43rd Assembly District

While the battle to represent the 43rd Assembly District is interesting on its own merits because it features two young, articulate and sophisticated candidates, there are issues just below the surface that make it particularly intriguing.

In the race, Democrat Dario Frommer is facing Republican Craig Missakian to represent the district, which includes parts of Glendale, Burbank, Toluca Lake, Los Feliz and Hollywood.

But behind the two candidates lurk a couple of Sacramento heavyweights who are putting power and prestige on the line.

Frommer is the former appointments secretary for Gov. Gray Davis and has the governor’s endorsement in the race. Missakian, meanwhile, has the support of former Gov. George Deukmejian, who doesn’t get involved in many races but was a political mentor for the candidate.

Beyond that, the two candidates represent ethnic groups that have sometimes been in conflict in the district. Frommer, a Latino, and Missakian, an Armenian American, both have vowed to work to ease tensions between the two communities, exacerbated when a Latino youth was killed, allegedly by Armenian gang members.

Both candidates are attorneys and both were raised in the district. The seat became open when Democrat Scott Wildman ran and lost in a state Senate primary.

The Times Valley Edition editorial board, as part of its series of interviews with candidates from select races about their views on the issues and about their campaigns, recently talked to Frommer and Missakian.

* * *

DARIO FROMMER:

Question: What do you offer the district that your opponent does not?

Answer: I think there are major differences between us. One area is experience. I’ve been a chief of staff to state Sen. Art Torres. Several years ago, I was appointment secretary to Gov. Gray Davis. I also worked for the governor when he was the state controller. In my private law practice, I’ve been an advocate for cities and local government in Sacramento. I think I have an understanding of how Sacramento works, and I think in an era of term limits, it gives me an enormous advantage to be able to go up there and hit the ground running. I also think I know the community, having grown up here, being a homeowner here, teaching at the local community college, being part of the local schools. I have a feel for what’s happening. We have a lot of needs in this district. It’s a district that I think has been neglected in some ways, not getting its fair share of money from Sacramento.

Q: Speaking of education, how do you stand on the school voucher issue? (Proposition 38 on the state ballot would authorize at least $4,000 per pupil for use in attending qualifying private and religious schools).

A: I’m opposed to Prop. 38. I don’t think that school vouchers are the answer to our education problems. And I don’t think that plan is workable.

Q: What are the solutions to our education problems?

A: I would take a number of steps. One of them has to do with teacher training and teacher improvement. We’re going to have a teacher shortage in this state. We already do in many areas. And if we want to reduce class size, we’re going to need more teachers. At the same time, we want to make sure that we’re keeping teachers in the system. In the L.A. Unified [School] District, 50% of the teachers have five years or less experience. So there’s no one there to mentor younger teachers. We have to improve pay, we have to help teachers get their credential whether the state is helping them pay for it or giving them time and credit to do it. We need to do the kind of training program the governor has proposed using the Cal State and [University of California] systems and bringing teachers in for extensive training. We also need to train administrators. A principal can make a huge difference in a school. Every school district in the area I’m running in is having overcrowding problems. We can’t continue our class-size reduction if we don’t plan to address facilities problems. One of the major problems I see is that districts are caught in red tape in Sacramento, where it takes a long time to get plans approved. A lot of the laws that require Sacramento approval are well-intentioned, but I think you need to streamline them, make the process quicker. For example, a law was passed [that] requires every district that wants to build a new school to submit their plans for environmental review to the Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC). The problem is, nobody thought about staffing the department to make sure that those reviews are completed quickly. I’m not opposed to the DTSC doing the reviews. After Belmont, it’s probably a good idea, but sometimes in Sacramento people focus very narrowly on one thing and they don’t look at the big picture. We also need to work with districts to reform the whole building code on educational facilities, which was written in the ‘50s, when we had plenty of open space in places like the San Fernando Valley. We are looking at a time when there’s not going to be much open space. We may have to go with smaller facilities. We may have to look at doing things like building the basketball court, or a gymnasium, on top of a parking structure. But that’s going to take reform in the codes at the state level. The other area I think we need to focus on is that only 30% of our kids go to college, 70% of them will not. What I’m seeing in a lot of high schools is that there are many kids falling through the cracks. No one is really addressing what’s going to happen to those who are not college bound. And in this economy, we need to make sure that those kids get the skills they need to go out and get a good job. I think we need to build more partnerships in the private sector.

