Keith Mashburn’s Fundraiser Speech

Candidate for Simi Valley City Council Keith Mashburn addressed his guests after a brief introduction from the incoming President of the Police Officers Association. In this presentation, Keith covers most of the major issues, including Police Officer relations, the landfill, Council benefits, the business community, and his thoughts on appointments and term limits.

[hana-flv-player
video=”http://www.votesimivalley.com/video/Mashburn-Speech.flv”
height=”253″
width=”460″
description=”Mashburn Fundraiser”
clickurl=”http://www.votesimivalley.com”
clicktarget=”_blank”
player=”4″
autoplay=”false”
loop=”false”
autorewind=”true”
/]

13 thoughts on “Keith Mashburn’s Fundraiser Speech

  1. That was very good, obviously heartfelt from Mr. Mashburn. I had only two questions surface in my mind:

    1. He mentioned the 1.1 police officer-per 1,000 residents threshhold, and something he supports for Simi Valley by hiring more police officers. Yet, this community spends about $2 million a year on police officers’ overtime pay. The question: would he support managing our existing police officers’ time better, to reduce that $2 million in OT cost, and use the savings to hire the new police officers that he desires to reach the 1.1 threshhold?

    We would end up with more police officers, as well as an entire police force more refreshed both physically and mentally. It seems that’s just better management.

    2. Not a question but an observation: Mashburn said changing the sign ordinance would “encourage more people to run for office.” On the flipside, eliminating benefits for Council members entirely will discourage more people from running for City Council.

    Like

  2. There are a few things that make me wonder about this speech.

    He makes the planning commission seem ineffective with his comments. If he is seeking a seat on the council where he will have more influence in setting policy and is generally dissatisfied with what the planning commissioners job is, shouldn’t he resign his post on the planning commission? I am sure there are many people who would step up to accept the responsibility.

    The POA says Mashburn is their choice because he listens. Mashburn echoes the sentiment in his speech. But Councilman Becerra and Councilman Sojka both had hours and hours of one on one sessions with the rank and file, understanding grievances and explanations of low morale. Has Mashburn, outside of any official POA introductory sessions, done the same?

    Mashburn, like most candidates, attaches himself to the recent publicity on annexation without addressing the real issues on the landfill. Should the landfill expansion be approved, despite who controls that decision, and how do the citizens benefit by it if it is approved? This is an area where all candidates fall flat.

    The “tour guide” thing is a slam. They aren’t going to pay them $130K a year. That, again, is Mashburn’s lack of understanding on total compensation bottom line costs. It is not representative of gross salary. This quote: “if this person can accomplish this, and I don’t think they can, but if they can…”. Mashburn, with an attitude like that, who wants your support?

    The sign ordinance whining is obnoxious coming from Mashburn. The POA pays for most of his signs and the Elton Gallegly/Bob Huber machine work with their contacts to get his signs placed well throughout town. I see signs around town for all candidates who chose to put them up. The sign ordinance is fine and it suits the interests of the people, not the candidates, which is more than fair.

    On term limits, the voters determine that now and it works. Mashburn believes we have a problem in city hall, but he can’t articulate that problem. The voters, on the other hand, think things are going just fine. On appointments, they don’t appoint friends like Mashburn said. They appoint people who have a demonstrated interest and proven record in serving the people of Simi Valley instead of spending over $100K for a special election where only a fraction of voters will participate in. When Foster was appointed, it wasn’t because they all enjoy each other’s company at backyard barbecues.

    Mashburn seems like a decent guy, but he also seems like he’s been fed a line of bull by his new friends and he’s making it the basis of his campaign.

    Like

  3. Clearly Mashburn is ready to lead Simi Valley in the right direction. Teamed with Huber, he will be able to help the business community prosper and make use safer by actually working with the Officers. No more tour guides at city hall! More cops putting criminals in jail also sounds great!
    Becerra is the only incumbent who actually has a job not dependent on being on council. Foster’s new high paying job at the Simi Valley Hospital shows a defined lack of ethics. How else can you explain her being the city representative on the hospital board and then hiring herself to a six figure plus job. Sojka’s reputation and campaign keeps imploding as his sleazy campaign tactics and lack of leadership become known. I’m for Huber, Becerra and Mashburn for 2010.

    Like

  4. The claim that less people will run for Council if the benefits are reduced is interesting, but the problem with it is that unless you get elected, you won’t know what the benefits are. The benefits might explain why those on the Council keep running, but it certainly can’t be a draw to get people to run due to the lack of information.

    Also, it seems that there could be additional money that the Council members get by being on various boards (some related to government and others not). If you recall the City of Bell, it was NOT the salary for the Council that was $100k, but additional money for being on various boards which increased their pay. I would love to see all the incumbents to detail their income, excluding only their regular full-time positions.

