The Burbank Muni Elections

Ye gods. I have now, at last count, received 14 separate pieces of campaign mail from five of the seven candidates for Burbank City Council. Either the other two candidates are not especially well funded, or figure everyone in the city is going to be so annoyed by the campaign flyers that voters will for the only two people who DIDN’T send them anything.

By way of background, there are two open seats on the council, the vote will be done via mail (no polling places), and ballots are due on Feb. 27. There is, believe it or not, an election for the Burbank School Board as well. However, since there are three open seats – and exactly three people running for them – there’s not much of a reason to campaign.

Not, mind you, that there appears to be much distinguishing the candidates. So far, candidates have staked out the following controversial positions (based, solely, on the literature I have received):

- Pro-police and fire
- Against parking meters
- Against a Los Angeles-based sewer line (aka ‘We ain’t taking LA’s crap!’)
- Want to fix traffic issues

Whoo! Then again, Burbank does not appear to have a lot of the issues affecting (and afflicting) larger, poorer, burgs. Still, can you imagine someone running for council on an anti-police, pro-sewer, do-nothing platform?

So, to ease the boredom, I hereby present an ill-informed, snarky and otherwise useless review of the campaign I have received. And, yes, I realize that most campaign mailers are to introduce a candidate to voters, not to present his or her position on substantive issues. Still, man, having someone say SOMETHING would be nice.

Gary Bric: Law Enforcement’s Choice
(large postcard; paid for by Committee to Elect Gary Bric)

This one is a bit odd, comprising of a longish letter from Mike Parinello, president of the Burbank Police Officers Foundation. The type is small, a bit hard to read, and says little of substance.

According to the piece, Bric is REALLY into public safety, Burbank cops are just super, and that rank and file officers trust him Bric because of his work on the Traffic and Transportation board. Huh? Do beat cops really care about the Traffic & Transportation board? Why?

In what I presume to be an amusing veiled dig at the BFD (one of my favorite local abbreviations), the end of the card notes “P.S. Gary Bric for City Council is also endorsed by the BURBANK FIREFIGHTERS ASSOCIATION”

Vote Whit Prouty – Burbank City Council
(large postcard; paid for by Committee to Elect Whit Prouty)

Prouty presents himself, among other traits, as a “positive leader,” a “fiscal conservative,” and “solution-oriented.” That’s nice. What of it? Additionally, next to a photo of his family, Prouty states that “I don’t come to City Hall with an agenda. I’m open to consider all sides.”

Take a stand, man! What do you like?

Burbank Firefighters Say Vote for Gary Bric and Anja Reinke
(flyer, paid for by Working Californians)

Ah, nice. Someone who seems to have a stand on some issues. Reinke and Bric seem to have made improving traffic flow on Burbank streets, and working with Cal-Trans to make the freeways that bisect our burg better. (Say that three times fast.)

But, who the hell is “Working Californians?” Well, looking at the California Secretary of State website, it appears that it is a political action committee, made up of a conglomeration of labor, teacher, and public safety unions. They made very large independent expenditures (that is, spending not controlled by the candidate) for Phil Angelides, the Democrat’s nominee for governor.

The group has spent a fair amount supporting Gary Bric, spending more than $12,000 advertising his candidacy. Check out the info here. Interestingly, the form does not state that Working Californians also supported Anja Reinke, which I believe they should have.

Moving on…

Vote for Change on your ballot – Carolyn Berlin and Phil Berlin
(flyer, paid for by Committees to Elect Carolyn Berlin and Phil Berlin)

This is also a kinda weird one. This husband and wife team spend a lot of their flyer’s real estate “busting rumors” stated about them. Apparently people have stated that the Berlins plan on: firing a bunch of Burbank city employees, eliminate local charities, sell Burbank Water & Power, and sell the airport. These are all vicious, vicious lies, say the Berlins.

Denial is one way to go about it, I suppose, but wouldn’t it be more effective to just ignore it? I mean, I consider myself a fairly informed citizen, and I had no idea that the Berlins were accused of these things. Now I do, and now I wonder WHY they were accused of such things. Good on ya, foolios.

Another issue I have an issue with: the Q&A. One of the questions – reasonably enough – asks whether a husband and wife can really run for two open seats. They answer – correctly enough – that no law would prohibit this. It goes on to explain that the state’s open meeting law, the Brown Act, prohibits a majority of the City Council from meeting privately to build consensus. Assuming the Berlins are both elected, they would constitute only two of the five council members, not a majority.

“Currently,” the flyer states, “there are many Council subcommittees with 2 members discussing issues and building consensus, and situations when 2 members meet with others.” Uhhh. Hmm. If by the word “others” they are referring to “other council members” this would constitute a “serial meeting” which is specifically PROHIBITED by the Brown Act. Jeez. If “others” means “any human being other than a Burbank Council member” than it would be OK.

And, finally, the Berlins note, at the very end of their piece, that they have experience in land use, legal issues and airport issues. They know what they’re talking about, say the Berlins. Good.