Mel Allen: “How about that?”

After the lilt of Allen’s signature line fades, a much more familiar voice suddenly turns itself on in my mind’s ear. The voice is none other than our own poet laureate, the amazing Vin Scully, and the words, from an immortal but distant moment in LA Dodger history are now spoken in a quite different context: “In a year that has been so improbable, the impossible has happened.”

Finally, since baseball is a game of counterbalances and surprise twists and turns, the words of Yogi Berra, “It ain’t over till it’s over,” come rushing into my consciousness.

“How about that?”

“In a year that has been so improbable, the impossible has happened.”

And, finally, as if to remind ourselves that hitting a grand slam doesn’t necessarily mean winning a game and that winning a crucial game isn’t always the same as winning the World Series:

“It ain’t over till it’s over.”

Well, it ain’t over yet, but whatever the outcome, the efforts of the rag-tag, grass-roots group that spent the better part of three weeks gathering signatures to put the Hilton expansion on the ballot are nothing short of remarkable in so many ways.

An Audience with Pope

Last Thursday afternoon, May 29, boxes filled with signatures in tow, a group of ordinary residents turned in some 3200 signatures to Beverly Hills City Clerk Byron Pope in a rousing example of democracy in action. About 2200 valid signatures are required to overturn the City Council’s 3-2 vote on the General Plan Amendment, a vote which allowed the Hilton to add three skyscrapers to the property, in addition to the existing “iconic” hotel building. The effect of overturning the Council’s split decision would be to put the matter to a vote in the November elections, allowing the residents to decide directly, and it was my personal experience that both of these points were very clearly made during the circulation of the petitions and that any misleading or twisting of facts came almost exclusively from the Hilton’s massive propaganda machine.

It now remains for the County registrar-recorder to certify the requisite number of signatures, but even with disqualifications and even with the prospect of the Hilton’s political machine having gotten a number of signers to rescind their signatures, 3200+ signatures should be enough to qualify the Hilton expansion for a referendum, leaving the voters of Beverly Hills, and not the lobbyists, to decide the matter.

How about that?

The efforts of the ad hoc group, The Citizens’ Right to Decide Committee, are all the more remarkable considering the considerable opposition they faced. The odds for the Citizens’ were much worse than for the Miracle Mets of 1969 or the ’55 Brooklyn Dodgers, whose rallying cry was always “Wait till next year” but who in 1955, for the first time in their history, could say “This is next year.”

Well, this is next year, and the Mets of ’69 or the Dodgers of ’55 would have to be considered dominant favorites when compared with the odds that faced the BH resident group. Actually, the efforts of the Citizens’ ad hoc committee may come closer to what was achieved by the US Olympic Hockey Squad of 1980, which defeated Czechoslovakia and the Soviet Union in the now legendary “Miracle on Ice.” Or perhaps the Indian villagers, led by Bhuvan, whose cricket squad somehow, some way, managed to best the British colonial regimental team in the film classic “Lagaan.”

Enough hyperbole?

Not really. These sports comparisons simply don’t do justice to the efforts of the Citizens’ Right to Decide Committee, led by Larry “Mike Eruzione” Larson. Let’s face it: Larry has his detractors and, personally, I think that he has indeed sometimes strayed from his points and gotten way too personal, occasionally creating the impression of a radical who is way “out there.” But in his role leading the referendum efforts he has been focused and on message; he has kept his nose to the grindstone, and along with a number of other committed residents, never lost sight of the goal or the reason it needed to be achieved. Think what you will of some of their unnecessary and counterproductive attacks in the past, but in spearheading the signature-gathering efforts, these committed volunteers and residents worked like Trojans to try make our City a better and more resident-friendly place by countering a rich and relentless developer’s uneven firepower.

Taking back the City from the claws of the Developer-Land Use Lawyer Complex

With absolutely no personal financial gain at stake, in stark contrast to the various cogs within the Hilton propaganda machine, the Citizen’s Right to Decide Committee worked tirelessly to wrest, at least in small part, control of our City back from a culture of “Developers and Lobbyists Run Wild” that seems to have gained a virtual stranglehold over City Hall. From the beginning, Larson got down and dirty in the trenches and stayed there until the very minute the signature books were handed over to Byron Pope. Credit where credit is due. Respect.

Just what was the Citizen’s Right to Decide Committee up against? Just why would even simply qualifying the referendum for the ballot be a case of the Miracle Mets, ’55 Brooklyn Dodgers, the 1980 US Olympic hockey team and the Champaner cricket squad all rolled up into one?

Consider this:

The Citizen’s Committee was funded by the residents themselves and received no substantial contributions from any major business interests. This stands in stark contrast to the Montage referendum, funded in large part by the Peninsula, which undoubtedly hoped that it could stifle the competition.

This time, the pro-referendum forces were outspent about a zillion to one by the Hilton. And the Hilton’s über-aggressive campaign to crush all opposition and swat those pesky residents was nothing short of unprecedented in the history of Beverly Hills. Not even the pro-Montage troops, with their now-famous “blockers” could compete with the forces of Hilton capo Beny Alagem.

Tammany Hilton

Beny had political consultants, he had field operatives, he had strategists, he had lawyers – a lot of them (and more on that a bit later). He had ex-mayors, who wrote letters for him, made calls, and used their influence at City Hall. These ex-mayors were and are just a small portion of the guns hired by the heavy-handed Hilton to stuff the project through to entitlement in a form that is most profitable for the Hilton rather than best for the City. They had and still have scores of other lobbyists.

