The "Right" Choice? It all depends. In the news.

There are a few stories, two in the L.A. Times and a story last week in the L.A. Weekly, that besides being issues in the news, show how important that the position you hold or fit into happens to be as the factor in influencing your views.

“L.A. Unified cuts spark protests, finger-pointing; In an attempt to redirect the school district's budget ax, parent groups, unions and other organizations have rallied their members to make calls and write e-mails and letters to the board,” by Raja Abdulrahim, March 30, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd-cuts30-2009mar30,0,2120174.story

The current budget woes of the LAUSD taking them to the point of teacher layoffs is causing protests to try to influence how the District can make changes to “somebody else’s” job or school. The natural instinct for survival appears to be applicable for the education system as much as any other area. There is simply nobody who wants to have their own situation negatively affected. The story gives a sample of the assorted people and groups who want to have their opinions counted in influencing the outcome of the LAUSD’s decisions on cutting back to meet the reduced budget.

Parent groups, unions and other organizations have launched campaigns for each
potential fiscal victim and rallied their members to make calls and write e-mails and letters. They've flooded the offices of the board and the superintendent, who said he has received between 50 and 100 e-mails, calls and letters a day.

The observation here is that if you don’t speak up and defend your segment or preference, you may be seeing a cutback or elimination of that when the budget ax falls, and no one believes that their choice is deserving of cuts, at least to the extent that is threatened.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Measure B fight thrusts DWP union chief into spotlight; Brian D'Arcy, who represents 8,000 utility employees, devised the solar power initiative that was defeated in March. But he's a strong critic of the agency's other clean-energy initiatives.” By David Zahniser, L.A. Times, March 30, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-darcy30-2009mar30,0,1614131.story

The political force of the union here is obvious and shown in its expenditure of money to secure the elections of supporters. Mayor Villaraigosa was a beneficiary of the “good will” of the union and his approval of the DWP's union contract after he was elected was all part of the politics of “one good turn deserves another” that such relationships demonstrate.

D'Arcy also scored potent victories for his members. In 2005, he won a five-year contract that gave his members annual raises of at least 3.25% unless inflation rose significantly. Because the deal was tied to the Consumer Price Index, DWP workers received a 5.9% increase last year. The deal was negotiated by city officials during the waning days of the administration of Mayor James K. Hahn but finalized under Villaraigosa, whose 2005 mayoral bid was buoyed by $306,000 from the union.

As he pushes for passage of his solar plan, D'Arcy is in an especially strong position politically. Although Measure B was narrowly defeated, his union used nearly $200,000 to help elect City Councilwoman Wendy Greuel as city controller. D'Arcy's primary antagonist at the DWP, former commission President Nick Patsaouras, quit the panel in October to run for city controller and lost to Greuel

The union by taking up support of Measure B really has a primary objective of achieving something for the union. It seeks both survival and growth. Now that the measure went down to defeat, the best course is taken and that is that there was nothing wrong with the proposal. That's a position that stands on shaky ground at best. D’Arcy is a union man and his main purpose in the job is to protect and to serve the union and the members. No matter what he says his motives are, that is the reason he is holding the job he does. He can go ahead with his views on the future plans of DWP and sources of energy, but it’s obvious that the true concern, the overriding importance of decisions, is the impact on the union that any actions taken will produce.

Looking out for ones’s own here is an undeniable motivation and if it can benefit the public, then so much the better. But D’Arcy in his role created the terms of Measure B that had the primary goal of getting the best deal for his union and the members as job number one.. It simply and vividly demonstrated that purpose by the very terms of Measure B that gave the union the exclusive right to the jobs and that required a job training program that the DWP would create so that the union would have more members trained and ready to join the union, all at the DWP’s expense- and that means "our" expense.

================================================
"Measure B: Tweet Against the Machine; How L.A. City Hall power was struck down by blogs and online social networks," by Daniel Heimpel, L.A. Weekly, published on March 25, 2009. http://www.laweekly.com/2009-03-26/news/measure-b-tweet-against-the-machine/

On the consumer’s side, the defeat of Solar Measure B at the polls was done by a combined effort of groups and individuals who needed to counteract the publicity that the DWP, the IBEW union and the advocates for green power ( regardless of the costs) were generating to convince the voters to pass the measure. The “David and Goliath” comparison is appropriately applied here and the usually successful practice of pumping more money into the campaign for a winning outcome did not work here.

The huge implications of the measure, changing the power allotted by the checks and balances under the City Charter and the potential for major increases in the future DWP bills was at stake. The proponents continued their theme of “trust us” for the explaining parts of the meaure that were not “specific” in the costs and future impact. That just did not work. The track record of the DWP mattered on that count. The fact that the union would be the big beneficiary was about the only thing that was certain from the proposal, but that’s not helping the consumers, but more likely, increasing their (our) burden.

On the side of the little people who worked to defeat the measure were a lot of facts working against the stated effect of passages. This time it looked like the truth of the situation was coming out, and it did, the “No” on Measure B side begain to pick up support.

The L.A. Weekly, in giving details that most other publications don’t bother to do, reveals quite a lot to support this conclusion and it was the work at spreading the news to the voters that caused defeat of the proposal, although very narrowly. But that was an accomplishment in the “David and Goliath” match up, and it was an outcome that had to overcome a lot to be successful. The L.A. Weekly story brought out several important onsiderations:

In fact, the Los Angeles Ethics Commission official revealed, as required by
law, that Yes on B spent nearly $1.6 million only to fail against the tiny $74,451 mustered by No on Measure B, which it used mostly to send out mail.

