The second half of 2026 is a time of transition for the Beverly Hills bubble. We have a new City Manager, a new Police Chief and a new City Council as we welcome a youth movement in the person of Rebecca Pynoos who will replace John Mirisch, the longest serving Councilmember in our city’s history.

While none of these portend dramatic changes, there are reasons to be optimistic. Incoming City Manager Ryan Gohlich has years of relevant experience and institutional knowledge. Given his relative youth, it is reasonable to anticipate that he will remain as City Manager longer than the most recent three City Managers who have held the position for only three years or so. Experience matters.

From all objective indicia, Chief Mark Stainbrook did a good job with BHPD. The Department has been a leader in identifying and implementing cutting edge technology and achieving impressive metrics of criminal apprehension and crime reduction. Certainly, he eliminated the chaos and litigation flurry that marked the term of his predecessor. However, there has been an unfortunate often tense adversarial relationship between the Chief and the rank and file. Our new chief, Captain Max Subin, has widespread respect and a demeanor that is well calculated to calm these waters.

Then there is the change of composition of the City Council, where Pynoos replaces Mirisch. While the composition of the Council remains 80% unaltered, the new 20% may effect a meaningful difference.

We get some insight into what the future may hold by looking at what they said at the Installation on July 7. Mirisch presented a lengthy discussion of his 17 year service on the Council including three terms as Mayor.

He thanked many people who contributed to his success and pointed out numerous achievements that have occurred during his time in office. These included the establishment of the Cultural Heritage Commission on which Pynoos served and the Arts and Culture Commission, the ban on sale of tobacco products in the City, the pioneering use of technology including the Real Time Watch Center. He took particular pride in urging a Development Agreement with the One Beverly Hills project that he projects will generate more than $140M for the City.

When offering advice to Ms. Pynoos, he emphasized the importance of developing a thick skin and staying true to one’s core values.

Pynoos was far more concise. She said that “This is an emotional evening for me —exciting, surreal, and deeply humbling. To stand here with my colleagues and accept my role as the newest member of this CityCouncil is the honor of a lifetime.”

She noted that: “Although the campaign was at times arduous, the greatest gift was meeting all of you. On your doorsteps, at your kitchen tables, at community events, you shared what matters in your daily lives — and I want you to know: I heard you.

“While you were learning about me, I was learning about you. And I will govern the way I campaigned — with you, the residents of Beverly Hills, front and center.

She acknowledged that “Every member of this Council brings unique strengths, and I believe our community is best served when leadership is guided by expertise, informed by knowledge, strengthened by experience, and anchored by moral courage. I hope to build bridges through respectful and open dialogue. I understand that I have much to learn, and I pledge to bring those qualities as well as thoughtful judgment, a willingness to listen, and the determination to act in the best interests of our city and our residents.”

So, what should we expect? Interestingly, unlike recent years when three Council members generally voted together, there are no apparent current alliances. Importantly, Council candidates who would have injected a level of divisiveness (and, worse, incompetence) were soundly defeated by the voters. All members of the Council are talented community minded people who are in it for the right reasons.

While both Rebecca and John strongly oppose over-development, Rebecca is likely to be less doctrinaire and more open to compromise. On balance, I consider this a good thing.

***

A word about the FIFA World Cup that does not involve the red card suspension and reinstatement of US striker Folarin Jerry Balogun.

As much as I am often astonished by new technology, every once in a while, I think that it has gone too far. As a sports junkie, I am enjoying enormously the FIFA World Cup football (forgive me if I lapse into saying “soccer”) tournament. But something happened at the end of the Portugal v. Croatia match on July 2 that illustrated the extent to which technology has, in my very very old school view, been exalted way above common sense.

In the final moments of the match, Croatia appeared to score a goal that tied the score at 2-2. After a few minute delay while the Virtual Assistant Referee (which is not a referee at all but a computer called “VAR”) was consulted, the goal was disallowed.

Now, I am reluctantly familiar with cameras used in some sports to check a referee or umpire call on the field, but this took things to another level. The issue was whether a Croatian player who was “offside” (the soccer off side rule is far beyond my comprehension and a full understanding is not necessary for this analysis), had touched the ball before his teammate, who was not offside, had kicked the ball into the goal. No referee or any other natural person observed such a touch.

However, the goal was disallowed because FIFA’s Connected Ball Technology, consisting of a miniature sensor (including an accelerometer, a gyroscope, a rechargeable battery and a wireless transmitter), embedded inside the ball and synchronized with 12 tracking cameras that monitor 29 body points on every player on the field, “detected” that the ball grazed the hair of the offside player. The sensitivity of this technology is such that it detected a “touch” not observable by the human eye.

Taking a deeper dive, we learn that this was developed by the MIT Sports Lab and is called Semi-Automated Offside Technology (SAOT). The sensor or chip embedded in the ball measures and records the ball’s position and velocity 500 times per second. This data is used in conjunction with 12 state of the art cameras (recording at twice the speed of broadcasting cameras) which create “skeletal” data – 3D representations of 29 body points of 22 players and three referees in motion 50 times per second or a total of 108,900 data points per second for 90 minutes.

Seriously? The old school curmudgeon in me says that for purposes of actual games, if the human eye can’t see it, it didn’t happen. What genius decided that this level of “perfection” was warranted?

To be fair, this technology has practical value. It can evaluate an NBA player’s decisions on, for example, when and where to pass or dribble or the impact of running shoe design on a runner’s performance. But for offside calls, if the referee’s observations were good enough for Pele’s time, those observations are good enough for Lionel Messi.

Correction:

In last week’s column, I reported that the Millennium Project at 8300 Wilshire [34 story condominium project with a total of 200 units including 22 “affordable” rental units], had been approved by City Council. This was incorrect. Rather, in late June, incoming City Manager Ryan Gohlich reported to the Council that the project had met all of the requirements established by AB 2011 to qualify for ministerial approval by the planning department without any opportunity for review by either the Planning Commission or the City Council. AB 2011 is another example of the state legislature taking away local control over land use.