Beny had PR experts, media spin, media control and media manipulation advisors. While he didn’t have “blockers,” undoubtedly a result of the advice given by his PR gurus, he did have “shadowers” who followed and kept tabs on the resident signature-gatherers as they went through the arduous process, trudging through the City, talking to their neighbors and gathering signatures. He had legions of paid minions, who went door to door, canvassing the City and trying to make the unconvincing case to the residents that his project and his profits really are the same thing as the BH residents’ best interests. And when that didn’t work, they could always try the failsafe of threatening to cut City services – and they did. He had telemarketing companies call repeatedly to residents with the same aim in mind. Some people received up to six calls, not so subliminally trying to convince them of the supremacy of the Hilton expansion, euphemistically referred to as a “revitalization.” Some of those with caller ID noted that the calls were from a 202 area code – from Washington, D.C. Of course, nothing but the finest in slick and tested lobbyist operatives direct from our Nation’s capital. And, of course, the BH residents were also treated to the hard-copy output of the Hilton’s pricey political propaganda machine.

Oh, sure, you’ve seen the slick, glossy brochures which for months were mailed and sometimes hand-delivered to your home, with an increasing frequency and sense of immediacy, almost verging on panic in the final stages of the signature-gathering efforts. You know, the fold-out that touted how the Hilton was turning concrete into lush gardens, without mentioning the three new skyscrapers or why after a recent $80 million renovation the hotel still looked like a dump. The various booklets that purported to show the support of all of the residents, including the classic “look for the union label” motif, featuring dozens of smiling residents and Friends O’Beny peering up at the camera and into a bright tomorrow (one can just envision that they are all peering upwards looking at the multiple construction cranes blocking the view of the sky). And then there was the brochure that touted all of the benefits to the City without mentioning any of the costs. And the brochure that spoke of “revitalizing” an old, though “iconic” hotel and that never showed any artist rendering of three new skyscrapers on the property. Remember the brochure that admonished you not to sign those suspect petitions being circulated by your shady, snake-oil salesmen neighbors. And, finally, the brochure that urged you to rescind your petition signatures, should you have been mistakenly duped by those same unscrupulous neighbors. Oh, yes, there were also invitations to wine and cheese parties at the Hilton with free valet parking so you could stop by the “Rescind Your Signature” headquarters that the Hilton politicos had set up at the hotel especially for the occasion.

An uneven battle? Do you really think so?

As if Beny and the Hilton’s financial and tactical resources weren’t enough, how about all of the handicaps, hurdles and hardships faced by the Citizen’s Committee?

Handicapping the handicapped

How about what can only be described as the roadblocks used by some of the City Hall staff, which forced the resident signature gatherers to shlep around over 2000 pages of materials– something which is unprecedented in the history of California?

Many of those active in the group were elderly and/or infirm and the sheer bulk, size and weight of the petition documents made it difficult, if not downright impossible for them exercise their democratic rights and to participate in this form of direct democracy.

Because of the tight time frame, there would hardly have been an opportunity to file a complaint under the ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act), though the City’s insistence on 15.5 lb petitions most certainly goes against the spirit of that law by effectively taking away the opportunity of infirm and handicapped residents to circulate the petitions.

The signature gatherers also effectively lost a week because of the City’s über-strict requirements, having to copy over 120,000 pages, all the while making sure that the petitions, appended documents and files were produced strictly by the book. For a City Hall that prides itself on being “smart” and “green” (or is it G.R.E.E.N.?), the almost half ton of paper that the Citizens’ group was forced to use seems seriously at odds with the environmentally friendly façade the City Officials want our town to be known for. Yes, copying and preparing 15.5 lb petitions takes time, organizing and energy, and with a 30 day time limit, the sacrifice of the week spent creating glatt kosher petitions represented an almost 25% loss from an already impossibly tight time frame.

The grassiest of roots

And then there was the all-volunteer, all-resident corps of concerned and committed citizens. Not only did they have to shlep the 15.5 lb boxes around, sometimes carrying them up stairs, around driveways and over curbs. They had to endure heat and rain. They had to face neighbors who had been poisoned by the misinformation being spread by the Hilton’s political propaganda machine and the small army of paid operatives and shadowers who fanned out over BH. Let’s face it: the signature gatherers, myself included, were looked upon by many – quite literally – as a group of poor shleppers, lugging around boxes on trolleys. But the interesting thing about these shleppers is that all the signatures, every last one of the 3200+ signatures turned in, was gathered by these resident-shleppers. The Citizens’ Right to Decide Committee, perhaps very foolishly, and breaking every rule in the standard and established playbook of the local initiative/referendum industry did not employ any professional signature-gatherers.

As one of the experienced paid political consultants hired by the Hilton told me: no group in the history of the City has ever gathered enough signatures to qualify a measure for the ballot without the help of professional signature-gatherers. In other words: since Beny had preemptively hired all of the potential signature gathering firms, getting enough signatures simply could not be done by a band of simple residents, however devoted or well-intentioned. Remember, this was the professional opinion of one of the Hilton’s own very respected, paid political consultants.

How about that?

