Tue 3 Aug 2010
Guest Commentary: Is the City Manager attempting to censor local residents?
Posted by admin under Canyon Country , City of Santa Clarita , Guest Commentary [34] CommentsThere are many thoughtful comments from a variety of residents who are not in favor of the City’s attempted censorship, by withdrawing support for, of the Canyon Country Advisory Committee. The City of Santa Clarita gives itself another black eye for how it is dealing with residents. Having lived in the Santa Clarita Valley for over 40 years, I have been privy to a lot of changes. When I first moved in, the Hwy 14 freeway ended at the Newhall pass and the only way to get directly to the east side of our valley was Sierra Highway sporting only one lane in each direction. Canyon Country was called Saugus, the river was a Sand Wash and no one ever discussed the need to visit a Board of Supervisors meeting.
That all changed about 23 years ago when our area became convinced we needed to form a city. The Santa Clarita Valley was growing rapidly. We were sold on the idea that we needed more local control to guarantee that our issues would be addressed and our resident’s voices heard.
About 5 years later, both the City and the Community knew something was still missing. Two way communications with local residents was not occurring on a regular basis. Keeping residents informed of issues affecting their neighborhoods and having a way to understand their concerns required some additional action.
Wisely, the city looked to how other municipalities handled such issues and decided to form and sponsor Neighborhood Community Groups. Originally those groups were managed by City Staff. Two of those Neighborhood Groups, one in Canyon Country and one in Saugus are still active today.
I became aware and started to attend “Canyon Country Better than Ever” meetings in 2000. The hot button issue of that time was the “Oversized Vehicle Parking Ordinance” sprouting concerns that the City of Santa Clarita was becoming a pseudo Home Owners Association generating ordinances similar to CC&Rs for areas that did not have any.
Yet, change was on the way. Our regular City Staff Member was about to move out of town, our Chair Person had decided to no longer participate and the membership was questioning the group’s purpose.
It was a time for the members to reflect and make appropriate adjustments. That was when the membership elected to change the group name to the “Canyon Country Advisory Committee” intending to better describe the group’s goal. Since that time, the Canyon Country Advisory Committee has continued to grow and further refine its purpose.
For the last 3 City Council Election Cycles the Canyon Country Advisory Committee has hosted City Council Election Forums and “Meet the Council Candidate” sessions. These sessions provide the only public venue where community members are able to ask unscripted questions of all council candidates live and in real time.
In addition, presentations are regularly provided by developers looking for community feedback on their projects. City Staff and other public agencies provide information on local Public Works Projects, Community Groups from all over the Santa Clarita Valley have discussed issues impacting their neighborhoods and the Canyon Country Advisory Committee regularly provides additional insight on many other city related topics. Canyon Country Advisory Committee meetings have always been open to the public. There has never been an admission fee and everyone is welcome to attend.
Recently, Santa Clarita City Management has moved in opposition to the concept of neighborhood groups. At the end of June, Santa Clarita City Manager, Mr. Ken Pulskamp, informed me that the City of Santa Clarita would be breaking ties with the Canyon Country Advisory Committee. The City would no longer be providing a meeting location or regular city staff support. His current rational is the City of Santa Clarita’s new policy to only support activities that benefit the entire city. He stated that since the Canyon Country Advisory Committee’s attendance averages only 60 people per meeting it does not benefit the entire city. After 15 years of operation it seems odd that the City of Santa Clarita would want to “pull the plug” on their 2 Advisory Committees, the Bermite CAG and the Santa Clarita City Activist Meeting. It appears that open communication with public is no longer important at City Hall.
Why do you think our City Management has taken this position? Could it be that our City Manager is fearful that local residents will be better informed? Does City management want to control all media messages and feedback? Who initiated this new policy and when was it approved? I was under the impression that the Santa Clarita City Council set policy and the City Manager implemented that policy. When was this new policy on a City Council meeting Agenda¸ read twice and approved? Is our City Manager now setting City Policy? Are we headed down the same lack of transparency hole as Bell?
The Canyon Country Advisory Committee is not going to accept being bullied in this way. We will not give up our right to free speech or peaceful assembly. If Santa Clarita City Management makes the choice to not continue our 15 year partnership, we will find another way to maintain our vision.
But what about neighborhoods outside Santa Clarita’s borders? Any of you considering annexation into Santa Clarita should take a hard look at this situation. Watch intensely how this scenario plays out. Do you really think that Santa Clarita City Management will treat you any different?
Please think about what you observe and be very careful what you wish for.
Alan Ferdman- Guest Commentary
Alan Ferdman is the Chair of the Canyon Country Advisory Committee. His commentaries represent his own opinions and not necessarily the views of any organization he may be affiliated with or those of the West Ranch Beacon.






July 29th, 2010 at 6:44 am
[...] Al Ferdman of the Canyon Country Advisory Committee says the City Manager is unfairly severing the City’s 15 year relationship with the Committee in an effort to censor local residents. What the City has said is that the Committee can no longer use city meeting spaces and it will no longer dedicate staff time to the committee. You decide what’s going on. WRB [...]
July 29th, 2010 at 7:16 am
Thank you Al…accurate and succinct.
I hope the SC residents who read this article, send an email to Mr. Pulskamp with their opinion as to how he is creating policies on a whim, as he sees fit and convenient.
July 29th, 2010 at 9:41 am
Al great commentary. Thank you for all you do.
I sent Mr Pulskamp an e-mail on July 23rd about HIS decision to cut ties with the CCAC I have yet to receive a response. Below is a copy of it.
Mr. Ken Pulskamp,
As a resident of Santa Clarita and the secretary of the Canyon Country Advisory Committee, I have deep concerns regarding YOUR unwarranted decision to cut the cities ties with our advisory group. I and many others do not believe YOUR reasoning behind the decision. This is yet another attempt to silence the public.
The Canyon Country Advisory Committee meets monthly providing many important benefits to our city’s residents
1) We provide Santa Clarita residents information and analysis on area issues.
2) We provide a forum for developers to obtain community feedback on their projects
3) We help neighborhoods communicate with city staff
4) We hosted impartial election forums
5) And we provide feedback to City Staff and the Council
First were told we are too political and endorsing candidates, in order to clear up that assumption a meeting was scheduled with Frank Ferry, I along with the other CCAC officers attended this meeting, at which time we informed him about how we operate and that we had no intention of advocating or endorsing candidates. Frank said he was satisfied and convinced we were in the right direction.
