TimBen Boydston left
tonight’s meeting without an increase in benefits to put him at parity with
other councilmembers, but at least he still has his good name[1]. The same cannot be said of KHTS, its owners,
or Congressman Buck McKeon. Reporter Mark
Archuleta, recently fired from KHTS, took to the podium this evening to risk his
reputation in order to destroy the reputation of his former employer, claiming
that KHTS pandered to the desires and threats of Buck McKeon’s office. He claimed it managed news coverage to favor
the congressman as well as at least one city council member. The bulk of the meeting was spent on mundane
matters of landscape districts and employee benefits, but for three incandescent
minutes, Archuleta did his best to take down an SCV institution and to preserve
notions of journalistic integrity. Pity
so few people watch these meetings—sometimes they’re actually interesting.
But First…
The meeting
opened with Councilmember Laurene Weste.
She offered a short, sincere invocation in anticipation of Veterans Day,
expressing her gratitude to veterans and reminding Claritans of the ceremony to
be held at the Veterans Historical Plaza.
The City of Santa
Clarita was then presented with a prestigious Helen Putnam Award from the
League of California Cities.
Specifically, the Neighborhood Services Team and Outreach Program won an
award under the heading of “Enhancing
Public Trust, Ethics and Community Involvement.” Before cynical readers think up snide remarks
about the accuracy of this lofty banner for Santa Clarita, note that the award
recognized a specific program. It addressed
crime, social issues, and citizen involvement in some of East Newhall’s less
idyllic corners, and had measurable success.
Reputations in Ruin
Mark Archuleta’s
speech tonight was short but devastating.
He was (is?) one of the most accomplished reporters in Santa Clarita,
and his political coverage was consistently acute and incisive. He and Carol Rock—a gifted writer whose
endurance, experience, and knowledge of local issues put her in a class of her
own—were widely regarded as major assets to KHTS. The firing of Archuleta and Rock led to much speculation
with regard to timing; they were let mere weeks before the November election. Those wanting more details got plenty
tonight.
Archuleta opened
by promising, “I’m here tonight to end my silence.” You can read the full speech at
NotesFromNewhall, but these are the main claims—again, claims; KHTS has not had
an opportunity to respond—that emerged:
*He and Carol
Rock were fired from KHTS for essentially political reasons.
*Buck McKeon made
threats or complaints to the Goldmans, who own KHTS, over unflattering coverage
on their website, written largely by Archuleta.
It was removed in response. A
McKeon endorsement and pulling Rock and Archuleta from McKeon coverage were additional
favors extended to the congressman.
*A City Council
candidate complained about an interview with Archuleta, and Goldman would not
let it be published without alterations, citing the political aim of preventing
a voting bloc on the council.
*KHTS altered
stories and coverage to influence elections; they bent to political
pressure.
The speech had
many unpleasant ramifications. First,
the reputation of KHTS has been sullied.
News outlets are valued for being independent and expository, not for
yielding to politicians and doing them favors.
How KHTS responds—and how The Signal covers this story—remains to be
seen. As for Archuletta, he probably won’t
be getting a lot of local job offers, unless some new publication to serve an
audience dissatisfied with The Signal and KHTS is in the works. (Excuse my outrageous joking). Congressman Buck McKeon has been painted as a
media manipulator, and this isn’t the first time. Then there’s the unnamed council member who
used their sway to secure favorable coverage (based on timing, it would have to
be either Bob Kellar or Laurie Ender).
And then there are implications for the new/remaining staff at KHTS. Do they owe their job to being more receptive
to the Goldmans’ purported aims?
What a mess.
The Others
Public comments
following Archuleta were bound to pale in comparison. Glo Donnelly twittered pleasantly about the
State of the City Luncheon last week and highlighted Santa Clarita’s success in
preserving open space. Doug Fraser made a
comment about mobile home rent increases, the most recent in a series of
comments on this topic over the past weeks.
David Lutness offered political thoughts, arguing that people needed
better salaries and that income disparity was a major problem in America. Ray Kutylo advertised SCV Letters to the
Editor, his Facebook group. His remarks
were particularly timely considering Archuleta’s words and the fact that this
is “Free Speech Week.” Carole Lutness
was last to speak, and said, “I, too, am outraged at the firing of these two
fine reporters,” referring of course to Archuleta and Rock. She was particularly upset about Carol Rock (“who
is an institution in this community!”).
Her comments then moved to The
Signal, which she said recently stopped publishing the “Environmentally
Speaking” column in its opinion section.
The column often challenges development and reminds readers of local
environmental issues. Lutness
acknowledged her role in “plagiar-gate” at The
Signal (i.e., she was caught plagiarizing and removed from her writing post
a few years ago), but promised her criticisms were more than just sour
grapes.
City Manager Ken
Pulskamp offered some comments in return.
Regarding mobile home rents, he promised to look further into the
particulars brought up by Doug Fraser this evening. As to the topic of KHTS and free speech he
said, “We certainly support free speech. […]
There is no collusion among the City and other members of the
media. God knows we’ve taken our shots
in all of those,” trailing off with a coarse chuckle. Councilmember Weste made a point to support
Carol Rock, saying the veteran reporter had her care and love.
Updates, Consent
Individual councilmember
updates were more of the usual.
Particular highlights were Mayor Pro Tem Bob Kellar’s promise that
several notable SCV Olympians (even Allyson Felix) would be at the Rubber Ducky
Regata, benefitting the Samuel Dixon Foundation. Mayor Frank Ferry noted that public input
was being solicited at an upcoming meeting regarding a master plan for a
conference center in Santa Clarita.
