Dinolfo Decries Cynicism and It Doesn't Take a Crystal Ball

July 15, 2002

Dear Editor,

I read with intense interest and a mounting sense of frustration the August 14 article by Jorge Casuso entitled "Opponents Fail to Capitalize on SMRR Split." In it Mr. Casuso has apparently concluded that, inasmuch as there will "not be a well-heeled, anti-SMRR slate to represent the interests of homeowners and businesses," there are no candidates who present a "strong challenge."

I am intrigued by the criteria employed to define a viable candidate: "well-heeled", "anti-SMRR" and presumably, affiliated with a "slate." Are these truly the only elements one uses to determine if an opponent represents a "strong challenge?"

In an article covering three pages and incorporating input from a variety of sources, not a single mention was made of the character of the candidates, their background or qualifications, or their ability to govern. It's as if these issues, which are critical to choosing a leader and in leading effectively, have no relevance. In the final analysis, it seems that one's worth to the Santa Monica electorate is calculated solely by assessing one's chances.

It appears to me that our community has an obligation to resist the temptation to confuse "winability" with "ability." When the only aspects of a candidate we consider is whether or not they can win handily, we run the risk of cheating ourselves of the opportunity to embrace those who represent a new point of view, a return to ordinary values, and an ability to build bridges. These are qualities that a newcomer such as myself, someone not enmeshed in the political relationships that have served as the status quo for many years, can bring to the City Council.

Many of the city leaders that Mr. Casuso interviewed expressed resignation and a sense of futility regarding the outcome of the election. Are we doomed, then, to go through the motions of, as Ms. Block coined it, this "farce?" If it is all so pointless, then why do we care so passionately? Isn't it just possible, by looking at the process in a different way, and keeping an open mind, that each of us can raise, and not lower, our expectations?

I urge Mr. Casuso, the staff of The LookOut, and the community as a whole, to not decide the fate of our city government three months before the fact. To continue to ask questions and seek answers. To allow those relatively obscure candidates an opportunity to be heard. And to vote based on the merits of what you have heard, not because it seems futile to do otherwise.

Respectfully,
Matteo Dinolfo, M.D.

August 15, 2002

Dear Editor,

I must disagree with Maria Sirotti's contention that Jorge has a special connection to God (LETTERS: "How Dare You" and "You Go Grrrl!" August 15). If this were true, why wouldn't he tell us who will win the City Council election, rather than just who has a chance? That would really be a scoop for The LookOut.

As it is, Jorge simply reported the fact that candidates who aren't backed either by SMRR or an energetic, well-organized moderate coalition have no chance whatsoever to win a council seat.

Because no effective moderate coalition has existed since the mid-nineties, the current reality is clear: Nobody can be elected to the city council without the help of SMRR--either with their endorsement or because they run fewer candidates than available seats, which allowed Herb Katz to be elected two years ago.

This year Bob Holbrook, because he's already known to the voters and liked by many of them, has a good chance. Maybe Josefina Aranda, because she seems to have support coming from several directions, can defy conventional wisdom -- but only if she and her supporters put together heroic amounts of time, energy, and money.

One doesn't need the gift of prophecy to figure any of this out.