Last year, we were told to mind our own business and to not get involved with Benz Rd, the Avenues Project or Casden, we were told that we don’t live in those areas so it is none of our business and to focus on the issues that only affect Canyon Country. Now YOU are saying that in order to maintain our relationship with the City we need to benefit the entire city? So which is it?
It seems like Santa Clarita management not only cannot accept constructive criticism but no criticism at all. Staff sits in city hall, does not investigate their perceptions and would rather put a stop to public input rather than listen and make an attempt to understand the communities concerns.
I along with many residents of Santa Clarita already believe that we are not being listened to and the decisions YOU are making are not in the best interest of the residents of Santa Clarita, but rather in YOUR own best interest. We are constantly reminded that we are being heard and you and the city staff are working with us yet the problems are magnifying and multiplying and quite frankly it’s getting old.
So please tell me Mr. Pulskamp, what is the real reason for YOUR decision to cut the cities ties with the Canyon Country Advisory Committee? I would appreciate a response unlike your typical, generic responses that I and others have received in the past. That includes statement such as these;
“I want to thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention. It is our desire to ensure that Santa Clarita continues to be a safe place for all residents and businesses”
“The City is currently working with…”
“I want to thank you for bringing your concerns to our attention I can assure you that staff has been working with….. We are always available to discuss…”
“As always, we are available to meet and discuss any issue and to work with the community on this or others that may exist”
“Staff is working with…”
“I appreciate your ongoing concerns regarding…The City of Santa Clarita is dedicated to working with…”
“Thank you again for contacting me with your concerns, the City will continue working with…”
Please do not insult us any further and use the same excuse that you did at the July 13th city council meeting referring to the economic situation, we don’t buy it.
I urge you to reconsider YOUR decision and continue our partnership by providing the CCAC with a meeting place at the Activities Center, at no cost, as YOU have for the past 6 plus years.
Sincerely,
Nadine Teter
July 29th, 2010 at 10:31 am
What I did not go into great depth about was what “breaking ties with the Canyon Country Advisory Committee” means.
The most visible effect of the City eliminating sponsorship of their advisory committees does translate to the city no longer providing meeting facilities. Ken Pulskamp eliminated dedicated City Staff support to the Canyon Country Advisory Committee first in 2005, then re-assigned staff sometime later, and is now eliminating staff support for the second time.
But you should realize that since Advisory Committees were City sponsored, there was never any mechanism needed, or implemented, to raise money or incorporate as non-profit corporations. By removing sponsorship without the city helping establish the necessary mechanisms to be totally self-reliant, the city has knowingly placed these groups in a very tenuous position. He can say that the Canyon Country Advisory Committee can meet in the Activities Center, but he knows that the because of the way the City set Advisory Committees up, they have no resources with which to rent the facilities.
You can put money on the fact that Mr. Pulskamp’s actions were taken and timed (during the City Council hiatus) to eliminate Advisory Committees as quietly as possible.
July 29th, 2010 at 2:09 pm
I too wrote a letter to Mr. Pulskamp and have not received a reply:
Mr. Pulskamp:
First I would like to thank you and the city staff for working with the CCAC & Canyon Country residents for the last several years and giving attention to our concerns by providing a meeting place free of charge in a city facility.
About two years ago, I started attending the CCAC meetings (never knew the committee even existed before then) and am reliant on the committee to keep me up to date on important information relative to being an SCV resident. The meetings are very informative as to the issues facing not only Canyon Country but also our neighbors in Saugus, Newhall and Valencia. This is important, as issues and concerns in other parts of our city can both directly and indirectly affect Canyon Country. Quite honestly, before I started attending the CCAC meetings, I had not a clue of how, when or why things were being handled by the City staff…and had no idea how to even get involved.
Knowing the City supports the CCAC by allowing use of a city facility at no charge, provides the residents of the “Forgotten-No Development Plan-Town”, an assurance the City does care about Canyon Country and those who live there.
Now it is my understanding you are no longer going to allow the CCAC to use the facility free of charge. Though I have heard several reasons, none seem justifiable. Some of the reasons I have heard are:
• Large number of Non-profit groups requesting the room. Though not confirmed, I would hope the CCAC would still be meeting at the facility, (but paying the hourly rate) so there would be no change or increase in the availability of the room.
• Policy for the City of Santa Clarita to only support activities and groups benefitting the entire city. Our CCAC meetings are open to all. We turn no resident of SC away and keep up to date and inform all interested residents on issues facing all of SC, not just Canyon Country.
• The low number of attendees (60) does not benefit the entire city. The population for the City of Santa Clarita (including unincorporated areas) is estimated at well over 250,000. I would guess approximately 300 (including city staff, developers and other non-residents) attend the Council Meetings. This works out to be less than .001% of the SC population. 60 attendees at the CCAC works out to be slightly more than .001% of the 59,600 Canyon Country population. So, please tell me, what number of attendees would you require for the CCAC to continue to use the facility free of charge?
• Economy taking it’s toll. Canyon Country’s median household income is, I believe, approximately $76, 600. (Saugus is $80,000, Newhall is $87,900 & Valencia is $109,000). You have stated the CCAC may continue using the city facility as long as the room usage fees are paid, including a $250 deposit and a $1M liability insurance policy. Keeping in mind how the economy is taking a toll on the city and its residents, it seems unfair to charge the residents with the lowest median income per household in Santa Clarita to use a city room, in a city facility to discuss city issues.
From what I can gather Mr. Pulskamp, you make pretty good money as our City Manager…(and deserve it. You seriously couldn’t pay me enough to do your job). An article I read in the Daily News states the following as being in your contract when you first took over the City Manager position after George Caravalho:
• $176,000 Salary
• $11,000 a year in deferred compensation
• City car
• 35 days Paid Time Off
• 14 month severance package
• Paid dues and subscriptions for two professional associations
• $1,000 a year to cover participation in local service organizations
• Work-related travel and related expenses
• Merit increases
I must assume you received the merit increases at 5% annually, bringing your base salary now to approximately $247,600 (you must not live in Canyon Country or the median income would have jumped several thousand per household!). The reason I bring up your well deserved salary, is to speculate that maybe you have forgotten what it is like to scrimp and save to pay the bills and feed your kids. Residents in Canyon Country have note, and to ask the CCAC (in essence, Canyon Country residents) to pay for a meeting room to discuss the impacts your and the Councils decisions are having on our lives, is NOT RIGHT!