It’s a little bit as if the New York Yankees would play the BHHS junior varsity squad, with the Normans only getting two strikes per at bat, two outs per inning and six fielders, while being forced to slow-pitch to a Yankee offense which, in turn, was given five balls per at bat and four outs per inning.

Should the County officials certify enough signatures to reverse the City Council’s 3-2 split decision and force a referendum, the next round would begin. This is very likely to be a series of flimsy legal challenges from Beny Alagem and the Hilton’s cadre of lawyers, with the further goal of depleting the Citizens’ Right to Decide Committee’s meager resources.

The ironic thing about trying to get the residents’ signature-gathering efforts voided through a legal challenge is that this is the very tactic that the North Homeowners’ were so bitterly accused of after the Montage passed in the referendum. According to Larson, the legal challenges in that case were related to environmental concerns and had been initiated long before the referendum. But never mind, the often repeated criticism makes it sound like the anti-Montage forces were simply poor sports who, when they lost the referendum, decided to take the Montage to court.

I’m wondering if those who criticized the legal action brought against the Montage will be as vocal in criticizing possible legal action against the Citizens’ Right to Decide Committee.

Whatever the case, threatening legal action seems to be the M.O. of these guys, so you can bet a wine and cheese party that there are at least a few frivolous lawsuits in the Citizens’ Right to Decide Committee’s future.

And here I speak from experience.

SLAPP it to me

Having been inundated by the sheer volume of pro-Hilton propaganda, which created a sense of deja vu about my visits to East Berlin in 1986, while I was living in West Berlin, I reminded myself that this is, in fact, America and that I could respond in a way in which I couldn’t in East Berlin.

I have long thought that parody is an effective way to expose and ridicule blatant and active misinformation, the twisting of facts and downright bullying, so I set out to satirize the Hilton’s anti-referendum website, along with all the other glossy brochures, which certainly did put me in mind of some of the best East German and Soviet propaganda from the days when the Berlin Wall was more than just a tourist destination.

As a result, I posted a website under the URL http://www.beverlywaldorf.com/ which parodied the Hilton’s materials and methods. The site had hardly been up more than a few days when I received the following email.

Dear Mr. Mirisch:

We represent Oasis West Realty, LLC., the Beverly Hilton Hotel, Beny Alagem and the proposed Waldorf – Astoria Hotel in Beverly Hills, California.

Your website, beverlywaldorf.com, is in violation of numerous of our clients rights. The site improperly and without authorization uses our clients logos and trade names, including “ the BEVERLY HILTON” and “Waldorf – Astoria”. The site also falsely states that it belongs to Friends of the Hilton and Beny Alagem thereby creating the false impression that this site is posted or authorized by our clients. Additionally, it is replete with false and libelous statements about our clients and their businesses as well as the manner in which they conducts (sic) their businesses.

Demand is hereby made that you immediately take down the site and all other sites which have any reference to our clients.

Failure to do so within 24 hours will result in suit being filed for injunctive relief, temporary restraining orders and for all damages allowable under the law.

Furthermore, if it is determined that your employer [company name] is involved with, or has assisted in the creation of the website, either directly or indirectly, it too will be subject to litigation.

Demand is also made upon you to immediately confirm by return email that you will comply with this demand.

All rights reserved.

Sincerely,
[Lawyer’s name]

What is so interesting – and outrageous – about this letter, is not only its attempt to ignore the fact that we have a Constitution in this country, along with attendant First Amendment rights; as will certainly be known to anyone who has ever graduated from law school, parody is a protected form of free speech, all the more so when its use is strictly non-commercial. Such an implied legal threat is a classic case of a possible “SLAPP” or “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.” Fortunately, California has stringent anti-SLAPP legislation, which aims to avoid just such threats which are solely intended to have a chilling effect on voices that vested political and financial interests try to silence through their virtually limitless financial resources.

Interestingly enough, the 1981 case of Okun vs. Superior Court, in which some Beverly Hills residents who opposed a development were sued for libel as a way to shut them up, became a major factor in the state’s adoption of anti-SLAPP legislation. French wit Alphonse Karr certainly knew what he was talking about when he said “Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.” (Or, roughly, in English: “The more things change, the more they stay the same”).

From the mouths of babes

In the current case, what is even more shocking is the Hilton’s attempt to involve my employer, which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with my involvement in local civic affairs. I happen to be a film distributor, so it hardly takes an Einstein to figure out that I have no professional interests whatsoever in the development issues being discussed before our City Council. It should be self-evident to even the most clueless that my employer has nothing to do with anything that I post on this website or on any other website, for that matter. It should be self-evident, and, of course, it is. So the implied legal threat is nothing more than a blatant attempt to intimidate me, the sole provider for my family, my wife and my twelve-month old baby. Essentially, by threatening to create trouble for me with my employer, the Hilton is trying to shut me up. In a not-so-veiled manner, their tactics have the effect of threatening to take food from my little baby, a baby who happens to be a fifth-generation resident of Beverly Hills. His name is Vincent Bronek Howard Mirisch, and since he is the sweetest little baby in the whole wide world and I will use any opportunity to show the world just how sweet and cute he is, here is the sheyne ponim of the kid the Hilton forces evidently seem to feel a need to threaten with starvation in order to shut me up.