* * *

Average citizens opposed Measure B’s unknown but huge costs and its union monopoly. They had only three months to defeat a plan that City Council President Eric Garcetti needlessly jammed onto the March ballot — purely as a political favor to Villaraigosa, who wrongly believed he could utilize the city ballot to pass Measure B, then use that victory to promote himself as pro-green in his possible run for overnor

Critics saw Villaraigosa’s move as an abject abuse of the city ballot after the plan was
hurriedly and unanimously passed by the City Council in November. In December, David Zahniser of the Los Angeles Times broke a story about how Garcetti had hidden from his own council colleagues a report calling the plan “extremely risky” and freighted with open-ended costs.

The Mayor’s involvement here, like most of the things he happens to be pushing has a lot of personal career benefit included among the reasons for doing what he does. Some of what he does has a sinister aspect, too, working with the union goals, and sacrificing the good of the consumer to achieve cooperation of the IBEW on this ballot proposal.

What the series of articles shows is that everybody is looking out for himself or herself, trying in assorted ways to get the best outcome for their side. Some of it is just and some of it is self-serving. There is also the possible interpretation of the same acts being “unfair” but it depends on where you stand on the issues. If things go your way, that’s "good." If you happen to be on the short end of the deal, then it just doesn’t seem “fair.” That’s the real way that impressions are formed by most people, putting the details of what’s actually going on aside.

It’s all a matter of perspective for how people “feel” but the objective outcomes really do and should matter when decisions are made. “Might” should not make “Right.”

How Much Marijuana is Too Much? Herbal Sprawl in the News, past and present; Government still deciding which way to go?

There are a few stories in the news about the widely used substance, marijuana, one of the commonly encountered drugs that stirs up lots of difference of opinions on how it should be treated.

"U.S. agents seize 640 pounds of marijuana on private shipping boat;
The seizure occurs four nautical miles west of San Diego's Mission Bay. Two U.S. citizens onboard are arrested on suspicion of smuggling," Larry Gordon, L.A. Tmes, March 29, 2009 . http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-smugglingside29-2009mar29,0,5599460.story

U.S. Customs and Border Protection officers intercepted a 27-foot boat with a load of marijuana off the coast by Mission Bay in San Diego, and arrested 2 men. The report says this was different from most cases where drug smuggling is discovered since "there were no undocumented alients" aboard, the L.A. Times' reports.

(In a statement by) ...Vince Bond, a spokesman for the agency. "Though it was not a record marijuana seizure, Bond described it as a substantial haul.

"Any time you can get 640 pounds of narcotics is a very good day for Customs and Border Protection," he said.

"Police seize 12,000 pot plants", L.A. Times, by Rong-Gong Lin II, March 28, 2009 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/police-this-wee.html

The Schubarum Regional Park apparently was not big enough to keep somebody from finding the garden of some ambitious marijuana cultivators, as it was a mile from the nearest trail and still somebody came across the garden, but three men with pellet guns who were there when police were summoned, managed to elude capture. The 3 pellet guns were recovered and the plants, ranging in size from 2 to 12 inches, were uprooted for evidence.

This all brings to mind the recent release from prison of the two former U.S. Border Patrol agents, Ingnacio Ramos and Jose Campeon , who were granted clemency by President Bush as one of his last official acts. It was not a pardon and still the release from prison was delayed until after the new president took office. The two were released from federal prison and remained under house arrest to serve out additional time until a few weeks ago. Both were barred from talking to the press until the end of the house arrest.

You may recall that there was a conviction of both in an 2007 trial based on them shooting at a suspected smuggler Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, and apparently he was hit in the rear end by one bullet as he escaped to Mexico. He left behind a van with about 750 pound of marijuana.

The U.S. Attorney's office found the "suspect" some time afterwards and made him their main witness, with the government accusing the officers of shooting at an unarmed person. The officers said that they saw him with a gun and the government obtained a conviction on assault and "use of a firearm in a crime" - yielding an enhancement for another 10 years for the gun allegation, so they got 11 and 12 years in a case that seems to me was the oddest set of facts and circumstances for the government to decide to pursue this case against its own officers. The U.S. attorney in Texas, Johnny Sutton, a personal friend of President Bush, handled the case and among many on the government's side of the case, told stories that were false, lying about what was really happening to get the congress members off their backs.

That 750 pound load of the weed that the smuggler abandoned did not get any attention in the big picture, and it was never attributed to the suspect/witness in court. Usually matters like that are relevant to credibility and the actions you have in court really become a matter of gamesmanship and not any inquiry into that idea we have a hard time locating these days, the truth. Lots of rules make resemblance of "the charges" and the events that caused the prosecution to be "coincidental" more than identical. The idea that a smuggler carrying a load of drugs is armed to protect against having his load hijacked was rejected, even though others interviewed the smuggler's family who admitted he caried a gun for protection when he was transporting loads.

So now we are looking at the same amounts of the contraband substance that makes news, and that interception gains a load of credit. The supply of marijuana in the Ramos and Campeon case was apparently an incidental or acceptable matter that was not significant to take any important role into what the reasons for the Border Patrol agents were doing with the escaping smuggler to begin with.

The real focus in that case, in my opinion, was a Bush-authorized action to curry favor with the Mexican government. Apparently there was a need to show that the U.S. was tough on it's own people and not picking on the Mexicans crossing the border. The case had so many problems that it was pretty obvious that the government was dug in on the prosecution and was not lettiing it go. But for the continued inquiry into the matter by people learning about the case and following it's progress, the complaints to elected reprentatives and the inquiries generated, the two agents would still be serving the sentence.