The city established the committee and at one time even provided a staff member and $10,000 annual budget. The CCAC no longer receives any direct financial or city staff support, (the CCAC members are not even allowed to ask a staff member at the facility for assistance while using the room)…and the committee is not asking for any of this!
As a Santa Clarita resident and CCAC attendee, I do not think it too much to ask for a convenient location (for ALL SC residents) to hold meetings to discuss city issues without being required to pay the city fees.
I am asking you to rethink your stance on this matter, and allow the CCAC to continue to use the city run facility at no charge. If not, I would greatly appreciate a response from you providing a justifiable reason behind your decision.
July 29th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
The Canyon Country Advisory Committee stopped functioning as a City Sponsored, inclusive, community focused committee some time ago.
I am a founding member and can tell you under Chair Ferdman the CCAC currently functions in direct violation of the Founding Principles, Vision, Mission, and Membership requirements as established years ago. It has become a forum for anyone with an anti city attitude or gripe to find a sympathetic audience and someone to champion their cause, most from outside the Canyon Country area. A stirring testimonial by an unannounced “guest” of Mr. Ferdman’s, and campaign materials distributed to the assembly afforded an unfair advantage to Al’s preferred Council Candidate but not the others. The CCAC has become politicized despite protests to the contrary. If you are not part of the hand picked click, you have no voice. We no longer adhere to any normal democratic meeting process.
The City does not provide free meeting space or staff time for any other group, which is not under City auspices and subject to City oversight. Not HOA’s, not political action committees, not special interest groups, etc. You want to be free to disrespect the rules, do as you please and be ‘independent’, exclude anyone you don’t like or does not share your opinion, then get your own apartment at your expense and don’t ask me to do your laundry either.
The CCAC can still meet anywhere it wants and discuss anything it wants, just not at taxpayer expense. They have recently been holding meetings in private homes by invitation only so that they can continue to exclude people who do not concur with their anti city rhetoric. Keep meeting there. Dedicating City funds or City Staff time is inappropriate when there is no City Oversight. The executive committee refused to allow any oversight, observe any Code of Ethics and Conduct or follow established meeting rules and norms. Among other problems, without oversight they open the City as Sponsor to unnecessary legal liability without having any say in the proceedings that we the taxpayers would be on the hook for. If the City continues to allow the CCAC free meeting space they have to allow it to anyone that asks, and the rest of us within the City subsidize them and will have to pay for any legal challenges.
Al and friends do not get to have it both ways. Either you want sponsorship and all attendant oversight or you want independence and your freedom. The City gave you your freedom and rightfully so.
To WRB Readers: You really have to be careful how much weight you give to everyone raging against the City. I am a 17-year resident and much as I like Mike Antonovich; I would not go back to County governance despite what Mr. Bossert says.
July 29th, 2010 at 6:29 pm
Hi Berta,
Thank you for your comments. It is clear from your note that you have a different view of the CCAC and that there is some bad blood between you and Mr. Ferdman.
Just as an FYI, I am a nearly 30 year resident of the Santa Clarita Valley. What some may perceive as “raging against the City” is actually in fact pointing out some deficiencies in how the current City of Santa Clarita leadership is interacting with its residents and neighbors.
I would happily like to see many of the unincorporated communities annex into the City of Santa Clarita. In fact, it could have and should have happened ten years ago. Unfortunately the City does not want to sit at the table in any meaningful way with residents and come up with a consensus to make that happen. Rather they want to take what they want on their terms only and that is neither a respectful nor a reasonable approach.
That type of leadership style is doomed to failure and history is littered with many examples in which individuals and groups were censored in one way or another. By the City all of a sudden pulling the plug on support because they may or may not agree with comments, topics or a question goes against the very foundation that our country was built on.
If the withdrawal of support by the City stands it will push these groups underground which will become an even more bothersome problem for the City. Sadly they can’t see the forest for the trees.
I hope that you will get back involved with the CCAC as any organization needs to have various points of view. The important thing is to be able to find common ground and build a consensus on a topic or issue; doing so will allow the entire community to grow and flourish.
I wish you all the best,
-Dave Bossert
July 29th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
I have lived in the Santa Clarita Valley for the past 26 years. My family orginally moved into the Saugus/Valencia area and I have since lived in Newhall and now reside in Canyon Country. I remember when the city became incorprated and I have seen this city change. It is nice to see that I am not the only one that does not agree with some of the issues that the city has taken upon themselves to regluate. I am not opposed to change but if it does not benefit the entire community I agree with taking a stand and making your voice heard.
I have been to the CCAC meetings and these meetings held the thrid Wednesday have not closed their doors to anyone who has shown up. If a few of the members choose to meet at another time to help insure that other city issues are brought up for these meetings, where is the harm in that. In fact in one of the CCAC meetings, the City had asked the CCAC to make a “focus group.”
I also think that bringing in the potential city council members during an election year gives the community a real chance to hear what the candidates have to say in a public forum is a great.
I will continue to help support my community and CCAC as best I can in the most postive way that I am able. For one group to meet at the Sports Complex once a month does not seem that it could impact the city fiscally since those rooms are not in that high of a demand on the evenings they meet and it is all ready staffed for the other activities (yoga, basketball, ect) why should a small local group need to pay a fee/deposit/ect.
July 30th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Al Ferdman is an incredible asset to Santa Clarita. When some people retire, they choose to serve themselves, Al has chosen to serve others. He has been a driving force to make the CAAC a place where City and County officials, developers, neighborhood leaders, and citizens who just want to become informed can come together and get in-depth information. There is dialogue and questions allowed, which is very different from formal government proceedings.
Al has worked hard to keep the CAAC apolitical, and anyone can speak their mind. The CAAC has the closest thing to a real debate available in each election.
If the City shuts down the CAAC by it’s actions, then they will lose a great asset.
July 30th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Mr. Bossert thank you for your response.
I am still “involved” in the CCAC to the extent Chair Ferdman “allows” which is my complaint.
Freedom of Speech does not mean that others have to subsidize where you choose to exercise your personal freedom. Otherwise, I can demand that the City provide free meeting space for me and any group I want to start or join that disagrees with Mr. Ferdman or anyone else. Residents have many other forums in which to address concerns via City Staff and Council among them regular public hearings/meetings, phone, email, snail mail, in person, this blog and others, etc. Just as I can avail myself of those avenues, so can Ferdman and friends. The CCAC can continue to meet at a local restaurant, private home, or pay for meeting space, security and insurance at the Activities Center. No one is denying the CCAC the right to meet. In our early days we met in member homes, mine included. I also would like to point out, normal CCAC meetings, without candidate appearances or special presentations by a developer such as Disney, are not usually attended by 60 people but more like 25-30. If you subtract those who are not from the Canyon Country area, you are talking 10-15 people.