Vin – yes, named after Scully – is the main reason I am doing what I’m doing. He is the reason I went door-to-door to talk to my neighbors and to share my beliefs that the residents, and not the developers, should ultimately decide the make-up of our Community. My own contributions were miniscule compared to the Herculean efforts of others, but it is encouraging that many of my neighbors were so willing to listen and to engage in real dialogue. And it is amazing that despite the limitless resources of the Hilton, so many residents seemed to agree that Beverly Hills is unique and that Community character does matter.

In a year that has been so improbable, the impossible has happened.

Well, not yet, but at least there’s still hope.

Because Beverly Hills is unique, and because there are some things that are worth preserving.

Free speech: ain't it something?

Now, you should know that after receiving the threatening letter from the Hilton, to be on the safe side (and since I was in India at the time, without access to legal advice), I complied with the Hilton lawyers’ demands and took the website down. Wimp. I know. But I am currently in the process of reviewing the content of the parody website with lawyers and expect, after it has been fully vetted, to be able to bring it back on-line in plenty of time for the possible referendum. Believe me, I will keep you posted.

Should I then be slapped with a frivolous lawsuit from the Hilton & Co., in addition to providing more grist for the mill and this blog, it would be SLAPP-back time. The lawyers filing such a suit, as well as their clients, would indeed be subject to anti-SLAPP legal action, as well as possible punitive damages (not to mention bad PR). Thanks to Californian anti-SLAPP legislation, not to mention the Constitution of the United States of America, there are clear and straightforward ways to vigorously defend and preserve First Amendment rights and to continue to exercise the right to participate in local affairs – even if it means saying something that the Hilton might not like to hear.

And although my past trips to East Berlin may be brought to mind by the content and tactics of the Hilton organization – and since East German hotels were never very pleasant, it will likely be a long, long time before I ever stay in a Hilton again by choice – I am so glad to be able to remind myself: this is America. I don’t ever have to stay in a Hilton if I don’t want to.

As an American (and for those who would write me off as a firebrand radical, may I remind you all that I am a registered Republican and I place great value on the "conserve" portion of the word "conservative"), I can only hope that my neighbors will continue to see through the propaganda that is sure to keep on coming in the next few months – probably at an even more frenzied pace, if that is at all possible. I can only hope and trust that this will not be one of those “some of the times” when, to quote that greatest of all Republicans, “you can fool all of the people.” Hopefully, it won't even be one of those times when you can fool a simple majority.

In fact, this just might be BH’s defining Frank Capra moment, when the poor shleppers actually manage to prevail, preserving and strengthening our Community character in the process, and making our City a better place.

This is America.

How about that?

Now, if we could only find a way to help the Dodgers finally win a World Series again…

Mayor Brucker an Anti-Semite? Preposterous! But These Guys Are A Different Story

(Here's the latest "classic" from the guys with 9900 Wilshire ties, published in al-Watan in Qatar less than two weeks ago… )




How rumor-mongering and bad spin are being used to distract from the issues

By J.A. Mirisch

On May 2, 2008, publisher of The Beverly Hills Courier, Clif Smith, wrote of a recent City Council meeting:

“Again the topics of the vitriol and verbal poison were the 9900 Wilshire and Beverly Hilton projects, but the targets were anyone and everyone who did not join the ‘no’ crowd. To them, to have a different view is to be evil. Not just wrong, but evil.

Left among the rubble was a fine member of Temple Emanuel who was (ridiculously) blasted as an ‘anti-Semite.’ Men and women who have served our community for years with dignity and grace were assailed by the most disgusting personal invective imaginable.

Not one fact was offered that related to either project. What was offered was hate – plain and simple.”

It doesn’t require a lot of detective work to deduce that I was, according to Clif Smith, the individual who supposedly blasted the referenced “fine member of Temple Emanuel" as an "anti-Semite." That fine member of Temple Emanuel would be none other than Mayor Barry Brucker.

I mention this not because it’s true – Clif Smith’s claim that such a statement would be ridiculous is absolutely right – but because Mayor Brucker has been suggesting to various people throughout the City, evidently including Clif Smith, that I have been calling him a “Jew-hater” and “anti-Semite,” and that I have been questioning his Judaism to boot.

Here below is the full text of my April 29 address to the City Council. Most of my other comments before the Council are posted on this blog, as are various other articles. In other words: it’s all out there and available for public examination. You be the judge of whether I am accusing the mayor of anti-Semitism, or whether it is something else. And while you’re at it, please also be the judge as to whether “not one fact” relating to the various development projects has been included in any of my comments to the Council or anywhere else on the blog.

Comments to the BH City Council, April 29, 2008

Oscar Wilde once described a cynic as someone who “knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.” When it comes to Beverly Hills, the Council majority that approved 9900 Wilshire and the Hilton seems to fit Wilde’s definition: they continually point out the cost of preserving our Community character, but see no value whatsoever in it. On the other hand, when it comes to revenue created by overdevelopment, the Council seems to know the value of the income generated by these projects, but not their cost to the City.

We consistently hear that the Hilton will generate $700 million over 30 years, but we don’t hear much about potential costs to the City. We don’t hear that everything is relative, and that $700 million over 30 years is not a lot if the site could potentially generate double or triple the revenue for the City.

Of course, we don’t – and this is the problem. The powers-that-be seem more concerned with allowing developers to maximize their profits than with the City’s own revenue streams.