    Incumbents have an advantage, anyone who denies that is not being honest. Term limits help to keep fresh ideas and to keep those elected to do the will of the people. Look to the founding of this Country, it was not intended to have professional politicians. How about instead of actual term limits, just limit how many times that incumbents can be on the ballot and force them to run a write-in campaign. If the people REALLY want them, they can be elected.

    Like

  5. Not Sure stated:

    The POA says Mashburn is their choice because he listens. Mashburn echoes the sentiment in his speech. But Councilman Becerra and Councilman Sojka both had hours and hours of one on one sessions with the rank and file, understanding grievances and explanations of low morale. Has Mashburn, outside of any official POA introductory sessions, done the same?

    I suppose the best way to answer that is by looking at the facts. Becerra and Sojka have been council members for a dozen years each. Prior to last year and the issues from negotiations, they made no attempts to contact or listen to any of the members. Ask them how many ride-alongs they went on, how many times did they ask to meet members for coffee, or even just walked into the Police station and sat down in briefing to find out how things were going. I can tell you it was zero, never, and none. Their idea of involvement with the Police was social gatherings for the Police foundation with the department’s brass and well meaning business owners who don’t have a clue what it is like to be rank and file officers. It is commendable that Becerra and Sojka did finally take the steps to at least meet a few officers, and whether or not they remain in office they should continue to work on those relationships but as far as having been on good terms and truly listening to the POA, they had 12 years to lock up the barn doors before the cattle got out and they made no effort until the barn was on fire and all the cows had ran away.

    With regards to Mashburn having contact with officers, the simple answer is yes. His son in law is a Simi Officer, a fact he is proud of, he worked in the law enforcement community as an Arson Investigator and his retirement was attended by as many cops as fireman. He understands the needs of police officers and as a council member will make every effort to grow the relationship he already has with the local cops. He is an honest and respectable man. As a fire fighter, he learned a long time ago that management of the fuel source for fires is even more important than putting them out, it works the same with people and relationships.

    Like

  6. Mashburn sits on the Planning Commission and has attended hearing after hearing on the landfill expansion, yet he still claims to not have enough information to make a decision whether he supports or opposes this project. If he has this problem sitting on the City Council, the City will shut down. He knows all the things wrong with the current City Council, but he can’t reach an opinion on this mega project? What gives? Two years of study and Mashburn still needs to talk to his camping buddy, Mike Smith, the applicant for the project, to “learn” the facts? I’ll stick with the current Councilmembers; they might be slow, but they aren’t this slow.

    Like

  7. Glad you addressed the most important part of my post Mashburn; that you don’t go camping with Mike Smith. How about addressing why you still don’t have an opinion on the dump expansion after two years of hearings?

    Like

  8. So, “Not Force”, please detail the reasons as to why you are against the expansion? There are some who are spreading false information, so the question is why you are against it and if it matches with the facts.

    There are many aspects to the expansion and changes are possible.

    So, rather than just attacking, please explain your position.

    Like

  9. Let’s just look at two points.
    1. The expansion will result in about 70% of the daily garbage coming from Los Angeles and 30% from Ventura County.
    2. The City of Simi Valley will get nothing for all the negative impacts that will be created in the City including air quality, traffic, odors and visual blight.

    Like

  10. Not Force,
    You do know that the planning commission has NO say in these projects Right?

    You are aware that the planning commission can only make recommendations to the city council right?

    You are aware that the city council does not have to go with (and usually doesn’t) the planning commissions recommendations right?

    So the council has appointed people to various commissions in our city, but they don’t follow their recommendations. Is this the “fast on their feet” that RANCE STODDARD refers to above? Or is this a Bell style eliteist attitude that they will do what they want no matter what?

    I actually listened to what Mr. Mashburn had to say and I will tell you that the great speach givers of late have not impressed me.
    I would much rather have a person like Mr. Mashburn who listens to the people he is wanting to represent and will vote according to their wishes and not his own.

    Mr. Mashburn stated that he would listen to the people on the landfill issue and move forward with their wishes, no matter what his personal thoughts are on the subject. NOW THAT IS SOMEONE I WOULD SUPPORT AND VOTE FOR EVERY TIME. SOMEONE WHO ACTUALLY REPRESENTS THE PEOPLE AND NOT ALL THE SPECIAL INTERESTS.

    Like

  11. That’s great Mike, unless the people Mashburn wants to represent on the landfill expansion issue are the owners of the dump and not the majority of our residents. After more than four years, Mashburn needs to talk to Mike Smith, President of the dump, one more time so he can “get all the facts”. Scary fellow this Mashburn. I sure hope he goes out to pasture in November when he moves off the Planning Commission.

    Like

  12. Not Force

    I think you are confusing Mr. Mashburn with the incumbents, but as an incumbent supporter i can see how you confuse “the people” with “big business”. Seems this has been the theme in our government lately.
    Look back through the voting records of our present city council and count how many times they have voted against the recommendations of the various boards they have appointed.
    Obviously the city council felt strongly enough about the ability of the people they appointed to these boards.
    So what changed?
    Look at the voting records and it will become clear.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s