Dave you would not tolerate anyone coming into your community and telling you at a Public Meeting paid for with your tax dollars that you cannot fully participate. They could not shut you up if you were not allowed an opportunity to be heard on any given topic nor would you permit a meeting to become a one sided presentation that did not include your views or allow for your input. You would expect and rightfully so, that a fair meeting process following established norms and procedures would be followed, especially if there already were official rules in place that were being ignored.
The CCAC was under City auspices and under City oversight for many years. A City Staff person assigned to our group facilitated our meetings, kept meetings on track in accordance with our Founding Principles, Mission and Vision and ensured that democratic meeting rules and norms were adhered. The City Liaison also ensured that the City’s interests were fairly represented, clarified misinformation when warranted, participation was encouraged and respected, and that meeting rules of order were maintained. Our Chair was appointed and ran the meetings but did not exclusively control agenda content, discussion, invited speakers, website information, minutes, public participation, etc. Meetings were run in an inclusive collaborative manner and dealt with Canyon Country issues. A few years ago, we chose to elect our Chair and adopted policies and procedures to prevent the exact problems occurring within the CCAC at present. Mr. Ferdman was a part of that process. The City Liaison continued in the same role as before. Al also was part of the committee that developed the City Code of Conduct and Ethics. He is well aware of all of the rules he chooses to ignore.
The only other similar community committee founded under City auspices, The Saugus Action Committee, when I attended again six months ago was still operating democratically and with City Staff oversight and participation as we once did.
Mr. Ferdman increasingly utilized City Staff as a resource for information but refused to allow any guidance, active participation, or oversight particularly within the last few years. He has also refused to follow CCAC rules as ratified by eligible voting members. To the extent that there are, only a couple of original members including me who even still attend and current members are unaware these rules even exist. One of Al’s friends actually told me I should go find another group. Sorry, I am not moving and it is a Canyon Country community group, not Al’s private group.
Due to budget constraints, there is less city staff available to attend meetings, or security personnel to ensure public order. There is no Deputy or Security Officer present at any CCAC meetings in order to protect my right to participate and my right to free speech, which I have been denied on several occasions, or to ensure public safety. I have received several anonymous death threats. Who would be liable if something happened to me on City property before, during or after a meeting because of those threats? Or if I injured someone in self defense? The taxpayers are being asked to subsidize meeting venue, insurance costs and any security provided. The taxpayers would also potentially pay the tab if litigation were successful due to injury, harassment, or other legal proceedings.
The CCAC under Chair Ferdman has refused to allow City oversight or have Staff present at private, invitation only meetings. Without City oversight, it is unwise to allow any group under City sponsorship to operate independently of any constraints such as open meeting rules i.e. Brown Act, or the requirement to follow a democratic meeting process, Code of Ethics and Conduct, or other measures that are needed or required to ensure fair representation and public safety. The City Council, Planning Commission, and other City meetings are all required to comply with certain rules to allow the public to participate. The CCAC under Chair Ferdman does not meet those standards or the standards of any normal committee.
Perhaps a better way to address local issues would be to form new independent groups such as Neighborhood Councils within each community to address local problems, as was the original intent of the CCAC. Whether they are under the aegis of the City or completely independent they should observe all rules required of City meetings such as posting an agenda, minutes of every meeting readily available to anyone, all eligible members have input on future agenda items, area represented, voting right criteria, allotted time for public comment from the floor, By-Laws, etc.
Except for myself those posting here and elsewhere are part of Al’s personal click who attend meetings, some more than others, because he supports their personal ISSUE. Whether they received City Code violation citations, which they do not want to comply with, or do not want “traffic” on their street, etc. regardless of what other neighbors may want, they support Al because he supports their particular issue. Despite the needs of other residents who support the City’s efforts to enforce the very Codes and Ordinances residents have asked the City adopt and enforce to ensure that especially our older communities without CCR’s do not deteriorate further and become blighted, gang infested pockets within the City. He also supports the demands of a handful of residents to gate public roads for their own benefit to the detriment of other neighbors who do not attend CCAC meetings and the general public, which pays for those roads.
As to your comment regarding cherry picking areas for annexation, as a City taxpayer it is not in my best interest that only residential areas are annexed into the City. Without commercial and retail properties and the attendant revenue dollars also included, residential alone becomes a financial drain in order to provide infrastructure and municipal services and I as a taxpayer am not interested and appreciate City Staff looking out for my dollars.
In my opinion, the City also is correct in not continuing to expose City taxpayers to unnecessary risk and legal liabilities by sponsoring the CCAC.
Thank you for your time.
July 30th, 2010 at 10:40 pm
Regarding Ken Pulskamp’s decision not to allow the CCAC to meet at a city facility (continuing at no cost):I would like to encourage the city to cooperate with residents and not engage in decisions that set up an adversarial relationship. I am not a “long-time resident” as are many who comment here. So I have found the CCAC to be an educational forum for all where we can learn about our city. I have been impressed that the city has supported such a group.It’s a great avenue for involvement for local citizens to learn and participate, and it is not politically driven.
It is essentially a simple premise carried out very well. I, for one, appreciate the time and effort of Al Ferdman. It is irrelevant to project one’s thinking style in an attempt to imagine people’s motives in order to conclude anything else about it.
It is not a good sign that a city leader can unilaterally break ties with such a positive group.
July 31st, 2010 at 10:06 am
I think the City of Santa Clarita should be encouraging and supporting the neighborhood councils and committees. They are an important component of citizen participation and ownership of local governance, and while they are a bit more free-wheeling than the largely staged performances of City Council meetings, they are informative on issues in the City.
And while I’m opining, why is the City budget nearly impossible to find on the City website? The City should be as open and transparent as possible. To the extent it isn’t, there is the appearance of or at least the potential for hidden misconduct and consequently, the cynicism and distrust of the citizens increase. In this information age it should not be as a special request of a citizen to see the books of its government. The information should be openly posted and easily found on the government’s website.
Does the City of Santa Clarita fear the ability of any of its citizens to examine its finances? Post the Budget!
July 31st, 2010 at 11:33 am
I have attended several meetings of the CCAC (I am a director on a community board which meets at the same time.) and have found the availability of information invaluable. Projects are explained in length and open discussion is encouraged.