Q: Do you support the measure that would allow school bonds to pass with 55% of the vote?

A: I think this is one of the most important tools that we will have to speed school construction. I think it’s a good, common-sense measure. I think it ensures better accountability in many ways. It limits the increase in property taxes, which I think is prudent. But it also gives districts an additional tool to get these bonds on the ballot and hopefully passed.

Q: You mentioned the need to hit the ground running because of term limits. Do you favor term limits?

A: On the one hand, I like term limits because they’ve given people like myself an opportunity to get involved [that] might not otherwise exist. I do see some downsides. I think that there is some truth to the fact that you’re losing institutional knowledge as people pass through. It takes a lot of folks a couple of years to learn the job, and then they get good at it and have to move on. On the other hand, I have seen an increased willingness in the Legislature for people to put partisanship aside and work on issues. I think that one of the intended benefits of term limits was to create a citizen Legislature. And I think it has. I don’t think that’s a bad thing at all, that you have people who are not so wedded to the system, not so wedded to the party. I think that this current session of the Legislature, the last two years, has been extremely productive.

Q: The film industry is a major employer in the district. What would you do to offset runaway film production?

A: I think we need to look at how to streamline the process. There are a lot of different standards, there are a lot of different processes, and I think we ought to look at trying to standardize that. Number two, I like the idea of potentially looking at a production package. Maybe we’ll use bond money to have the state look at financing films that would be made here, with local talent, using local businesses. The other thing I think we need to look at is job training. We need to help people make a transition into different areas of what they can do within the industry, so maybe they’ve got a couple of different skills. So if one part of the work they’re doing is not happening right now, there are other things they can do in the industry and survive. As I go door to door, I am finding a lot of people who are telling me, “Boy, you know, I was doing fine, making decent money, and I’m really, really hurting now because of this lack of jobs.”

Q: What is the biggest issue you hear about going door to door?

A: Education is far and away the biggest issue. It’s interesting that although many people talk about the system and they’re concerned about it, many of them in Glendale and Burbank are very happy with their local schools and local teachers and administrators. Health care is a big issue. A lot of people in this district are small-business people, they’re self-employed, they work at home and they’re having tremendous difficulty affording insurance. One of the things I’d like to see us do is look at earmarking some of the money that we’re going to get from the tobacco settlement and locking it up and perhaps investing it and then taking the proceeds of those investments to provide tax credits. Or working on an arrangement to allow small-business people or self-employed people to go into a pool so you have the strength of numbers when purchasing insurance. Look at some innovative ways to do that because people just always tell me horror stories about $500, $600 a month for insurance for themselves and their families.

Q: What would you do to address transportation problems?

A: I think we’re off to a good start because the governor and the Legislature put money into to this area, particularly the Valley, for improvements. Long-term, we’re going to have to dedicate more money to transportation. I honestly would like us to look at light rail. I’d like us to look at programs to encourage ridership in high-occupancy vehicle and carpool lanes. But the other real issue that we have to address long-term here is growth. We have to look at how we attract people and build housing and businesses in an area so people can get to their jobs quickly, so they’re not forced, because they can’t afford to buy a house near their work, to live many, many miles away. And I think that as we look at affordable housing now as an issue, one of our objectives ought to be how we can encourage communities to build housing that’s close to work, that’s affordable, that’s sustainable. I think that’s an area that we really need to look at long-term.

Q: There have been some tensions in Glendale between the Latino and Armenian communities. If you were elected, how would you address this problem?

A: Some of the tensions are real and some of them have been hyped up. And a lot of it, I think, is bringing the two different communities together and dialoguing, and that’s happened in Glendale. I think that’s very, very positive. One thing I’ve been working on is to get a state grant of money for youth. There’s $250,000 in Glendale to be shared by a couple of different organizations, nonprofits, to do counseling and mentorship. I also think we need to look at our schools and focus on programs that bring students together and have a dialogue, or bring students together in a common purpose working on things. Although some students do integrate and have friendships, many do not. We ought to look at ways we can encourage students through positive projects, working together, team-building, dialogue about understanding different cultures. Once you do that, people begin to realize that there’s so much in common. If you look at a Latino and [an] Armenian community, they are very similar with very similar values. Family, hard work, faith, respect for the elders . . . they’re communities [that] really emphasize taking care of their own. I really do think that it’ll be incumbent on leadership to look for programs that we can work on with city leaders and others in the schools to bring about that sense of commonality.