By the way, that gun charge, a 10-year sentence enhnancement, is supposed to be used to keep crime down, trying to make criminals NOT use guns in their planned criminal conduct and to punish for crossing into a more deadly level of action. The law was not supposed to apply this style of punishment to law enforcement conducted in the course and scope of the duties of sworn peace officers on-duty, since any mistake with the use of their firearm could lead to that 10-year add-on to the sentence. Ramos and Campeon would have had a 1 and 2 year sentence.


For a peek into one of many views that you can see for reference, written over two years ago in February 2007, "Bordering on insanity," by Frank Miele, in the Daly Inter Lake.com news source from Montana, of all places. But that tells you how the story's oddities spread so widely across the country once more facts came out. http://www.dailyinterlake.com/articles/2007/02/14/columns/columns01.txt The story is just one of many that gives examples of what looks wrong with the case. And this was TWO years ago, with President Bush taking the side of the U.S. Attorney as a personal friend he knew when serving as the Governor of Texas. When reporters asked Bush one day about looking into the motives of the case, Bush responded that the prosecutor Johnnie Sutton, was a good friend of his and he trusted his judgment. In a legal setting, such a basis for a conclusion would not be sufficient, but Bush demonstrated that he did not intend to change anything.

At this point, I want to add another view into the marijuana related picture, and that is the story today from Steve Lopez in the L.A. Times, "Former judge fired up on making pot legal," http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez29-2009mar29,0,88438.column That story gives you yet another view coming from judge with a lot of experience in the legal system and he comes up with a solution that's a totally different one than we've heard of for years. The medical marijuana is for a treatment that usage of the drug can provide, besides the usual motive of regular users, getting high.

Addressing pain and nausea from other medical procedures is a valid basis for usage, and has been a part of the reasons for the dispensaries to open. I think profit might be another one, but the law provides for service. The judge's view has long been supported but by too few for any kind of change in the overall laws to change, but it could hapen. Read it for your own assessment of the idea.

Well, don't times change how things are handled? Now the "capture" of the weed continues to be important at the same time that the Obama Administration has told the DEA that medical marijuana dispensaries where the states made it legal, should not be raided, but that still got a lot of people in jail. Still lots of motivations in government need to be aired out for everyone to be on the same page. All that we know for sure is that the views can be so different, depending on which level and which agency you happen to examine.

"Late Breaking News"- Carrie Lopez resigns as Calif.'s Consumer Affairs Head; What About Per Diem Racket?

The L.A. Times reports that Carrie Lopez, Consumer Affairs Dept. chief for California has resigned, effective April 3, 2009, after she was presented with findings from the review by the Governor's finance office that focused on her travel expenses she charged to the taxpayers. The Times reports that nine other administration officials were also included in the review.

The story, "California consumer affairs chief resigns; Carrie Lopez quits when shown results of a state audit that found questionable expenses she incurred, including travel costs for attending a Justin Timberlake concert," by Michael Rothfeld, reporting from Sacramento, 3:15 PM PDT, March 27, 2009.

Lopez, a Democrat who was formerly executive director of the Coro Foundation in
Los Angeles, was appointed by Schwarzenegger in April 2007 to head her
department, which includes boards and bureaus set up to protect consumers. Her
salary is $142,965 a year.

There's not any mention as to the identities of the other's who were reviewed by the finance office and a replacement is yet to be named. And it's not like they were being paid minimum wage and needed every dollar they could muster up to get by. I see that too often in "public servants," where Fabian Nunez, the termed out former Assembly Speaker, lived a high life from profuse amount of dollars that "special interests" funnelled his way - and Nunez wasn't the least bit apologetic, no matter the appearance.

Instead, Nunez became indignant (not to be confused with "indigent", but a nice thought in this case) when questioned about these practices, saw nothing wrong with his expenses paid by them, since they were not "tax dollars." No, but how much would they be his "pal" if he were not the "Assembly Speaker"? Who's kidding whom here? Just a little too much power that everyone bids on to get more influence on their side, but no one calls him or anyone else on it.

Lopez' actions were wrong, but the environment there just makes them think it's right. Their attitude on decisions to try to squeeze every dollar out of the government is pervasive, especially noticeable in the case of the $173 a day "Per Diem" paid to the members of the Assembly and Senate in Sacramento.

If all the officials who manipulated expense and per diem reports were replaced, there'd be nobody to vote on laws. The state legislators in the Senate and Assembly who live any distance from Sacramento get a daily allowance of $173.00 to cover expenses of living away from home, so when there are any gaps in activity, they travel home, return to the state capitol for a day when needed, check in and go back home if the next day does not call for a per diem.

"State Lawmakers Get Raise in Per Diem" is the story from Sacramento's televisioin Channel 10 web page from 5 months ago, noting that it's all tax free. Nice deal. http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=49575&catid=2

The money is supposed to compensate legislators for food, lodging and meals while they're working in Sacramento, away from their homes. During legislative
session, lawmakers can continue to collect per diem seven days a week, as long
as they do not go more than three days straight without holding floor session..

Legislators have been known to manipulate things to maximize the per diem by qualifying for "being in session" but nothing really happens except for being there to keep the money meter ticking, so to speak; some would say it's "cheating."

And here's more on that practice on Per Diem freebies, found on the web home page of State Senator Abel Maldonado, (R), what a surprise to hear something from an insider. http://cssrc.us/web/15/publications.aspx?id=5279

"Per Diem Paid Despite Significant Budget Shortfall
In the midst of ongoing attempts to raise taxes and daily reminders of the increasing budget shortfall, I was shocked to learn that many of my colleagues in the Legislature are still collecting Per Diem money.