I also am involved, and have been from its inception, in the CAG (Citizens Advisory Group). That committee is involved in oversight of the clean-up on the Whittaker Bermite property. That property was slated for massive development before the California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) began its examination and clean-up of the property.
A wide variety of explosive components, volatile organic compounds and even depleted uranium have been discovered there. Contamination of the water, because of ammonium perchlorate, will be the longest and most expensive of the clean-ups.
The City has also withdrawn its support of this committee whose only purpose is to ensure the safety of Santa Clarita now and in the future.
However many citizens attend the CAG or the CCAC meetings regularly is a non-sequitor — these committees are the only avenue for community members to get information and ask questions without being bullied as “developmental terrorists!”
I have no doubt that the purpose of withdrawing City support for these organizations, and others like them, is to make dissemination of information and open discussion far more difficult!
July 31st, 2010 at 12:36 pm
Even in hard economic times if the city has buildings already in use for a community events like the Activity Center, I see no reason to have the groups pay a fee to use a room.
If other groups are meeting in areas that need to be open just for them to meet,either offer them a already open meeting space or let them pay a nominal fee for their use.
There will always be differences of opinions and open dialogue is what brings about compromise. This is what the CCAC does!
City sponsored groups like the CCAC is what every community in Santa Clarita needs, and I would hope that the city would rethink their decision.
P.S. I would love to start a Advisory Committee in Newhall too!
July 31st, 2010 at 1:23 pm
Nearly six years ago I approached a councilmember and expressed my desire and interest in becoming involved in civic activities and issues. I was encouraged to do so. Further I was advised to attend meetings, research and understand the issues and meet the people involved.
Heeding the advice I have met our councilmembers, many of our commission members and currently serve on a number of city committees.
Most importantly, I have taken the time to know and understand the issues, past and present, affecting our city.
To do this I have used numerous resources. Sometimes a telephone call to or meeting with a community member, government or city employee, lobbyist, developer or representative of a particular company are valuable actions. Fieldtrips to locations involved in issues, internet, library and media research, and attending community meetings are also powerful tools in learning about issues.
The CCAC has, for many years, been a valuable resource. I gave found the information presented at the CCAC meetings, open to all residents of the city, to be balanced, fair and rational!
My estimation of the CCAC is that it is unique among the many valuable resources, available to the citizens of Santa Clarita and an integral and responsible part of the city-wide community. Especially for those who endeavor to keep abreast of community and city issues.
The City of Santa Clarita has regularly been recognized nationally and state-wide for its excellence in fiscal management. This being so, I believe continuing the practice of providing a meeting place, free of charge, to the CCAC would be both fiscally frugal and responsible.
Encouraging and providing a forum for open discussion and the furtherance of understanding and participation in local government is a practice our city should continue. A practice that has spoken highly of our city leaders for many years now and their continued ethical, mature and mature ability to appreciate the value of community involvement in city government.
July 31st, 2010 at 1:31 pm
Encouraging and providing a forum for open discussion and the furterance of understanding and participation in local government is a practice our city should continue. A practice that has spoken highly of our city leaders for many years now and their continued ethical, mature and moral ability to appreciate the value of community involvement in city government.
(Please replace the last paragraph of my original post with the above. Many thanks!!!!)
July 31st, 2010 at 1:56 pm
I live in Castaic, and although I’m not actually part of the city, I find that many of the issues discussed at the CCAC meetings are of interest to anyone living this valley. I do not see how it can be said that just because there are only 60 people attending the meeting, that it does not “benefit the entire city.” I believe not only is this group beneficial to the entire city, but it benefits anyone living in the Santa Clarita Valley as a whole who wants to keep abreast of local issues. Being from Castaic, I am most concerned about the annexation issue and how the city is trying cut out only the desirable parts of Castaic where they can collect the most revenue, while leaving the remaining residents out to dry. I guess they must need to maximize their revenue to pay these exhorbitant salaries! The sewer tax increase issue, which CCAC is quite valiently opposing, is another example of how the CCAC covers issues that are not isolated to only Canyon Coutry, or even SC.
I can say I have the utmost respect and admiration for Al for dedicating so much of his time and energy to this cause. I think it’s a shame the city should pull it’s support for this vital forum for informing and encouraging the participation of the local community and would hope Mr. Pulskamp might reconsider!
July 31st, 2010 at 2:30 pm
I have been the co-chair for the CCAC for a few years. Al is doing an excellent job bringing in speakers on any subject. The building we meet in was paid for with public taxes for public use. Now the city is trying to move use out. The meetings are open to anyone in this valley not just Canyon Country residents.
July 31st, 2010 at 2:36 pm
I have been very impressed with the work that CCAC and Al Ferdman does to educate, inform and activate the residents of Canyon Country about vital local issues. CCAC performs a great public service and should be supported by the City. What I am noticing lately is the City’s attempt to quash public debate with such actions as moving Public Comment to the end of City Council meetings and most recently railroading the $1000 campaign finance limit through despite the fact that over 50 people spoke out at City Council meetings, numerous people wrote comment cards, LTEs and op/eds were written opposing this action. We need strong, active citizen organizations to make sure the public’s voice is heard at City Hall. Hip, hip, hooray! for Al Ferdman and the CCAC.
July 31st, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Talk about ironic. Merle just showed me an article that blew me away.
While Santa Clarita is attempting to kill it’s 2 Neighborhood Councils, the City of Los Angeles issued a press release heralding the formation of it’s 92nd Neighborhood Council in Northridge.
That is correct, the NINTY SECOND NEIGHBORHOOD COUNCIL with a City Budget at $50,000. But Santa Clarita, who always wants to point out how financially solvent they are, cannot afford to provide meeting rooms for 2 Neighborhood Councils once a month? I bet you thought Santa Clarita is a trend setter. Chances are you will feel differently after you read this article.
Read all about it. Power to people: Northridge council another outlet for citizens to participate in government, Posted on the Daily News Web Site: 07/30/2010 01:00:00 AM PDT.
http://www.dailynews.com/ci_15635554?IADID=Search-www.dailynews.com-www.dailynews.com
Tell us what you think about that. Then tell Ken Pulskamp at kpulskamp@santa-clarita.com.
July 31st, 2010 at 4:39 pm
Sorry, in the excitment I miscounted. The Northridge South Neighborhood Council is the 91st. Let’s see that is only 89 more than Santa Clarita.