* * *

CRAIG MISSAKIAN:

Question: What do you bring to the district that your opponent does not?

Answer: I think one of the most important differences is the issue of experience. Whereas he as spent his entire life in Sacramento, I’ve spent my entire life as a prosecutor and as a business lawyer in the community, dealing firsthand with many of the issues that I think are important to the people who live in my district.

Q: What are some of the problems facing the district? When you go door to door, what do you hear people talking about?

A: The issues that seem to come up most often tend to focus on education, crime, especially juvenile crime, health care and the business climate in California.

Q: What are the concerns about the business climate?

A: I think there’s still a sense that the taxes in California are too high and that we could do more to improve that. Many people complain about the gas tax quite a bit and want to know whether or not I support a repeal of that tax, and I do. A lot of people are fed up with the lawsuit abuse that seems to typify doing business in California, and they’re looking for someone that can make significant reforms in the area of torte litigation.

Q: Do you support Proposition 38, the school voucher initiative?

A: No. I have not ruled out the use of vouchers to help some of the poorer families get their kids out of the worst-performing schools in the state. But I don’t support Prop. 38. I do not believe that vouchers are a silver bullet that will cure all the problems in our public schools.

Q: What about the initiative that would repeal the two-thirds requirement for school bonds?

A: I am opposed to that. For me it’s just a matter of fairness. If you’re going to ask the property owners to foot the bill for those bonds, I think it’s only fair that we pass them with a two-thirds majority. I have read up on this, trying to find out if in fact bonds not passing by a two-thirds majority is providing a significant obstacle. And I don’t think it is. From the information I have, the two-thirds requirement has not been a significant obstacle. When the school districts have made their case to the community--they did this in Glendale, doing a very effective job of showing what the money is going to go to do in terms of repairs and construction--the community has responded. And in my conversations with school districts in this area, they each say that. I think if you look a the numbers statewide, the vast majority of the bond issues are passing.

Q: The film industry is big in this district. How would you address the issue of runaway film production?

A: Well, my approach is significantly different than my opponent’s. His approach is to create a state bank, funded with taxpayer dollars and use that money to fund film production. And I think that’s a mistake for a couple of reasons. One, as a former entertainment lawyer, I know that the motion picture business is extremely risky. When you make a film, you don’t know if it’s going to make a dime at the box office. So I’m not sure that’s the most prudent use of scarce taxpayer dollars. And frankly, I think it would be a tough sell to go to the public and say, “You know, we’re going to take a portion of your tax dollars to make films, the content of which you may not agree with.” I don’t think I want to have government in the business of deciding which films are made and which films are not made, which is essentially what you’re doing when you’re deciding which to fund. You can’t fund them all, so you have to pick and choose, and frankly, I’m not sure if I want the state or federal government involved in those kinds of creative decisions. In terms of what I would do, I have always supported revisions to the tax code that give producers and others that are involved in making these decisions an incentive to do it locally. And I think that’s the best we can do and the most we can do.

Q: Another issue facing local residents involves improving transportation. What are your thoughts?

A: It raises the issue of urban sprawl, which I think is the umbrella term that covers this whole area of discussion. One of the things I would like to do is look at what they’ve referred to as “job centered housing” where you have housing near where the jobs are so people do not have to get on the freeway to drive from Glendale to Chatsworth, for example, to work. You do that by changing our zoning regulations and our tax policies to give people incentives to locate their businesses where the housing is and vice versa. Certainly we have to look at our infrastructure. I think California has ignored it for too long, and now we’re at a point where we’re facing a very high price tag, whether it’s our water delivery system or schools or our transportation infrastructure. One of the things that I would like to do is earmark every year a portion of the state budget to be spent on transportation needs. That way we would just pay as we go. We don’t have to rely as much on statewide bonds to fund those kinds of projects. We also need to give more autonomy to local areas, creating transportation districts so we can start addressing some of the specific needs that the [San Fernando] Valley has, for example, which may be different than the Westside or Los Angeles or some of the other parts in the basin.