That being said, my compliments to Mayor Brucker, who did listen and managed to get the 19% TOT on the Waldorf. Thank you for that – it’s a start. But it is far from enough.

Let’s use a little common sense, please. The City is giving the Hilton 371,853 square feet of condos. Do the math. At a very conservative figure of $1500 per square foot, the developers have over $557 million in the bag from the get-go.

Could and should the City have gotten more out of the deal? Of course. Ah, yes: common sense.

The culture of bad deals for the City and great deals for developers simply has to stop. First William Morris, then 9900 Wilshire and now the Hilton. That’s 3 strikes. And it is clearly the result of a Council majority that is more concerned about the developers’ profits than the residents’ quality of life. Make no mistake about it: this culture of bad deals is costing us dearly.

Just look at the JPA. If the Council majority hadn’t given away literally hundreds of millions of dollars on the 9900 Wilshire project and now literally hundreds of millions of dollars more on the Hilton, the City would have plenty of money to support the schools. In fact, with that kind of income, maybe the City could have even helped to start up an endowment for the District, providing significant recurring revenue and helping to reestablish the BHUSD’s status as a Lighthouse District.

How unfortunate to think of all the missed opportunities. Simply stated, we have a Council majority which seems to have forgotten that the residents count and Beverly Hills matters, and which, to paraphrase Max Beerbohm, constantly seems to aim low and miss.

Finally, I’d like to say that with all the faults of the Hilton mega-expansion, there is one small consolation: at least the Hilton developers are not involved in spreading anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda. Thank goodness for the little pleasures in life.

Out of thin air

In case it hasn’t been clear from all of my articles and comments, I have never called, described or otherwise tried to paint Mayor Brucker as an anti-Semite or a Jew-hater. I have never tried to call into question his commitment to Judaism. It would simply make no sense whatsoever for me to do so.

What I have, however, done, and will continue to do as is appropriate, is to call into question Mayor Brucker’s tie-breaking vote on the 9900 Wilshire project.

I question his "vision" for our City – and that of the other councilmembers’ in favor of the project. I question his ability to cut the best deal possible for the City – and that of the other councilmembers’ who negotiated the development agreement. And perhaps most relevant in this context, I question his judgment in knowingly, as a committed Jew, approving a project whose developers have been proven to have strong and significant ties with the owner of a newspaper which continues to spread vile anti-Semitic and anti-American propaganda.

If there is any doubt about this last statement, please refer to the previous article “Strange Candy” and, again, judge for yourself. The URL is:

http://www.blogbeverlyhills.com/2008/03/strange-candy.html

Twist and shout

I’m not really quite sure why Mayor Brucker – or anyone else, for that matter – could have interpreted anything I have said or wrote as even mildly suggesting that the Mayor is “anti-Semitic.” If it weren’t so absurd, the suggestion that I have somehow tried to portray Mayor Brucker as an "anti-Semite" would seem like a calculated ploy to try to steer people away from discussing the real issues. I can only guess that Mayor Brucker misread, misheard or misinterpreted something by mistake, but very blatantly. The net effect though, is a twisting of the issues that does not serve the Community, and I would here openly ask the Mayor to stop alleging that I have ever even thought of referring to him as an anti-Semite.

I would also urge Clif Smith to consider the journalistic integrity of the Courier and to check his facts before passing judgment on something that never happened. In this case, by trying to portray Mayor Brucker as a victim of a non-existent attack, Smith simply gives credence to those who suggest that he and the Courier are acting as Mayor Brucker’s mouthpiece rather than as a critical and objective voice in our Community.

The issue at hand

The question still remains unanswered about how Mayor Brucker, as a committed Jew, could consciously look the other way, fully knowing about the developers’ ties to someone who runs a paper which continues to print cartoons that incite to hatred and violence against Jews and Americans alike.

Mayor Brucker was evidently upset that I included a picture of one of al-Watan’s anti-Semitic cartoons in an article that also featured his photograph. It should be a matter of common sense, but for the sake of clarity, I can state for the record that Brucker’s picture was included in the column as he was one of the main decision-makers on the 9900 Wilshire deal. In fact, his vote was the tie-breaker. The al-Watan cartoon itself was featured in the article so that the Community would be able to see the kind of people that the City has chosen to do business with. Was showing the cartoon meant to provoke, shock and shame?

You betcha. Such anti-Semitic and anti-American hate propaganda is nothing short of shocking and it is nothing short of shameful that a majority of our City Council would choose to ignore the connections to Candy and Candy.

But it is nothing short of absurd to suggest that including illustrations of the various aspects of the article, including a photo of Barry Brucker and a cartoon from al-Watan, somehow suggests that Barry Brucker is an anti-Semite or a Jew-hater. There is also a photo of Will Rogers in the article. For the sake of clarity, I will hereby state that the inclusion of Will Rogers's photograph in no way, shape or form should be construed to suggest that our first mayor was an anti-Semite.

Judgment call

On the other hand, I make no bones about suggesting that Barry Brucker’s vote on the 9900 Wilshire project was an example of extremely poor judgment, yes, maybe even cluelessness. I also suggested that Brucker should pay a political price for it come next March for his lack of courage in addressing the issues.