July 31st, 2010 at 7:32 pm
I’ve been a member of the CCAC for the last 5+ years. During that time I’ve found the CCAC to be so informative about the City, Canyon Country and local topics and issues. I’ve learned what the City of Santa Clarita has to offer it’s residents. Also, about how to navigate the City systems and departments when I or anyone else need assitance or answers. These tools of knowledge have proven invaluable to me and my neighbors. When we had City staff involved with our meetings it was easy to get question and concern answered in a timely manner. Wtihout staff involvment things will take a little longer,, but can be done. Charging for the room will prove a problem because the CCAC has no budget or account to pay such a fee. The CCAC has been an Education Forum for the residents of Canyon Country and the City. We have asked for nothing from the City that was not provided for us. If the proposed fee is due to budgets about staff in the Activities Center, the CCAC only requires a room. No staff is needed for the prep or function of our meetings. The Activity Center is staffed and functioning each night for classes during CCAC meetings. So in my opinion charging Santa Clarita community groups for meeting space is wrong and counter productive to the good for the residents that CCAC meetings provide.
August 1st, 2010 at 9:08 am
It was difficult for me to read the comments as they are on a green background. But I did the best I could.
Berta – things change over time, get used to it.
While I have not attended CCAC meetings on a regular basis, I did start attenting about 5 years ago. I plan to attend every month, but occasionally things happen and I cannot go.
However, I digress. We learn more in a 2-hour meeting about what is REALLY happening in the City than we do in reading the biased “Signal”, which is our only truly local newspaper.
I did attend the forums for election of City Council members. Yes, there was political talk and several of the candidates placed material on a table – it was NOT distributed/handed out. You could take something if you wanted. It was not forced upon us. I found the forums to be very informative and used the information to GUIDE me in my decision. NO ONE on the committee has EVER persuaded me in one direction or another. This is a democracy. I have the freedom to make my own decisions!
Someone mentioned the median income in Canyon Country as being $76K. I wish! I have not worked in 3 years and my unemployment has run out. Even when I worked, I didn’t make half of $76K. But that’s beside the point. The point is that not everyone who attends the meetings would be able to fork over any amount of money to keep the CCAC going, i.e., pay for the meeting room.
And why should we pay for the meeting room? I don’t understand that. We live in this City, shop here, pay taxes here. Isn’t that supposed to be a community center for ALL OF SANTA CLARITA to use? Our tax dollars paid for it.
The current councilmembers, with one exception (and he knows who he is), appears to be on the side of themselves and against the people and they are generating that feeling to the staff. Remember, without the citizens of the community, and that does include Canyon Country, you would not be on the City Council.
An aside to the CCAC issue: Suggestion to the City: We (family) feel that each community (i.e., Saugus, Newhall, Canyon Country, etc.) should be represented on City Council, just like other areas. Los Angeles is divided into districts, why can’t we. It appears that SCV Councilmembers don’t really represent the entire City. If we had a member from each community sitting on the City Council, things MIGHT improve for the city and residents. And maybe stop all of this overgrowth.
That’s my opinion and I’m sticking to it.
You rock, Al Ferdman. You are doing an outstanding job – why else would you have been re-elected over and over? Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow. Don’t stop believing.
August 1st, 2010 at 10:41 pm
Interesting, I thought I was the only one that had NOT received a response from Mr Pulskamp.
I sent him an e-mail a couple weeks ago addressing my frustrations with his decision to cut the ties with the CCAC. Amazing and the city says they listen to us.
Dear Mr. Pulskamp,
I am a fairly new resident to the city of Santa Clarita and have recently become more involved in the local process of government in this city. I am amazed at how in such a short time, with so many obvious issues, and obvious solutions, that I could experience the degradation of democracy as I recently have, especially at the July 13th city council meeting.
My interests began during the election campaigns, and I attended all three of the CCAC held meetings where each candidate was given the opportunity to speak on their platform, and answer questions from the public. These meetings were set to be unbiased and I felt they were a good opportunity for myself, and other members of the community, to ask questions and get some real answers. This was the first experience where I was accused of being part of a group of people that were simply there regurgitating information that was provided by other candidates, and that my view had no merit. Continuing on to July 13th were Mr. Frank Ferry had such a wonderful retort to a room full of people who obviously disagreed with the increase of campaign contribution to 1,000 dollars. Again, if you disagree with the city council you are apparently in collusion with Mr Gauny and not able to form your own opinion. This response, and the decision made only proved to me that several city council members had previously made their decisions in a way that benefited themselves, and the voice of the people in that room had no merit again. These are just two examples were I am questioning your ethics and the ethics of some members on city council. I challenge you to report on how many people you hear from that agreed with that policy. And still we see that the voice of the people is not heard. in fact not considered but merely brushed off as simply 22 people that Mr. Ferry could have listed from an email he had received.
Throughout my short time I have watched several people speak to this council in hopes that their voices could be heard, an their views about things that affect their life be valued. One thing is for certain the majority of your voters are looking for change as we can see with the close margins in the last election. And now, here is the latest attempt to silence your community, Your decision to sever the cities ties with the CCAC. The Canyon Country Advisory Committee has, and does, offer many opportunities for people like myself to be informed on many issues that the community may have. They also provide a place for the city to speak and educate our community. Further more the Advisory Committee can provide crucial feedback to the council, and here is where I get stuck, feedback to the city council. the way this city operates business gives me the clear sense that this feedback, opinion, values, complaints, are of no real interest to you. as if you know better for the community than the community knows for themselves. And so you conveniently sever ties with a loud voice in your community giving reasons that it is economical, and the budget for that is different than the budget for pretty new signs to tell me what street I am coming up to.
I can respect the challenges that may come from trying to make the best decisions to operate the City of Santa Clarita and do not claim to have any understanding of that process, I do however know that to distance yourself from a committee of your community, when clearly we know that there is no silence and the peoples voice is always heard, appears to be vindictive and not in the city’s best interest. To claim that it is financial and force the CCAC to pay is just another attempt to silence the community you serve and deflect from your responsibility to do what’s best for them. This only seems like a “Speed Bump” to me. I am writing to express my concerns and implore you to allow the CCAC to continue their meetings as they have for the past several years.
I appreciate your time in reading this letter, and look forward to hearing a response from you.
Thank You
August 2nd, 2010 at 2:05 pm
I just had my comment cut off. I will try again.
