Candidates Debate in Public Forum – Part One

The City Council Candidates Forum drew a standing-room-only crowd on Wednesday night. The forum was the third this week for candidates and was moderated by the League of Women Voters, Pasadena Area.

, , , , and attended the forum and fielded questions submitted by residents on everything from their definition of “grassroots” to spending limits for municipal elections, budget cuts and Tea Party affiliations. Hot topics like the Kensington project, Utility Users Tax Increase Extension (Measures 12-1 and 12-2) and police spending were also addressed.

Check out

How would you define “grassroots?”

The opening question of the evening called for the candidates to share their definition of the word “grassroots.” Capoccia defined it as having support from local residents, while Goss said it was government by the people. Harabedian said that it’s how one campaigns and the people that help along the way, then used the opportunity to address his fundraising efforts.

Harabedian acknowledged that he has raised a good amount of money because he is running against “very formidable opponents,” including incumbent and former mayor MacGillivray, who has the advantage of already being in the public eye.

When Harabedian mentioned that MacGillivray’s first city council term from 1990-1998 coincided with his elementary, middle and high school years, it got a few chuckles and eyebrow raises from the audience. MacGillivray was quick to quip that most of the people in the room were much older than Harabedian as well, and used the opportunity to partake in some friendly political jest.

Koerber said that going door-to-door campaigning and having the support of friends and family is grassroots, then went on to ask the other candidates to pledge that they would not take any money from outside interests like the Police Officers Association or Tea Party (Braudrick and Harabedian have been endorsed by the POA). MacGillivray took Koerber’s pledge, then said that grassroots is having the support of the community. Braudrick said that grassroots comes from Sierra Madre.

Should there be spending limits on municipal elections?

Goss called spending limits on municipal elections an “incumbent scheme” and said they would not be wise, unless they were implemented in an environment where a lot of special interests are involved. Harabedian said he did not believe in spending limits, saying they could provide a huge barrier for a new candidate.

Koerber said he was not in favor of spending limits for Sierra Madre, but mentioned that he is a frugal person and did not throw a campaign kick off party. MacGillivray said that she, too is frugal and that spending limits would be very difficult to monitor.

Braudrick stated that he was in favor of spending limits for municipal elections because they would cause people to be more wise and thoughtful with their spending. Capoccia also said that spending limits would be difficult to monitor.

The Kensington project

Five of the candidates spoke in favor of the Kensington project (the proposed assisted living facility on Sierra Madre Blvd.) to varying degrees, with MacGillivray saying that she would be in favor of the project if the voters were in favor.

Koerber and Capoccia said that they would support the project if it fell under Measure V, and Capoccia spoke of the importance of the project to go before voters.

Harabedian called Kensington “long overdue” and acknowledged the need to work with project developers on Kensington. Braudrick said the project is much needed so long-time residents won’t have to leave Sierra Madre when they get older. Goss called Kensington a “no brainer,” saying that he supports anything that would enhance downtown Sierra Madre. Goss also mentioned that the project could bring in property tax revenue.

Are you affiliated with the Tea Party?

Braudrick, Capoccia, Goss and Harabedian said that they were not members of the Tea Party, while Koerber and MacGillivray did not give a definitive yes or no. Some candidates questioned whether this was relevant, but Harabedian said this topic was an important one because outside influences need to be vetted out and do not belong in Sierra Madre.

On 53% of General Fund monies going toward police spending

Last week on Patch, we asked the candidates a similar question- do you think it’s appropriate for 53% of Sierra Madre’s general fund to be spent on the police department?

Capoccia, Goss and Harabedian responded to our question- read their responses in the article above. Braudrick wrote a detailed blog about it,

MacGillivray said that the reason $3.8 million gets spent on the police force is because that’s what it costs to maintain the services we have. She mentioned several years ago while on the Council she requested a staff report on what it would cost to contract out the police department and research showed it was not as cost-effective.

Koerber mentioned that he has not seen support from the public for trading the Sierra Madre Police Department for a contract with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department, but that it’s important to make sure the city is getting the most value for its services.

Part Two: Candidates Debate in Public Forum

Want to know more about the candidates? Read their Patch blogs on hot issues in town:

Reminder: Tonight there is a All are welcome and entry is $5.00.