Setting the record
   straight

   To the editor:
   Now that the Veritas sponsors have finished their signature gathering, it is time for League of Women Voters of Santa Monica (LWVSM) to set the record straight.
   Several weeks ago the League announced its opposition to the Veritas initiative. When we did so the sponsors of Veritas responded by attacking LWVSM and the integrity of our present Board.
   The statement that League had “dishonored its tradition” of studying issues before taking a position on them is not what happened. The League would not do that; the League did not do that. The League is an organization that develops positions at all levels of our organization – national, state, county and local. As a local League we are authorized to use applicable and relevant positions from any of those levels of our organization within whose jurisdiction we fall. The positions upon which we based our opposition to Veritas were very clearly in place from previously conducted studies when we voted to oppose the initiative. (Most League studies take two years to complete).
   We already had positions of opposition to term limits. We believe that the people have the right to decide whether or not they are satisfied with their representatives.
   We already had positions of opposition to more than one issue in an initiative. We believe that people should have clear choices, and not have to endorse issues they don’t like in order to get one they do like. One way to decide if there is more than one issue is to look at the whole initiative and see if the issues are interdependent. In Veritas there are issues of a) electing a mayor, b) districting and c) term limits. We believe each of them is a separate issue and not at all dependent upon the other two. In other words you could elect a mayor with or without districting or term limits. You could impose term limits without having to district or to elect a separate mayor. By League standards that is three issues.
   We make no apologies if we believe in a higher standard than current court interpretation. Our mission as an organization includes working toward election processes that are more understandable and more accessible to all citizens (voters). And we are not alone. The League is aware that although the courts for years have interpreted “single subject” broadly, in December of 1999, the California Supreme Court used the single subject rule to strike an initiative off the ballot. That decision included language indicating that the court might begin to be tougher on future initiatives. We also know that the single subject rule is an issue which was raised by the Speaker’s Commission on the California Initiative Process and included in its 2001 report to the California state legislature.
   We do not have positions in support of or in opposition to districting as such, but we do have a very strong position of support for public dialogue and discussion on who draws the lines, and where and when the lines are drawn to form those districts. Veritas’ sponsors say they did this in 1992. That again does not meet League standards. It happened much too long ago.
   Veritas also attacked the League for putting on an Informational Forum on Voting Systems in cooperation with the City of Santa Monica. They stated on one hand that we were somehow “wedded” to the city council by doing this, and on the other hand that Veritas should have been invited to participate as presenters. The League is a political organization; we often work with other organizations (without marrying them), and in fact did a Fluoride Informational Forum last year - also in cooperation with the City (Utilities Division).
   The Voting Systems Forum was done at the request (made two years ago) by the City to introduce alternative methods of voting to the council and the public. Two years ago we were just beginning a study of Voting Systems, and chose to wait until our study was complete before holding an Informational Forum. The Voting Systems Informational which was held on October 10, 2001 at the Ken Edwards Center was a culmination of our two-year study and had nothing to do with Veritas.
   We hope now that Veritas sponsors have submitted their signatures for qualification, that the issues within this initiative will become the focus of discussion. The citizens of Santa Monica deserve a much better dialogue on this important decision before they go to the polls.
   Sheila Field,
   President, League of Women Voters of Santa Monica

   Questions for
   the city

   To the editor:
   I wish to voice my opinion in your paper of general circulation about a notice that was “sent” by e-mail to subscribers of the City’s “WIN” program on the web. My concerns are voiced because I am confused by the inconsistencies that exist when trying to understand the “Staying Informed/Getting Involved Public Process in Santa Monica,” a publication issued by the City Manager’s office, as of October 2001. My confusion is as follows:
Privacy issue:
   I wanted to respond to the City suggestion via their e-mail “normal” channels, but did not because I was asked to give my password as part of my suggestion. Why? Is this not an invasion of privacy or a defeat of the reason why a password was created? I assume that the City Attorney’s office has suggested that all e-mails must be “specific and direct,” and therefore a passward would appear to be a logical requirement in corresponding with the protectors of our civil liberties.
Freedom of Religion:
   One Hot Topics on the City website describes the Candy Cane distribution by the Police and Firemen, in little red trucks. (Remember when Kelly Olsen received undeserved “heat” from the City Council when he suggested buying new red trucks for the City?) Why isn’t there also a blue & white car racing across the screen to give equal time to Jim Butts and Company. Second, in the name of Political Correctness, some years ago the City made the holidays “neutral.” So why can’t the Heroes of Santa Monica give out Hanukah Gelt, when giving out Candy Canes? Would that be a bribe, or are the dentists concerned that chocolate is less likely to cause cavities and reduce the need for their services to help the Mayor’s economy push?
   Happy Holidays from Mr. Flashlight turned Mr. Scrooge.
   Thomas D. Carter
   Santa Monica

   Down with
   humps

   To the editor:
   Having surveyed the Sunset Park speed humps and finding inconsistent and above standard heights, and having submitted a graphic report to the City over 18 months ago, this note is to beg the question, how long do we have to put up with these mountainous devices that cause suspension problems to both our cars and our spines with questionable benefit to a select few? Additionally, the SM Fire Chief, some time ago, told the City Council in session that these speed humps delayed emergency response time, without question, rendering our large heavy equipment to complete stops at each one. In a new era of emergency awareness since September 11, these humps must be removed at once for both common sense and for the public interest.
   Brian H. Ouzounian
   Santa Monica