The Whittaker Bermite Citizens Advisorey Group has been meeting at city hall for many years. It was after we changed the meeting time to the evening so the public would be able to attend that the problems started. I had to pay for security at our March meeting. For our July meeting we were told the meeting room was already booked. I sent an email to Mayor Weste on June 17 requesting assitence in obtaining a room in the evening at city hall or the Sports Complex. I did not receive a reply.On June 25, Ken Pulskamp sent me an email stating that due to the recession and budget cuts the City would no longer provide free meeting room space at City facilities. Effective September 2010 all groups must pay the appropriate rental costs.
Since the practice was not effective till September we were allowed to meet in the Orchard Room for our July 7 meeting which was well attended.
This dose not appear to be a fair policy for groups like the CAG and the Canyon Country Advisory Committee. These groups have provided a valuable service to the community for many years. The City would be a better place if all of the major areas of the city had advisory groups such as the CCAC and CAG.
Is this a policy of city staff or a policy of the city council? Since we are a general law city it should be addressed by the city council at a public meeting not by an email from city staff.
August 2nd, 2010 at 5:49 pm
We have lived in the SCV for more than 40 years, and we have always enjoyed the support of Canyon Country. In recent years, the Canyon Country Advisory Committee has served an invaluable purpose of bringing political, social and civic matters of interest to local citizens, and we have attended many of their meetings.
It is imperative that the City of Santa Clarita reach out and encourage such gatherings of its citizens, and seek their input and ideas. This is how democracy works — all voices must be heard.
The City of Santa Clarita must continue supporting free and open meetings of the Canyon Country Advisory Committee, as they serve everyone in our valley.
August 2nd, 2010 at 11:38 pm
As a 40 plus year resident of the valley I want to add my support for the work the CCAC does and the intelligent and caring leadership provided by Al Ferdman. Canyon Country is a small community that has been developed by many, many different developers, and has not had the benefit of orderly and well-planned development as has other sections of the city, that were developed by one or two large firms. Al and his group have provided invaluable help to both the citizens of the area AND to the City by helping to correct some of the planning and building deficiencies that have resulted from such poor planning. The CCAC very carefully listens to the concerns of the CC community and effectively addresses the City with those concerns.
There is no doubt in my mind that the CCAC has become less and less popular with the City Manager’s office primarily because they do “rock the boat”, and insist on answers to their legitimate complaints. It seems a travesty that the City Manager would consider stopping the City’s support of this group, and even more of a travesty that he would have the authority to make such a change without City Council input. There are a lot of groups in the City that do make a difference for their individual communities, with the CCAC being one of the most active, and one of, if not the most successful in representing it’s members.
For the City Manager to suggest that the minimal cost of continued support of this group should result in its elimination, should be embarrassing to anyone in City Hall. Al and his group present studied and intelligent suggestions and requests to many City Agencies, and provide a great vehicle for that needed interface. Good Job Al !
August 3rd, 2010 at 12:02 am
The Canyon Country Advisory Committee is a great service not only to the community of Canyon Country where I live, but also a service to the entire Santa Clarita Valley.
The monthly meetings gives all citizens a place to meet , be heard, exchange ideas, and be informed on the direction the city is going, right and wrong.
Subjects from low income housing, sewer taxes, new roads, dump sites, city codes, and much more are discussed in on open meeting with city officials, developers and others.
Al Ferdman, the chairman of this committee has been elected 9 times since the year 2000, and for a very good reason. He wants the same things we do for our city. He is the type of person our community wants, not only to head up this committee, but also the type we would love to see in our local government.
Having lived in Canyon Country over 40 years, Al has seen many changes, and a decline in the way we live in this valley. He is dedicated to the preservation of our city, and our quality of life.
As Chairman, his meetings always allow all sides to be heard, open discussion, and allows those who attend to make up their own minds on what is good or bad for our city.
Others like Berta, have been nominated for the position of the CCAC Chairman, but have lost. By reading some of her posts, you can see why she could never be elected to this, or any other position. She thinks too much like the present city administration. She does not NOT stand for what our community wants. She, like the city, wants the citizens to remain ignorant of what the city is doing.
The last election is proof that most citizens of this city are just not informed.
We need someone with a fair, but critical eye looking at what the city is doing for us, and to us. Al Ferdman is the man with this critical eye, and the CCAC is a great place for a citizen to get involved in city actions.
These CCAC meetings have exposed many mistakes, and shady deals made by our city leaders over the past few years, and probably why the city staff is taking away the free use of the public meeting place where the CCAC meetings have been held. It does not cost the city anything to supply a room at the activities center once a month for 2 hours.
We should all support local groups like the CCAC as they help to keep us informed, and keep our city from becoming corrupt like the city of Bell.
Keep up the great work Al.
August 3rd, 2010 at 8:26 am
The Canyon Country Advisory Committee has been providing a truly outstanding service to our City, accurately and objectively informing our community, enabling us to advise on solutions to complex issues we face. Of course, any time that an issue is controversial, it is also “political,” involving the conflicting interests of different political groups and individuals. When the Advisory Committee takes a position in its advice on a controversial issue, that position may be the same as the position of one political side or the other, that is unavoidable. And the Committee may suggest new and different solutions for the City to try from what its current programs are doing. But that advice is certainly not “Anti-City.”
The positions that the Committee takes have never been political endorsements of specific candidates or political parties. All City Council members have been invited to our meetings. The Committee has even hosted candidate forums in our City elections, giving equal time and consideration to every candidate. The interaction in those forums has exposed us to a wealth of ideas from City Council candidates in a way that no other forum in Santa Clarita provides.
So I was dismayed to hear that the City was no longer going to provide a meeting room once a month free of charge to the volunteer Advisory Committee it had originally organized because of a belief that the Committee was becoming “too political.” How can an advisory committee give advice and not sometimes have that advice be the same as the view of one political side or the other? Should the committee not give advice on any controversial issues?
The City several years ago, well before the current budget crisis, withdrew its staff liaison who attended all our meetings. The Committee had to learn to function and survive without direct City oversight or guidance at its meetings. We are not experts at Roberts Rules of Order, but we are only an advisory committee, not a policy-making government body. Decisions are made by majority vote. If we had tried to function in a totally formal way, like our City Council does, our attendance would never have grown so much, and our Committee might not even be in existence today.
It is also hard to understand how the Advisory Committee’s use of one meeting room at the Activity Center for $50 once a month can now be a budget issue. Would that room really be in use by other groups paying fees every night of the month that the Center is open? Or, is there one night per month when one room would not be in use by other groups and could be used by the Advisory Committee at no loss to City revenue? At present, most of the other meeting rooms at the Activity Center are vacant on the nights when our Committee meets.