Per Diem is the $173 legislators receive for every day they are in Sacramento. Originally designed to help offset living costs, since members maintain residences in their districts and in Sacramento, Per Diem is now a way for members to bilk as much money from the state as possible.

For example, despite our multi-billion deficit, many legislators are claiming per diem on days where we aren’t voting or even working in Sacramento. For example,
if the Big 5 (which includes legislative leaders and the governor) meets, every legislator is allowed to collect Per Diem, even if they aren’t in Sacramento!

We need to reform our own behavior before we begin reforming the state. The fiscal conservatives and tax increase apologists need to put their money where their mouths are. Those on the reform bandwagon need to understand that real reform begins with us, the Legislature. We need to set an example for the rest of the state.

The Legislature can start its reforms without legislation or initiatives. It can start by ending the practice of taking something for nothing—we need to stop finding any excuse in the book to collect Per Diem. It might be small, but it’s a first step in the long line of reforms we need to make Sacramento and the state run efficiently and make your tax dollars work for you, not just fill our bank accounts."

Maybe there will be some more changes if Maldonado is saying this. He's no angel, especially as one who reneged on his promise to follow the Republican's "no new taxes" pledge that he made. Like I've said before, actions speak louder than words, and if they stop taking all the money, there'd be more left, no matter what excuses and reasons they try to use to get around the fact.

"Bang for Your Buck?" Favors to the Connected at Taxpayers' Expense

In the L.A. Times today, you get a different angle on the employment situation, and this is one financed in nearly all cases, by you, the taxpayer. It’s about jobs gained from political and family connections. “California jobs go to those with connections; Lawmakers can hire anyone they choose. Sometimes that means friends and family, “ by Patrick McGreevy, March 27, 2009, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nepotism27-2009mar27,0,1567133.story
The caption in the photo by Anne Cusack, reads, “Marisela Villar listens to her father, L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, at a City Hall news conference. Californians pay Villar $68,000 annually as a field representative for Democrats.”

That’s a big clue to the content of the rest of the story-
Yolie Flores Aguilar does not fare well in portraying the image of a hard-working public servant. She seems to be the one served here and very well, at that. The story is revealing about what a lot of people think is an area where noble ideas and actions abound. Not so, as many realists continue to point out, supported by reporting, not even investigative reporting, but even simple press releases demonstrating these actions.

Although all parties may be within legal limits allowed, the matters of personal and professional ethics and simple notions of fairness in public dealing get pushed to their limits. - Well past that, I think, for too many examples.

From the story,

"Yolie Flores Aguilar, a longtime friend and political ally of some powerful
California Democrats, last year supplemented her income as vice president of the
Los Angeles school board with more than $32,000 as a consultant assigned to a
state Senate committee that, during her tenure, did not meet or release any
reports."

There's lots more, but here's a little if you don't get to read the whole story that is a brief but telling one.

"At least a dozen political allies, relatives and friends of legislators,
including political candidates in need of a salaried landing or launch pad
between elections, were on the legislative roster last year at a cost of
$754,000."

The story shows several connections of dubious merit, most appearing to be involving Democrats, but that's probably since that's the party in the majority, at least for appointment authority.

The Mayor managed to get his daughter, Marisela Villar, a nice spot in today's economy. (She’s “Villar” and not “Villaraigosa,” being of a prior relation before the Mayor’s name change happened.) The handing out of jobs, the appointments to positions, all to relatives of a politicians, directly or indirectly, is part of the game of politics and a fringe benefit of the positions.

As for our LAUSD sub-district rep, Yolie Flores-Aguilar did not appear to be too strained as far as the demands of actual work performed, since the committee didn't ever meet, I doubt that being so involved in that activity is a reason for her low-visibility in local problem-solving on District business. Maybe the LAUSD job is not challenging enough, but there’s not a lot of good things coming out of the Board to see that anyone’s really excelling at the job.

"Aguilar was given a $7,252-per-month salary for more than four months as a
consultant to the Senate Select Committee on Urban Economies by Sen. Gloria
Romero (D-Los Angeles), who has been an ally on school reform efforts in Los
Angeles."

The story is good to read for being a reality check. That's all part of handling by those in assorted venues, taking their respective approaches, and contributing to budget crises and the way such conditions happen.

A complete list of examples of politicians doing what’s fiscally prudent in government would be something way more than this story touches. This only scratches the surface of what’s going on in government. The named officials here probably don't even care about what's written from a propriety standpoint, having developed their level of arrogance to any public inquiry over the years.

People are behind decisions so it might be something of a twist here on another observational phrase, but, “Government doesn’t waste your money, People do.” Adding a couple more to the situation feels fitting, “It’s the thought that counts,” and the unavoidable interpretation here is that the thought is about self-gain. Try, “Actions speak louder than words,” where we are told to conserve, to tighten out belts, to give that extra dollar of taxes for the good of all, but we see the skimming off a part of those dollars as a form of “sales commission” for delivering those platitudes. The interpretation is correct and the action is wrong.

Instead of good decisions by the politicians so that we “get more bang for our buck,” we get more banged and it’s costing us more bucks. That is all courtesy of the politicians that voters put into office. Voting is important and with these results, more attention needs to be given to the selections. Unless, of course, you happen to be connected here somewhere.

It would be something of distinction if any "shame" in their conduct was evident. That's probably a word they don't include anymore in their vocabulary. I think it's been replaced by"entitlement."