Q: The district seems to be edging toward Democratic majority in registration. Do you believe you can reach out to the Democrats and get their votes?

A: I believe I can. In my experience, walking door to door and talking to Democrats and the independents about the issues, more and more people have less and less allegiance to their parties, and what they’re looking for, in my experience, is someone that’s with them on the issues, someone they can trust and someone that has the experience to go to Sacramento and not just be a tool of the special-interest groups up there. I hope that in telling them my story, that comes through and that I will be able to appeal to those crossover voters.

Q: In Glendale recently, there have been tensions between Latinos and Armenians, particularly among young people. How would you resolve that?

A: I will personally go to the schools, and, because I am an American of Armenian ancestry, will try to provide a bridge between these two groups that I’m hoping will go a long way to bringing them together. There is legitimately some tension that needs to be addressed. I don’t think just throwing money at the problem is going to do it. These are very difficult issues. I have worked with at-risk kids before. It is hard, intensive labor. You going to do it almost one kid at a time. And I have made a commitment to use my position as a state legislator to go into every single school in that district and generate a discussion on this issue. The stakes are so high we have to do everything we possibly can. When I go into schools, I talk about the fact that there is a trend in this country and the state to break ourselves down into smaller and smaller groups. We have to start recognizing that we are Americans, that even though we may have been born elsewhere or we may have different last names, the colors of our skin may be different, we are fundamentally Americans because we are joined based on these common values that define us as a culture and a country. And their reaction is, “Yeah, that’s great,” but if you go out into the cafeteria or you go onto the playground, what you’re going to see is one ethnic island after another. I think the kids are concerned about it. They recognize it to be a problem. I think they all want to come together but I think we just have to give them a little help in finding that path.

Q: You’ve mentioned juvenile crime as one of the concerns that voters have. What specifically are their concerns?

A: In our area in particular, there have been some significant incidents of very violent juvenile crime. If you read the papers, you see a reduction in the adult crime rate but an increase in the juvenile crime rate, coupled with the fact that kids these days are involved in some of the most violent offenses being committed by adults or kids. And when you see two kids bludgeoned to death, it hits hard, and people want to talk about that. They are concerned, for a variety of reasons. They don’t want to see kids killing kids, but they’re wondering what’s happening to our society. I was a prosecutor and spent a year in South Central doing just juvenile crime and I saw a lot of it. I have a lot of very specific ideas of what I think needs to be done. We have to identify those kids who have fallen into the violent crime category, and the way we do that is to have courts, the police departments, the schools and the social services centers working together. There has to be a seamless web exchanging information to identify those kids, the ones that we know are involved in gangs, ones that may have this tendency, to keep an eye on them. Then there’s the kids that come into the system for the first time, having committed a nonviolent offense, for example, a petty theft, an act of vandalism. There are a lot of kids like that, but the system fails them. They bring them in and they put them right back out on the street on probation, unsupervised probation. They don’t send them to camp, typically, they don’t send them to California Youth Authority, they don’t even send them to juvenile hall. They put them right back out on the street. In my mind, when that kid walks through that door, he is telling us that he needs help, and it’s our job to give it to him. I would like to institute a pilot program, starting with South Central Los Angeles, starting with Oakland, starting with the Central Valley, where you have literacy training centers because most of these kids, about eight out of 10 of them, are functionally illiterate. We’ve got to make sure they get intensive help in reading. And that will be mandatory. It will also be mandatory that they do community service where they’ll be giving back to their community, cleaning up alleys, painting out graffiti. And they will have to check in every week or every two weeks to show they’ve done their hours. Then they have to go to school and they have to get remedial help and whatever they need. I’m hoping in that way that we will prevent them from coming back again somewhere down the line having committed a carjacking, forceable rape or a murder, at which point we have to try them as adults under Prop. 21. It’s a very different approach than we have now, because now it’s a system that only kicks into high gear when the kid has committed a murder or something equally serious.