Green Party Money, Contamination, Airport Safety and Fluoridation

October 13, 2001

Dear Editor,

I would like to take a moment to discuss some of the remarks attributed tome in your article ("County Greens Ask Mayor to Turn Over Funds," Oct. 8) which I believe are inaccurate. While some of these may seem minor, I am concerned that misunderstandings of my position could affect my ability to do my job as Treasurer of the Green Party of Los Angeles County.

The article implies that I reported Eric Carter's status as Treasurer as having "not been active for three years." Although others have made that suggestion from time to time, I have not, and I do not recall it being mentioned by anyone at the October 7 meeting. In my understanding, Eric Carter was the duly elected treasurer, and regardless of the level of activity he may have engaged in, his resignation was effective upon the election of another Treasurer in August 2001. For me to suggest otherwise would be, I believe, irresponsible.

The article also reports that I "concluded that the second account 'belongs to an organization controlled by Feinstein.'" This suggests that I somehow determined this on my own based on evidence provided. In fact, Mike Feinstein told me by telephone that his organization was responsible, and I reported this fact to the Council. The acceptance of responsibility by Mike's organization has, to the best of my knowledge, never been anything less than voluntary. I am not aware that anyone has had to pressure him to assume responsibility.

The article reports that I said, "The council is not responsible legally for anything that happens in that account." I believe this to be a paraphrase, and may in fact be a quote of one of the Council members summarizing my position. I do not believe the words are mine. I did, however, reiterate Assistant Treasurer Donna Warren's statement that the lack of "constructive receipt" was at the foundation of our position.

I am quoted as saying. "We should let sleeping dogs lie and say it's not our account." I did say, "We should let sleeping dogs lie," and I did recommend that "we should acknowledge that the account does not belong to us." But as I recall, they were said at different times, and to connect them in a sentence like this hints at an intent to cover something up, which is not at all consistent with my position.

Lastly, I did not report that the name of Mike's organization was the Green Issues Forum because I did not have that information. Woody Hastings offered that information.

While none of these items represent a significant departure from the information that I reported, small inaccuracies can suggest an entirely different slant than what was intended. I have consistently maintained that I have seen no evidence of malicious intent, and that nothing I have seen to date is beyond the realm of amicable resolution. I believe that my remarks were reported in such a way that they suggest an adversarial situation that, in my view, does not and need not exist.

Respectfully,

D. J. Mitchell
Treasurer, GPC/LA

October 13, 2001

Dear Editor,

A reference to the article "Locals Give Energy Plan Thumbs Down" (Oct. 10) was sent to my by my brother, expecting me to laugh wryly, apparently at the silliness of government. However, my reaction is rather about how little information and how much emotional button-pushing this is. The article reads like a classic "look at what big, bad, government is trying to do again, and we, the little watchdog people, are going to stop it!"

There is no reportage of any facts about the material in question. What does "surface contamination" mean? What levels are they proposing releasing? How do these levels compare to background radiation? What processing would be required of the materials? What would constitute safe use? This is anything but even-handed reporting.

And yes, I understand limits on length, choosing to go for the "human side," etc. But, that's editorial policy, and my take on that is that almost all editorial policy is tub-thumping. I was reminded in raising these criticisms (by my brother) that non-reporting is also editorial policy, to which I earnestly agree.

I have seen glaring examples of this recently in the non-reporting of two major stories in the US: the assignment of bin Laden as commander-in-chief of the Taliban (UPI Moscow, September 30), and of the Chinese celebration of UN anti-drug day by the stadium parade and public execution of 60 drug dealers. So I am pleased to see this subject matter covered.

I would be interested in who the DOE representative was, what level in the agency, what their jurisdiction was (local, regional, national), what areas he was talking about, etc. That, and some of the other statistics I mentioned are what I mean by even-handed reporting -- facts that allow the reader to reach their own conclusions, see some of the back-story, and present the possibility of other points of view, rather than reading like an op-ed piece disguised as a news-story.

As a former resident of Santa Monica, now residing in the Boston area, it's nice to be able to read about my home town. I would just like to have my and other reader's intellects treated respectfully.

Brooks Harrelson

October 10, 2001

Dear Editor,

(Re: "Big Fines Await Noisy Aircraft," Oct. 10)

At least this is a start to helping to curtail the noise at the Santa Monica Airport. While the council was considering the excessive noise they should have also looked into the safety of the airport. The airport tower should be manned 24 hours a day during these uncertain times.

There should be better security at the airport. It is very easy to get into the airport by walking in or climbing over a fence. Is anyone concerned about this?

As a 35 year resident of the Sunset Park area I am well aware of what has been wrong with our airport. This piece of property supplies needs to a few hundred people and yet it affects thousands of citizens who live in the surrounding areas. Lets go back to no jets allowed!

Barbara O'Meara
Santa Monica

October 9, 2001

Dear Editor,

I hope you will be covering the October 23 meeting of the Santa Monica City Council as it considers the question of fluoridating the public water supply.

As a school nurse I have seen the need of many students for treatment of dental caries, which are a painful deterrent to learning. They can be prevented by the simple measure of adding fluoride to drinking water.

Please be aware that the "silent majority" of Santa Monica voters supports this step. Thank you for your interest.

Sincerely,

Kit Dreyfuss