In Music- the passing of a personal favorite, England Dan

Another memory from the past in music for me: Dan Seal, one half of the singing team of "England Dan and John Ford Coley" died yesterday, March 25, 2009 following treatment for mantle cell lymphoma. From Wikipedia:

The duo had six Top 40 singles between 1976 and 1979. Among their hits was "I'd
Really Love to See You Tonight" (written by Parker McGee) (1976), a cover of Utopia's "Love Is the Answer", as well as "Nights Are Forever Without You", (another McGee composition), and "We'll Never Have to Say Goodbye Again". Dan Seals, the brother of Jim Seals of the equally successful 1970s soft-rock duo Seals & Crofts, became a successful country performer in the 1980s, scoring hits such as "Meet Me in Montana" (with Marie Osmond) and "Bop".

England Dan and John Ford Coley were probably one of the more "syrupy" artists with their smooth sounds and nice harmonies, usually with a gentle style of presentation. But that's part of what I happened to like about them, and they were dependable for bringing that music. I really don't know any of the artists personally, but the music still makes some connection happen and it was part of the times past.

It's one of the things that happen so more frequently. You have all these singers that brought some tunes that you liked and you remember times that were associated with the sounds, and then you see, like here, that they die. It's a reminder that we are all just getting older and, contrary to what we felt in high school, we are all very mortal, especially apparent when you see that they were about your own age, too.

But with each artist's passing, they have left their mark, their contribution of some joy, at least for me, and there are some good memories left behind of the songs they sang and times they helped give you for your personal enjoyment.

Outside Consultants Hit Paydirt with LAUSD- Audit findings strike a nerve with Cortines

A story today from the L.A. Daily News has brought out some information that raises more questions about LAUSD spending trends and amounts, "Big bucks for LAUSD consultants," by George B. Sánchez, Staff Writer, posted: 03/26/2009. Some costly spending by the LAUSD on outside consultants during 2006-2007 was a glaring finding. http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_11998276

Supertintendent Ramon Cortines was so concerned with the findings presented to him from an audit that he has somebody check it over and, according to the story, to look over "a defense of the building program by construction chief Guy Mehula." The audit was prepared by Inspector General Jerry Thornton.

While the audit was completed late last month, Cortines said it contained
"unsubstantiated" findings and asked Thornton and Mehula to work out their
differences.

"I am on top of this," Cortines said. "I have concerns with the report and its content."
School board members are only now getting copies of the audit, which Cortines said he would explain to them on Tuesday.

The inspector general, the district's internal watchdog, said he would not release the report to the media until late next week.

Check the rest of the story and see what else you might consider as the union has, that might affect the extent of the teacher layoffs. The construction has been going on for years and at the same time, District's schools have seen enrollment continue to decline each year, making you wonder about the entire scheme of things and how this makes sense. It mght be that the spending is being done as quickly as possible just to do it before somebody sees this conflict in logic and reels all these characters in.

District officials defend the practice, saying consultant contracts ebb and
flow with the various stages of construction and have said district wages don't
measure up to industry standards.

They add that special consultants are particularly needed to efficiently
carry out the nearly $20 billion school construction program.

One of the things I found from the teacher training by the District a few years back, was that there were "consultants" who were formerly LAUSD employees and then went private with their skills, being able to earn a better income. That personnel transition was something that was applicable to those providing services related to the pupils, but as for this audit and whether it applies exclusively to the construction of buildings is not known to me.

UTLA President AJ Duffy has not seen the report but is duly concerned and offers no "benefit of the doubt" meanwhile to the District, instead suspecting more poor handling of finances to the detriment of the teachers.

There looks to be more to come from Superintendent Cortines very soon and we will see how the Board members handle it. If there is any action to be done, I hope we don't have to sit through a whole lot of verbage and jargon before the get to the answer and if there something wrong, it would be a refreshing change to see somebody admit it, and not go into "cover up" mode.

Part II- New High School ("H.S. #9") for Downtown Area

A little more from where I left off on the 3/7/09 posting ( http://lincolnquicknotes.blogspot.com/2009/03/lausd-back-to-future-high-school-hs-9.html ) about the construction of this high school on the site of the old LAUSD Headquarters at Grand Ave. and Cesar Chavez (formerly Sunset) Blvd. You can't miss it if you have driven by the Music Center just a few blocks away, since the design's tower focal point is something that catches the eye immediately.

If you haven’t seen it or you did see it but did not know what it was, check the photos and drawings referenced and linked all through the rest of this posting. And when you see those images, think of these things: “Nothing is free,” “Would a simpler project have educated our students as well and been ready significantly faster?” and “Who is in charge of making spending decisions of taxpayer dollars, and what happened here?”

HERE NOW ARE SOME MORE VIEWS OF THE PROJECT- and commentary, of course:
(A lot of photos of this project on a downtown blog: "Angelic Downtown Los Angeles," http://www.angelenic.com/79/central-la-high-school-9-shows-some-skin/ -they must have worked or lived nearby for all the views and time intervals)

-----------------------------------------------------

A FURTHER CRITIQUE of this project was in the L.A. TIMES, nearly a year old now, and it is an outstanding one in my view- This was another of those Steve Lopez' topics, this on covering the second most expensive school (behind only the Beaudry High School project) in the U.S., all projects from LAUSD. If you missed it or want to see the mild way he gives some harsh criticism, see:
”The design of L.A. Unified's new arts high school is convoluted and costly,” Steve Lopez, May 4, 2008 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez4-2008may04,0,4743795.column This story led to an L.A. TIMES blog with some wacky comments by readers as justification for the expense. The billionaire, Eli Broad, happens to be the moving force for the design choice. He wanted it to fit in with the other downtown project, "The Grand Avenue Project," that also is currently sucking tax dollars and is way behind schedule construction.