I have also suggested that in addition to willfully ignoring the serious issue of the developer’s investors, Barry Brucker, along with councilmembers Linda Briskman and Frank Fenton, were responsible for a particularly bad deal for the City through the 9900 Wilshire development agreement. As I pointed out, by refusing to go along with Councilmembers Jimmy Delshad and Nancy Krasne’s idea of sharing in a percentage of the income generated by the condo sales, Brucker, Briskman and Fenton would end up costing the City literally hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue.

Open City

Barry Brucker ran for the City Council on a platform of “doing the people’s business in public.” But the specifics of the latest bad deal for the City are anything but clear and public and they can only be the subject of speculation. (OK, now after the Hilton deal was approved, the 9900 Wilshire deal can only technically be referred to as the “second latest bad deal for the City”...).

Yes, we know that if the City had insisted on sharing the upside of the 9900 Wilshire condo sales, the revenue would supposedly have come out of Chris Candy’s share. But aside from a possible desire on the part of Brucker to be liked by Chris Candy, there is no real rhyme or reason as to why this should be an acceptable excuse for the City to forego hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue, especially when the City is always expressing concerns about finances.

Chris Candy must have said something in private to Mayor Brucker. Maybe if and when Brucker queried him about his connections to Sheikh al-Thani, the half-owner of al-Watan, Candy revealed some deep, dark secret, which Brucker somehow felt compelled to protect – along with Candy’s share of the development profits. Did Candy reveal that his own grandparents were, in actuality, Holocaust victims who had changed their names from Zucker to Candy after moving to the UK at the end of WWII? Did Candy spill the beans that if the Candy brothers’ Jewish origins were made public, their Qatari financing and clientele would dry up and their developer days in London would be numbered? Did Candy suggest that if Brucker turned the other way towards the objectionable Candy partners and the awful deal for the City, then Candy would use his influence with Sheikh al-Thani to get kidnapped Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit freed from his Hamas captivity?

This last reason is, in fact, about the only one I can think of that might justify Brucker’s tie-breaking vote, but since Shalit is still captive, I’m guessing that this isn’t what Candy told Brucker. Whatever it was, Brucker’s tie-breaking vote in favor of the development agreement could hardly have been in the City’s interests, and whatever his reasoning, Brucker should still come clean about it. He should fulfill his campaign promise of doing the people’s business in public.

Fair is fair

And as the mayor, Brucker should also be able to take criticism without twisting the facts. But trying to make one's critics responsible for non-existent personal attacks seems to be nothing more than a diversionary tactic with the sole purpose of marginalizing both the critics and the criticism. Feel free to answer the criticism head-on; but avoiding direct and open discussions of the issues by seeming to play a non-existent victim card just isn’t fair. To anybody. And it won’t make the issues go away either.

Had Mayor Brucker been the tie-breaking vote against the 9900 Wilshire project, for the very reason I am so critical of him now, rest assured that I would have been on the front-lines praising him for his decision on a number of fronts.

But the cartoons from al-Watan keep coming, such as the May 7, 2008 cartoon above with the Nazified Jew stereotype cutting off the arms of both Fatah and Hamas and killing peace. And, speaking of arms, yes, it still rankles me that those with such strong ties to these Jew-haters would be welcomed into our Community with such open ones and allowed to profit so richly off the BH cachet. Frankly, I think it should also rankle a lot of right-minded people, including other committed and passionate Jews like the Mayor. If Mayor Brucker really wants to get his dander up about something, then it might be better to get upset about the Candy partners' very real anti-Semitism than about non-existent personal attacks.

BH Actors' Studio: Four Characters in Search of Motivation

By J.A. Mirisch

In the last article (which can be accessed via the archive or under the following URL: http://www.blogbeverlyhills.com/2008/04/bh-city-council-how-to-fail-in-business.html), I presented an excerpt of the new play, “Beverly Hills Cop Out: How to Fail in Business Without Really Trying.”

While, with all due modesty, I feel that the sheer drama rivals much of what’s out there on Broadway today, there are several challenges to overcome before the play has a chance to make it on the Great White Way.

For all its subtlety, nuance and complexity, the piece presents a true challenge for any actors who would assay all but the most subsidiary of roles, and even these walk-on parts, such as the BH City staff member, may yet turn out to be more multi-dimensional than might be deduced from the recent excerpt.

How can the likes of acting greats such as Daniel Day-Lewis, Meryl Streep, Brian Dennehy and Joe Pesci even begin to know what depths to plumb for potential portrayals of Candy, Briskman, Brucker and Alexander? This is one time when the method ain’t gonna work. Chris Candy is no Daniel Plainview and Linda Briskman no Karen Blixen. Trying to live the life, tweak the accent and hope to get the character’s “motivations” will not work here.

So, as promised, I’d like to try to shed some light on certain aspects of the “Cop Out” characters’ motivations, though I make no claims to being either definitive, exhaustive or any combination of the two. My guide to my own characters’ driving inner forces is nothing more than an author’s own feeble attempt to explain the sometimes inexplicable actions of characters that seem to have taken on a life of their own.

Deconstructing the Council Majority

A number of my correspondents have suggested that my BH City Council majority is moved by their own venality, plain and simple. According to this theory, they somehow have to be on the take, because their statements, actions and votes can’t otherwise be explained in any cohesive manner. In what literature professor Jacques Derrida called “l’exclusion,” the theory is that everything that can’t be reasonably explained needs to be boiled down to the least implausible motivational force, considering the actions of the individual characters, rather than looking at the totality of the circumstances. In the theory of “l’exclusion,” the individual characters determine the overall context, rather than the other way around.