And how is our Committee supposed to pay for a room, when we have no source of funds under our structure established originally by the City, and no budget allotment from the City any longer? Having to raise funds is a huge issue for us, requiring us to incorporate in order to collect fees or accept donations from our membership. It will require much additional time and resources to operate under the formalities of a corporate structure, and will take member time away from discussing the community issues that bring them to our meetings.
Ultimately, how do you put a price on the value of the community involvement and solutions that this committee has generated? Surely the results are worth far more than the rental value of that one room once a month. Committee members have volunteered countless hours to researching issues, organizing insightful presentations on topics like the current Sanitation District tax increase, enlisting outstanding guest speakers, participating on City task forces like the one for the homeless shelter, and bringing our community together. Aren’t we achieving our original goals and improving both Canyon Country and the entire City? I believe we are.
August 4th, 2010 at 2:06 pm
I just wanted to drop a quick note adding my voice to the growing chorus of citizens who are speaking out against the proposal by the city to end funding for the Canyon Country Advisory Committee. As an east-side resident, I have a personal stake in the continued existence of the CCAC, but my desire to see this group remain viable goes far beyond geographical concerns.
The CCAC has been a catalyst for discussion on a wide range of topics since its inception. Many of these issues have pitted Canyon Country residents against the city and likewise. It is through the CCAC that information important to Canyon Country residents has been disseminated. One of the most recent examples of this advocacy is occurring as we speak and affects all Santa Clarita residents.
As the chloride/Sanitation District rate increase issue has made its way into dinner-table conversations all around the Santa Clarita Valley, the CCAC has been the disseminator of information and a repository for alternatives that have now caused the Sanitation District to put off a politically unpopular a vote in support of rate increases to fund the design and environmental process of a single-use, reverse-osmosis facility to remove a tiny portion of chloride from our reprocessed sewage water.
I realize that the times call for a reduction in city expenses, but is the CCAC being asked to shoulder a greater burden than other similar city-funded endeavors?
One might compare the service that the CCAC offers to that of another group I am involved with. The Newhall Redevelopment Committee is also a city-supported “advisory group” delivering a benefit to residents. If that group is allowed to continue its important work in the community, so should the CCAC.
http://www.the-signal.com/section/35/article/31768/
August 7th, 2010 at 4:48 pm
Kevin Korenthal writes he is a member of both the Newhall Redevelopment Committee and the CCAC. He says, “Keep funding the CCAC”. He does not mention costs are paid for with taxpayer dollars. He also does not mention all the additional costs for insurance coverage and security personnel but those must be included in any discussion.
Kevin additionally failed to acknowledge the key difference between the two committees. The Newhall Redevelopment Committee is under the direct oversight of the City of Santa Clarita with Board Members appointed by the City Council, and reporting to the City Manager. As a bona fide City committee, NRC also conducts meetings in accordance with democratic meeting norms. The only community-based committee like the CCAC, The Saugus Action Committee, has always had direct City oversight and staff participation.
The current CCAC leadership has refused to allow City oversight, operates meetings at the discretion of the Chair and in a manner that creates a hostile environment for anyone not in agreement with the Chair. The Canyon Country Advisory Committee currently operates in direct violation of CCAC founding principles and purpose, all ratified Policies, Mission and Vision Statements, and Code of Ethics and Conduct. Any officially, recognized City committee would have to comply with the City of Santa Clarita Code of Ethics and Conduct, Brown Act requirements and any and all other rules the governing agency with oversight, in this case the City, imposed. The CCAC under Chair Ferdman has not complied with any rules for governance required of other City committees here, or elsewhere.
Elective municipal services have been drastically cut even for official committees during these tough economic times in many municipalities. The CCAC is not a City official committee.
In my opinion, City leaders appropriately decided to discontinue subsidies for any unofficial special interest groups and thus relieve City taxpayers from any actual and potential costs associated.
The CCAC has been functioning as a pseudo policymaking body attempting to influence City leaders on issues affecting the entire City despite having no official authority to represent any area within the City, not even Canyon Country.
August 9th, 2010 at 12:59 pm
The CCAC provides the community with an independent voice. The form of government where every committee and group exists under government “oversight” can be found in any communist country.
I have looked on the City Website and cannot find any rules or guidance for community groups. Ms. Gonzalez seems to make this stuff up as she goes along. She clearly has her own view which differs from the CCAC members.
I attend CCAC meetings and like the way the meetings are run. I say keep going Al Ferdman. You clearly have our support.
August 12th, 2010 at 8:09 pm
The CCAC is a vital functioning element of good communication between the city and its residents. It is unfortunate that the city refuses to recognize this; this posture is evident not only with the CCAC but also with its poor usage of the few commissions and committees the city pretends to recognize.
For example, instead of a thriving civic arts program or shared and positive dialog on the proposed Newhall library, the committees and commissions set up to lead and advise on these issues are repeatedly usurped, overruled by the myopic viewpoint of a few who are more concerned with control than community input. Thus, we reject the experts and those affected by such decisions and get a shadow of mediocrity in return.
In the case of the CCAC, the most recent example of its effectiveness is the now-famous massive tax, er, “fee” increases proposed for our taxpayers. The CCAC was screaming about this $250 million project in early 2009, bringing out people to talk about the numbers and putting out the hard facts. So, how is it that the SanDistrct board members were so blindsided by this in 2010? The answer is… they weren’t. They chose to keep it quiet and postpone it until after the election… and that’s just one reason why the CCAC is such an inconvenient organization.
If we continue to reject the cries of concerned citizens involved with the CCAC or the city’s other commissions and committees, our city’s growth will continue to be retarded. There are very capable decision-makers and experts in these areas and some people who are working overtime to bring out the facts to our residents. Community groups like the CCAC bring such people forward.
By withdrawing its relationship with the CCAC, the city is taking another massive step in the wrong direction.
August 17th, 2010 at 10:11 am
Is the City Manager attempting to censor local residents? The fact that we need to ask this question is a problem in itself. The CCAC provides a voice for Canyon Country residents and is open to the general public. So, this uncooperative move on the part of SC City management can only be viewed as an attempt to stifle the voice of the Canyon Country Community Advisory Committee.
We are are part of Santa Clarita and should be treated as Valencia in terms of money spent on our streets, parkways, and other city involved care.
By taking away our meeting location, you will not stop our voices.