It was the yielding to the political influence that put this school on the road to extravagance in construction costs and more delay- 2 more years- before any students could benefit from the new school. That is another cost that doesn’t get to be figured into projects, the cost of students who move on through high school while the project is plodding along in various stages of completion. Hope as they might, being able to spend a part of their high school years in a new facility is not in the cards for these students.

--------------------------------------------------

If you want photos- there are lots of very good ones at various stages of construction:

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=529012
“Skyscraper City” blog thread on the LAUSD High School for the Visual & Performing Arts #9 U/C,
This site has some very good architect’s images of a completed project and the layout is diagrammed very well, maybe too well in this post-9-11 security age, but very impressive on a visual basis.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=30043180
Another thread of the same blog, with some beautiful interior photos from DEC. 2008.

The entry on that blog (#62), “L.A.'s new arts school an expensive social experiment,” repeats the text of the L.A. Times story of December 22, 2008.
Original story at;
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/dec/22/local/me-arts22?s=o&n=o&rd=www.google.com&sessid=7c247f2068c353b12d60caaf8b218b5463185fbc&pg=2&pgtp=article&eagi=&page_type=article&exci=2008_12_22_local_me-arts22
Lots of criticism here on several levels, costs being the big one, but LAUSD’s operational style is again responsible for bringing us projects of astronomical expense of taxpayer dollars, and 2 years here of time that students were shortchanged for the sake of architecture and image priorities that themselves are of very questionable value and come from POLITICAL influence to serve other agendas.


Things for the district have changed and while more schools are built, student enrollment is dropping. The District is constantly lagging behind in addressing and responding to what the needs are simply because the District is so huge and has an overload of bureaucracy to wade through before anything actually happens. I don’t believe that smaller school districts have this situation and can therefore make more timely response, keeping their districts within some order that avoids a lot of collateral problems found in LAUSD, like waste, unaccountability, structure maintenance and overall periodic reviews of status for proper controls.

As for who will be attending this “High School #9,” It does look like the students will still be geographically selected for the majority of spaces in this school according to the story.

Former school board member David Tokofsky said he believed the overcrowding
problem had been solved, leaving no need for the school to focus on the
neighborhood. He said the school should reach out for "talent from Banning
[High], from Pacoima, from Huntington Park."

In contrast to this enlightened view to use of a specialized resource, Supt. Alonzo sounds as if local students should have preference as some form of alms for the District's misdeeds of the past, which I think is a typical style of decision-making that you see happen with the LAUSD.

But Alonzo and others insist that the district has, in effect, a social
obligation to make up for decades of neglect in the areas just west of
downtown.

====================

HERE IS A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THE SCHOOL, coming from an achitectural view.
If it’s a pro-design commentary, and one that grossly UNDERestimates the construction time (“The much anticipated October opening …has been delayed a year.” From the Nov. 2007 statement) AND COSTS (“The $171 Million project is expected to open in late 2008.”), both wrong, at least 1/3 more was added to costs, and an another full year delay beyond that until the first students can enter in September 2009.
“Coop Himmelb(l)au’s Los Angeles Flagship High School delayed one year,” http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/index.php?fuseaction=wanappln.projectview&upload_id=1607 Monday 19 Nov 2007.

UTLA, Contracts, Layoffs and Best Teachers- Steve Lopez writes.

Steve Lopez of the L.A. Times gets to the topic of the UTLA union contract and the teacher layoffs with a prominent factor that neither item addresses, comparative excellence in any teachers.
"Seniority, not quality, counts most at United Teachers Los Angeles," Steve Lopez, L.A. Times, March 25, 2009 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez25-2009mar25,0,4942695.column

The story compares UTLA's contract (347 pages) with Green Dot Public Schools contract (33 pages). Some of the same things I have seen before and mentioned in the postings are also pointed out in his article as important considerations, and that main one is that the layoffs are going by seniority that is a provison agreed to by the union. One teacher, Robert Rubisa, a third-grade teacher whose wife, a less senior teacher of 4th grade, is being laid off, had talked about his experience with the union positon,

Rubisa said he went to his union rep and suggested that teachers give back
some of their sick days to help balance the budget and avoid some layoffs.

"The union rep said we should not balance the budget on teachers' backs," Rubisa
said.

The tentative contract announced yesterday highlights that furloughs will not happen this year. I wondered when I read that whether more teacher jobs could be saved by using that to some extent, spreading around some of the loss instead of complete elimination of teacher's jobs. The response stated above is what I had heard before as furloughs had been discussed and apparently that's out as well as a partial measure to save jobs.

Lopez, as usual, brings out some views with his positioning of comments, facts and scenarios. A lot of what I have observed matches the view of Lopez not because we are both so smart but because the identifcation of the issues is so obvious an inescapable. Lopez goes further with comparing the younger operation by Green Dot, the charter school organization, and the way they seem to use more pragmatic approaches to the job. UTLA is shown to be burdened by its contract with an accumulation of assorted boilerplate provisions to the extent that it becomes undecipherable to him in seeking answers to actual situations. The UTLA is undeniably an organization with a particular interest and sometimes it does not operate for the best outcomes of everyone, even though it serves good purposes in other situations.

Sales tax hike statewide in two weeks

There’s more tax coming to a store or business near you. That is the message to be clear on that’s discussed in the article, “No April Fool, Sales Tax Will Increase,” a story in the L.A. Valley College student newspaper, the "Valley Star," by Astrid Seipelt , Issue date: 3/25/09.

This was the result of the State legislature’s February 19th approval of the budget terms. The budget deficit is announced as $42 Billion. The tax is “temporary” and the duration will depend on the May 19 vote on Proposition 1a that will extend the tax if approved.