The problem with Derrida’s theoretizations has always been that they do not take into account the contextual possibility of a certain measure of inner conflict within the individual characters. This, of course, was Paul de Man’s main problem with a number of aspects of Derrida’s brand of deconstructionism and it’s why both of them retained a certain distance to each other until de Man passed away in 1983.

Nonetheless, there are obviously numerous Derrida acolytes among the Beverly Hills citizenry, and according to them, direct and incontrovertible personal gain has to be the single most important motivational factor for the Council majority, consisting of the hard core of Linda Briskman, Frank Fenton, and, to varying degrees, Jimmy Delshad and Mayor Barry Brucker.

By this theory, those councilmembers who voted in favor of the 9900 Wilshire Condo Towers and those who voted in favor of the Hilton Mega-Expansion, must be on the take, in some form or another. I suspect that even most of the BH Derrida theorists do not believe that any of our councilmembers are the recipients of old-school payola, involving the direct exchange of money or payment-in-kind for specific votes. From what I gather, most Derrida followers believe and hope that those days were over with the end of the Levyn era.

We’ve all heard the allegations that because of his rabidly pro-Hilton stance, Jimmy Delshad simply must have taken a free ride on Beny Alagem’s jet or he simply must have gotten free services for events at the Hilton. In my opinion, the BH Derrida followers are way off-base here. However, since Jimmy Delshad has a rather minor role in “Cop Out” (in fact, he wasn’t even featured in the workshop version published on April 18), I don’t want to lose focus and will return to potential character motivations for the character of Delshad at a later date and in a more suitable context.

Of the current councilmembers, Mayor Barry Brucker and Linda Briskman have the largest roles in “Cop Out” and, as such, we’ll start by trying to explore the possible motivational forces that led their characters to act as they did.

Meryl Streep IS Linda Briskman

Not only in “Cop Out,” but in “The William Morris Saga” before it and the “Hilton Chronicles” after it, the character of Linda Briskman has arguably acted in a very consistent manner.

Unfortunately, for the residents who elected her, it is hardly consistent with what one would expect of an official elected to protect the interests of her constituents. Her actions, words, attitudes, and body language in the aforementioned BH Trilogy are all indicative of an utter disregard and disdain for the residents of Beverly Hills. Perhaps her motivation is an inner disgust with the BH residents, who relegated her to a third-place finish in both her initial election in 2001 and then again in her re-election in 2005. Perhaps council-wise, she is motivated by a genuine maternalistic feeling that the residents are like little children, most of whom have never even graduated from Team Beverly Hills, and who, as such, have neither the experience nor intelligence to say anything that even remotely could approximate sense.

This would seem to explain why, when the residents who have the chutzpah to appear before the City Council speak their three minutes, Briskman hardly ever seems to hear, let alone listen. In fact, sometimes, when the residents attempt to make a point, she tries to physically demonstrate that she won’t even go so far as to hear, looking away distractedly, standing up to pour herself a glass of water, or pointedly leaving the room, as she did when I spoke at a recent Council meeting. I know, I know: there is something extremely Pirandelloesque about an author being dissed by one of his characters...

At a recent Council meeting, Briskman even went so far as to suggest that all the other councilmembers should leave the room whenever a resident said anything they considered to be disagreeable or objectionable. In such cases, said Briskman, “you will always see me get up and leave the room and I urge every single one of my colleagues to do the same, because if there’s nobody here to listen, they’ll stop coming.” Council meetings excluding the residents, without public comment or involvement – well, maybe with the exception of developer fans, groupies and hangers-on – are clearly Briskman’s dream scenario.

On the other hand, when the developers peddling their wares are up before the Council, Briskman sits in rapt attention listening approvingly, almost dreamily at times. When her time comes to comment, Briskman not only sometimes seems to shepherd the applicants protectively, but she also seems to enjoy light-hearted repartee with the Developer-Land Use Lawyer Complex honchos and their paid reps. On occasion you’ll see her listening to some of the developer lobbyists, including a number of ex BH mayors, such as Egerman and Alexander, with what seems to be a combination of pride and extreme admiration, suggestive of the kind of hero-worship that normally seems reserved for little kids who are lucky enough to personally see their baseball idols in action, all the while perhaps dreaming of their own future greatness on the diamond.

My advice to Meryl Streep before she starts prepping for the role of Briskman, would be to look for inspiration to a jewel of a short film featuring the incomparable Leo Fuchs. In what is undoubtedly one of the most underrated gems of Yiddish film history, Fuchs’s performance in “Ich Vill Sayn A Boarder” (or, in English, “I Want To Be A Boarder”) is, by turns, heart-breaking, melancholy and downright farcical, much like Briskman’s own character in the BH Trilogy.

Although there were some rumblings by the Derrida followers about Briskman’s being promised massive discounts to buy a unit in the 9900 Condo Towers or Hilton Condo Towers, I do not believe that her motivation is to become a boarder in either of the new compounds, though she has publicly stated that the idea of living in the proposed condos de luxe does appeal to her. No, Streep should rather think of the “Boarder” Fuchs placed in a slightly different context. Think a female Leo Fuchs starring in the unproduced Yiddish film masterpiece “Ich Vill Sayn A Lobbyist.”