The consent
calendar was addressed next. Items that
didn’t engender discussion included changes to dozens of speed limits in Santa
Clarita (most were recommended to go up or down by 5 mph after traffic study);
bikeway improvements and additions; and a janitorial contract. An item concerning landscaping contracts drew
Councilmember Boydston’s attention. He
spent a while discussing the nature of the contract, which included a large
amount of money for unforeseen repairs and maintenance. Boydston was told that the landscaping bid
was actually quite reasonable, and all unforeseen costs were noted as line
items, so they could be easily reviewed for any type of abuse. After some inquiries by other members and
assurances of the landscape company’s solid past performance, the contract was
approved, with the stipulation that work would be reviewed in a couple of years
to look at spending patterns.
Master Plan Planning
An item to assess
the feasibility of a master-plan-envisioned road extension connecting Lyons and
Dockweiler in Newhall was controversial, as are most projects that affect the
vociferous enclave that is Placerita Canyon (or almost-Placerita-Canyon). Councilmember Weste recused herself from the
debate on the grounds of “living way too close” to the proposed road
connection, so she said she’d go have some dessert instead.
Most speakers
asked that this item be continued to a future meeting. There was much concern about its inclusion of
an at-grade crossing of the Metrolink line.
Other speakers, such as Nanette Meister, wondered at how much
Councilmember Weste stood to gain from the project, which would likely increase
her property value. Other objections
included insufficient notification of those who would be affected by the crossing
and questions about cost-effectiveness.
There was a fair
amount of discussion, with Councilmember TimBen Boydston stating his sympathy
for the concerns expressed by property owners in the area. However, staff assured the council that this
project would take at least a couple of years and was puaimed at producing
preliminary documents to assess the feasibility of the project, not actually
building the road. Furthermore, the road
was part of the master plan, and the bridge and thoroughfare funds for the
study had to be spent on transportation by law.
Despite these seemingly compelling arguments to begin the study, TimBen
Boydston did not vote to move forward as recommended, while his fellow council
members did. He chose to “vote ‘no’ with
explanation,” stating that he was uncomfortable about proceeding when not all
affected neighborhoods had been properly notified. Councilmember McLean followed his vote with a
“yes”, also with explanation. She said a
study didn’t impact neighborhoods, the actual road did: “this is giving them
the information that they need.” So the
slow planning process will now get rolling.
TimBenefits
The final item
before the council was consideration of benefits for council members. While they all receive the same salary and
the same healthcare benefits, if a council member chooses cash-in-lieu of
health insurance, they receive quite different amounts. Council members are treated like staff when
it comes to payment and benefits, and in 2010, the council changed the
structure of benefits for staff, such that those starting to work in 2011
wouldn’t receive as much cash-in-lieu of health insurance coverage. By extension, TimBen Boydston, elected in
2012, also gets less cash for foregoing City health coverage. His fellow members can receive $1,016.58 per
month, but he can only receive $214.62.
That’s a difference of nearly $10,000 over the course of a year, all
based on his later election date.
Boydston recused himself
from the discussion, though he could comment as a citizen during that portion
of the item’s discussion (and he did).
The formerly cheerful Glo Donnelly was not pleased with Boydston’s fuss
about the discrepancy in benefits, suggesting he find a new job if he was being
driven by monetary gain. Allan Cameron
and Lynne Plambeck offered alternative legal interpretations to challenge City
Attorney Joe Montes’ assertion that Boydston’s benefits could not be raised
without also raising them for all employees hired since 2011. Many thought it was only fair for Boydston to
get the same amount of cash-in-lieu as other members.
Boydston,
however, offered the most intriguing solution.
Rather than raise the amount of cash he would receive, Boydston
suggested that his fellow council members vote to reduce their own benefits to
his level. He said it would show they
considered him an equal and would save taxpayers money, the whole point of the change
in benefit structure to begin with.
Mayor Pro Tem Bob
Kellar responded brusquely. He lectured about
the need to follow the exact letter of the law—at least on this issue. Mayor Ferry responded next. He spoke about having no intention of singling
out Boydston when they voted on the new benefit policy two years ago. He said of Boydston defeating former
Councilmember Laurie Ender, “Didn’t see that one comin’!” He then made some grand statements about
declines in all kinds of compensation and benefits because of the sluggish economy,
going so far as to imply that Boydston should be grateful he wasn’t receiving
even less, as future council members may.
Ferry called his appeal for equal benefits “self-serving.” Just like Kellar, he did not so much as entertain
the idea of cutting his own cash benefits to Boydston’s level, however.
Councilmembers
McLean and Weste were more understanding of Boydston’s dismay. Surprisingly, McLean offered a very conciliatory
statement. Of the discrepancy in
benefits, she said, “I totally understand where Councilmember Boydston is
coming from […] it’s probably like a slap in the face.” She and Weste both made dramatic, almost
apologetic pauses before voting, as Ferry and Kellar did, to not change
benefits for Boydston.
There was a
startling revelation/suggestion during Alan Cameron’s public comment following
this item. After talking about the other
matters from this evening, he mentioned the LA
Times’ investigation of Boy Scout abuse, noting there had been an incident,
apparently, mapped to Saugus. He asked
for an investigation. With that, the
meeting ended.
[1]Here's the agenda.
