Berman’s Alarming Flier on Northeast Valley Crime Irks Godinez

A recent anti-crime mailing by Rep. Howard L. Berman (D-Mission Hills) perturbed some San Fernando residents.

The congressman, in a Dec. 26 letter to constituents, mentioned “vandals, burglars, rapists and murderers that roam our streets.”

Improvements have been made, “but the crime rate in our area remains appallingly high!” Berman wrote.

San Fernando Mayor Raul Godinez II and others did not appreciate those words, feeling they perpetuated a stereotype about living conditions in the northeast San Fernando Valley.

Godinez fired off his own letter to Berman on Jan. 23, pointing out that crime has declined 20% in his city in the past three years, and saying he was disappointed with the “overall tone” presented to residents.

“It is one that seeks to reinforce the public’s worst fears about public safety in San Fernando,” Godinez wrote. “This is particularly disturbing to me because it goes against our current efforts of trying to dispel this unsubstantiated perception that San Fernando is a gang-ridden, unsafe place to live, work and do business.”

Godinez also said that Berman’s letter made it appear that nine new officers had joined the force in recent years, when the true number was only two.

On Wednesday, Berman wrote back to the mayor, urging him to reread the first letter. It showed pride in recent improvements, and was not negative, Berman wrote.

“It is no reflection on the delightful city of San Fernando, nor on your leadership, to note that the crime rate is still too high and that we must continue to work hard to protect our constituents,” Berman wrote.

In an interview, Godinez said he respects the congressman but remains concerned about his choice of words.

“He could have accomplished the same goal, letting people know we are working on public safety, without being so negative,” Godinez said.

Squeaky Clean

Former Assemblyman Richard Katz has called upon fellow candidates in the 20th District Assembly race to refrain from taking cheap shots and stick to the issues this political season. In fact, Katz, who is vying with City Councilman Richard Alarcon for the Democratic nomination, has asked the candidates to join him in a “code of conduct pledge.”

“Voters are disgusted with poison politics,” Katz said. “That is why I am asking all the candidates in this election to join with me and pledge to run a campaign conducted in a spirit of decency and civility rather than the mudslinging that has turned so many people away from the democratic process.”

Katz’s 10-item “Code of Fair Campaign Practices Pledge” includes, among other vows of fair play, promises not to “originate or spread any malicious or unfounded accusations” and to “refrain from the use of personal vilification, character defamation, or any other form of scurrilous personal attacks.” It is based on codes developed in other districts.

But Katz added one item of his own: a pledge not to take money from businesses or individuals seeking contracts from public agencies on which the candidates sit.

Katz said Thursday that so far none of the other candidates had responded to the request, which was faxed out Tuesday, but added, “We’re going to do this even if the other candidates do not.”

Alarcon was not impressed.

“I’ve always prided myself on running clean campaigns,” he said. “I plan to do the same in this election.”

Payback Time

Sometimes it can be hard to say no, or in Rep. Brad Sherman’s case, no thanks!

The first-term Democrat from Woodland Hills sent out a news release this week to remind constituents that he has not forgotten his vow to forgo a cost-of-living pay increase that Congress voted itself last year.

The release contains a photocopy of a check in the amount of $126.32 made out to the U.S. Treasury, an amount equal to the monthly raise that Sherman said he doesn’t want.

“Congress adopted a pay increase that I voted against, then they insisted on giving me the pay increase even though I asked them not to, and they would not even allow a vote on a bill to change the law,” Sherman said. “The only solution for me is to give them their money back--writing a check to the U.S. Treasury each time I get a check. It is inefficient, but at least it is effective.”

Sherman said that he could not in good faith accept the money.

“In 1996, the voters of the 24th Congressional District gave me a great employment contract,” he said. “That employment contract was at a set rate of pay. I accepted it and I should not get paid any more.”

Lighting Up

In the political double-take department, William Westmiller, a candidate for the Republican nomination in the 24th Congressional District, urged the Thousand Oaks City Council this week to approve licensing for a local cannabis club.

The Rainbow County Ventura Cannabis Buyers Club, which sold marijuana for medical purposes, was closed recently under a temporary restraining order and is the target of a civil suit by the Ventura County district attorney.

Westmiller, a Thousand Oaks businessman, emphasized that he does not advocate marijuana use for minors or for recreational purposes. He said his support for the club was based on research showing that marijuana can provide relief from “crippling pain and serious illness.”

The real issue for Westmiller, though, was one of overzealous government. He said 60% of the district’s voters supported Proposition 215, the Medical Marijuana Initiative that was passed in 1996.

“I believe in local control. This is not an area in which the government should be getting involved in our lives,” he said. “Most Republicans supported Proposition 215 and I have no trouble supporting this.”

Defining Moments

There were some wonderful lessons in political-speak to be found in the way county health officials phrased their response to a report in The Times that even in high-risk cases, poor women were forced to attempt to deliver babies vaginally at county hospitals during a period of nearly a decade from the mid-1980s to 1995.

For example, County Health Director Mark Finucane and his chief medical deputy, Dr. Donald Thomas, vehemently denied to the Board of Supervisors that such a policy existed.

Turns out they were being rather specific on their definition of a policy.

But Thomas, on several occasions, told a reporter that while there may not have been a “policy,” there was a “guideline” that called for the same thing.

The difference between a policy and a guideline? “A guideline . . . is something that says you should do this or that, and if you don’t do it you might have to explain yourself,” Thomas said last week. “A policy could get you fired if you don’t do it.”

We see . . .