For all the subtlety and texture in the character, I think that most of Briskman’s demeanor and actions in the past, present and future BH dinner theater can be boiled down to this single motivation. Clearly, however, to better understand this aspect of the role, it is necessary to take a look at some of the character’s backstory.

Some girls dream of growing up to be a movie star. Some girls dream of growing up to be a Supreme Court Justice. Some girls dream of growing up to be a Nobel Prize winning scientist. Some girls dream of growing up to be a princess. Little Linda dreamed of growing up to be a lobbyist.

Just picture little Linda at her desk in grammar school, pigtails neatly braided and desk in perfect order, with the secret treasure of her collection of Phillip Morris and Exxon lobbyist action-figures just under the desk rim, hidden from the teachers but in little Linda’s full view.

It’s a bit difficult for the Broadway version, but the screen adaptation will have a grammar school flashback thrown in, making the depth and intensity of Linda Briskman’s childhood dreams clear. On the way from grammar school to City Hall, the James Klausers, Bob Geddies, Abigail Perlmans and Jim Tozzis of the world have been replaced by Mayors Egerman, Alexander and Levyn as her adult-idols, though she could never bring herself to throw away the collection of lobbyist dolls, which are neatly stored in a box in the attic. More concretely than the high-powered Beltway lobbyists, the ex-mayors of BH have shown her how easy the transition can be from the Council dais to the spatially somewhat lower level of the Council chamber floor where the applicants are seated. Lower level physically, yes. Lower, that is, in everything but glamour, power, mystique and big bucks.

The transition from councilmember to lobbyist should be smooth and swift, as Briskman and her partner in all votes unrelated to free 2 hour parking, Frank Fenton, are the only councilmembers who are not covered by the “ethics” ordinance that the Council adopted last year, whereby councilmembers will have to wait two and a half years to reappear before the Council in their new incarnations as lobbyists. When they leave office next year, Briskman and Fenton will only have to wait a year to lobby the BH City Council, though Fenton has shown absolutely no interest in doing so. The year of “quarantine” from lobbying should, however, give Briskman a chance to confer with her old-new ex-mayor colleagues and friends about how best to screw the City she had formerly been elected to serve. As poor a negotiator as she was as a councilmember, that’s how good she will be as an ex-councilmember, with the same old, same old results for the City. It’s perfectly in keeping with the motto of The Ex-Mayors/Lobbyists Club: Beverly Hills Last.

Once she finally grasps the essence of the character, Meryl Streep should have a field day as Linda Briskman, which while incorporating elements of her Miranda Priestly, should undoubtedly surpass that portrayal as a new signature role. Streep should also be able to get quite a bit of mileage from the motivation: the Council Briskman and lobbyist Briskman of future stage works will remain essentially the same character. And the play-within-a-play motif will reach its initial climax when Meryl as Councilmember Briskman uses the Council meetings to audition for the role of lobbyist Briskman, making use of her position and her vote to try to wow the developers in the audience.

For most in the audience, the sense of a Brechtian Verfremdungseffekt will be unmistakeable, and the deconstructionists among us should have a field day.

Brian Dennehy IS Barry Brucker

As the only BH native on the Council, the Brucker character’s motivation has to be viewed as multi-faceted, and Dennehy will need to use his experience with such directors as Peter Greenaway, Baz Luhrman and Peter Segal to try to embody the complexity of this new character.

Dennehy’s Brucker is a prodigious schmoozer with a genuine interest in other people, but also a need to be liked. He’s a natural politician, making people feel at ease and giving what is known in political circles as great “face time.” He started out as a kind of maverick, but has slowly become co-opted by a system that is run by the Developer-Land Use Lawyer Complex. Along the way, he may have lost some of the perspective that made his such a fresh voice in the City, but he certainly hasn’t lost his winning sense of humor.

As part of the character’s backstory, it’s important to know that he tries to be a consensus builder, but on occasion these efforts reach the point where he seems like he’s trying to be all things to all people – sometimes with wacky and comical results. As a generally good-natured soul, he can sometimes fall prey to the dealings of people whose good faith in negotiations isn’t always at his own level. On occasion, his urge to “go along to get along” has allowed his good-nature to be manipulated and taken advantage of by rapacious developers.

As much as he wants to be liked, he has real difficulty dealing with criticism. As much as he wants to encourage dialogue, those who dare to criticize him are characterized as “toxic” and perhaps even in need of counseling. This one major blind spot has taken its toll on the effectiveness of his leadership, though as Mayor he generally tries to apply a sense of fairness in wielding his gavel at the Council meetings themselves. His issues with criticism sometimes create the impression that he thinks he knows everything better than all the residents; strangely enough, though, this doesn’t usually come across as arrogant.

Unlike Briskman, the character of Brucker has no desire to become a lobbyist, though he considers certain lobbyists to be among his closest friends, associates and advisors. The Brucker character has no desire or intentions of enriching himself or otherwise benefiting from his role as mayor and councilmember. Essentially, he just wants to be liked. He just wants people to think he’s doing a good job.

At the time of “Cop Out,” Brucker also is concerned about getting re-elected, as his Council term expires about 11 months after the play is set. The thought of not being re-elected is one of Brucker’s biggest nightmares; after all, it could be seen as an invalidation of his years of being a macher in the City. In this respect,