The story comments on the Governor’s involvement on this situation, a big involvement:

“Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger is a proponent of the passage of Prop. 1A,
stating that he was doing the best for the state, despite reneging on his promise to oppose new taxes when he was reelected in 2006

"Back when I was running, I wouldn't sign a pledge against taxes because I didn't want to be constrained if there were a disaster, like an earthquake," said Schwarzenegger to the Sacramento Bee. "In a way, the disaster happened. The
state of California faced insolvency."

If you will remember, Gov. Swarzenneger was elected in a recall election based on Gov. Gray Davis' spending the state into a huge deficit. Since that election, the Gov. has done a complete reversal of postion, alienating people who put him into office as he has currently has allowed the State spending to far surpass those levels that Gov. Davis approved. The Governor, since being shut down with some tough measures he supported a few elections back, has really been responsible for a lot of what we have now, and then chastises those who seek to put the brakes on things.

The Valley Star story states the additional feature of taxing impact locally as,

Angelinos will also be dealt with another tax hike on July 1, when the county
tax rate increases to 9.75 percent July 1. This increase can be attributed
to the passing of Measure R by voters last November. According to
Metropolitan Transportation Authority, the measure will assist in funding
the improvement of transportation in the county, and will be imposed for the
next 30 years.

The "improved transportation in the county" is just a goal that may accomplished in some places, and at some time in the uncertain future, but the imposition of the taxing burden is here to stay, thanks to campaigning for passage of what in my view is highly speculative in terms of results and limited in terms of benefits in a geographic settings. I don't think the consequences were worth the actual effects. This might be one of the situations fitting the saying, "Be careful of what you wish for."

Public Comment at Today's Council Meeting and Student's Demand for action

There was a young woman, “Maritza,” 16 years of age, speaking very well today during "Public Comment" at City Hall for her 2-minute allotment, with a request- no, I believe it was part of a mentioned group “demand”- for providing activities to give young people something to do, since that will keep them out of trouble. She said there is nothing now there for the young people coming out of juvenile hall. She spoke of the problems in the streets that appeared to mean the violence and wanted the Council to work to address that. The needs of this segment of youth was the indicated concern, as I interpretted it.

She spoke of the spending done by the state and of the police budget "that was not cut," and the high level of incarceration in the State on a comparative basis. There was a request was for addressing the social needs. Following this presentation, a couple of other young persons spoke to have the Council change things, one man complaining of the LAPD actions on the part of some officers, and another woman asking for serious consideration in budget matters of the city.

The presentation by Maritza was well made, but in the overall picture, there were a couple of things shown by the comment. The budget issues at this time are already at crisis levels, and the Council is responsible for that, as is the Mayor. The Council had approved urgency measures, hurting businesses and citizens in seemingly small but important ways, like the parking meter rate-raising rampage conducted in the past few months citywide. The trash fee gradual increase over years was scrapped for in instant, full amount increase last fall. There realistically is no change to be expected for more programs that are not already in progress by the city due to funding.

One big consideration, although only mentioned in a few words, was that there were no programs for young people when they get out of juvenile hall. She did not mention anything about how they came to get INTO juvenile hall and what it is that makes others in the same neighborhoods and conditions not get into juvenile hall.

Commission of a crime is usually the reason for being incarcerated, and reducing that would clearly reduce the number of persons incarcerated. The speaker apparently adopted the assumption that the government generally and the City specifically is responsible to “fix” things for such persons after their errant behavior. That assumption is a big one, and a lot of different and opposing views on that exist.

This is part of the persistent problems of education and crime that we have today. A sarcastic comment might be “If they behaved, they wouldn’t go to juvenile hall, and would not have that need.” But let’s be generous here and say, something SHOULD be done for youth. Then what is that needed, and how much action is to be taken on it, and finally, what if any part of that is the proper area for spending taxpayer dollars, especially now as such money is in short supply?

Another big part of this picture is "What personal responsibility is expected of anyone for doing anything 'right' and that is in a moral sense, so what is within their own control?" I think a lot, but there probably some education missing to cause people to act right. Is that on a family level where your first learning happens? I think so, and I think if you speak to many teachers, you will find many shortcomings on that point, leaving the teachers at all grade levels having to fill in that idea on doing what we expected people to already know. Knowledge of proper manners, courtesy and consideration of others happens to typically be among these.

There is a lot of alienation and anger in young people coming from being ignored and not given the care and guidance early on that would have made a lot of the difficulties they encounter avoidable. Briefly, and still expecting that there is much need for further discussion, the idea that what is happening NOW is a result of lots of accumulated assumptions that somebody was taking care of things. The other idea of the government to be the caretaker of everything can be a dangerous thought. There is an idea that the NEED for government to take care of people perpetuates the predicament of people not working to improve or try to get out of that “rut.” I don’t agree that such is clearly the case, but there are not enough of public resources available to shore up all the needs there are, and the amount of resources diminish as the population grows

Young people have problems but the problem that also is there that is overlooked it that of thinking it’s “not my fault, so YOU have to help me.” The students and other young people who try to do the right thing and try not to get into trouble with the law have problems but there usually is not groups organizing to say, “We behave and don’t cause problems, so help us a little for change instead of the trouble makers.”

Well, there was also mentioned by Maritza the high numbers of person incarcerated in California and saying it should not be so. But did she mean that they were unfairly incarcerated? Or did she mean that there was a serious matter of criminal behavior being done that should not be the path followed? It might be another thing altogether, as maybe the State should not spend money on incarceration all that needed it, but only spend some other level and then the rest handled out-of-custody? I think maybe it was simply that such money spent should be re-allocated, without any impact on the corrections system, clearly not a workable outcome.

All the interaction of current life, education, family patterns, crime, employment, all of the things, have to be considered together for solutions and not simply as isolated and distinct matters. Solutions to some parts will help reach solutions in other parts, but hastily made changes could worsen other parts very quickly and fixing that would leave us worse off than now.

The forum today, the City Council, is a not one where real solutions are generated, given the current views and agendas. A lot of platitudes and posturing happens there at City Hall by the usual suspects in office, but solutions will have to happen on multiple levels by coordination of several agencies, public and private. That will be the problem for us if things will improve What we do have is a lot of people ready to take the credit for any successes. The blame for things usually sends them heading for cover, so the safe path has been what you usually see- no change.

Tax Proposal by Teachers Union- Another Sales Tax?

Who is the California Teacher's Association Watching Out For? is a commentary from a blog, simply entitled, "Natasha W's Thoughts,"that was posted in January that gives some views on the overall impact and background of the taxes past and proposed.

This commentary is about a proposal advanced by the CTA union that, according to the author's opinion, does not guarantee the funds generated will all go to the classroom, although the proposal does not allow the funding to go to administrative purposes, but instead, to salaries and benefits to teachers and other staff.

A little of the history of assorted provisions affecting taxes is discussed, going back to Proposition 13 where limitations on the ability to increase property taxes was approved by voters.

The end result is a one-percent sales tax increase state wide that is almost intolerable with all the taxes already here and almost here. Some may call it a "one cent tax" but we've had enough euphemisms and sophistry in ballot measure support, so calling it properly an increase by 1% to the sales tax of the State give the truer picture. Pushing this measure is just going to make for more hostility to unpopular position given the current events of widespread job losses.

The LAUSD dropout rate still loses points for teachers; More taxes? Not a good idea.

Dropout rate at LAUSD's Jefferson High: 58 percent, http://www.dailybreeze.com/ci_10245214 , By Christina Hoag The Associated Press, Posted: 08/19/2008, is an example of the problem very prominent when education and LAUSD are mentioned. The job of education and the results do not do much for putting teachers in a good light, fairly or unfairly so. This is something that a high dropout rate represents: a failure. The story is from the beginning of the academic year and little changes have happened except for the decision this week to reduce the LAUSD corps of teachers due to budget cuts.

Teachers, through their unions, are rumored to be spending money for a ballot measure to raise the state sales tax again. I don't expect that the winds of popular opinion favor that move, but stranger things have happened, like the approval of the measures for bullet train to San Francisco and for the Subway to the Sea, both creating enormous debt- some paid by sales taxes and other parts by bonds to be left to another generation to finish paying it off. Meanwhile, there's going to be a long wait for the completion, as the Subway is going to take about 32 years to finish- but the costs will be rolling in all the way until it's done and paid for.

Bonds aren't free, but too many voters see the ballot for the first time at the polling place and see the language put there for a reason, and say to themselves, "Sounds like a good idea," and vote for it. The whole education process leaves a void when it comes to this giving information on this process for the citizen as a voter.

But the proposal isn't for a bond, like the $7 Billion LAUSD proposal passed by the voters very recently. Instead, it's for a sales tax, so the pain will be immediately felt and in a big way for many if it passes. Another point to add on taxes, and that would be to remember "sales taxes" are "regressive taxes" meaning that they impact more on people with lower income more than those with higher incomes. It sounds like it should be fair and that's what proponents of sales taxe measures like to have you think. See the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regressive_tax for more on this.

District 3 of LAUSD Principals Meetings Too Cushy?

The blog, "LA Public Education Examiner," by Stuart Goldurs, an LAUSD teacher, reveals some waste in the form of principals and others in District 3 of the LAUSD holding monthly meetings at the Marina Mariott Hotel. http://www.examiner.com/x-3311-LA-Public-Education-Examiner~y2009m3d21-LAUSD-your-tax-dollars-at-waste-here-paying-for-meetings-The-AIG-of-LAUSD

He asks the pointed question, "For how many years has this been going on?" as well as the wider question on how many other outside meetings across the district are held at rented rooms, with paid meals, parking included? Its the things like this that leave the LAUSD ripe for criticism on waste, but there are so many diverse areas for challenge, that you often wonder, where do you start? Better accountability- make that just "accountability"- is needed. Like lots of governmental bureaucracies, there's no one around who really is in charge of that part and no one, of course, volunteers to take the rap.

The District is too big. Other districts like Burbank, Glendale and Alhambra might not be squeaky clean but they probably can find problems faster and be able to locate somebody responsible without too many layers of personnel to dig through.

8400 is the LAUSD number to cut; UTLA & LAUSD agree on tentive contract terms.

Superintendent Ramon Cortines' original layoff indicated to be 8400 was reduced today to 8400 teachers and support personnel. The L.A. Weekly today published a brief item this afternoon, "Cortines Give Teachers the (Pink) Slip," http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/cortines-gives-teachers-the-pi/ It also refers to other sources including the Daily Breeze for the figure of 4700 teachers to be laid off.

You can see the the pdf file for the annoucement today from the UTLA of a tentative contract agreement with the LAUSD. Among the provisions included in the single page (of a two-page fax; apparently page 2 "more details" was not posted on thehttp://www.utla.net/system/files/contractagreement_20090324.pdfsite at this time), was a "No furlough days for this year." In some cases, furlough days can result in a spreading of the pain so that less numbers will lose jobs- I don't know if that was a consideration here or not.

Members still will have to vote to decide whether the terms will be accepted.

Daily News link to LAUSD Employee Salaries Database; Part of series from 2/20/09

There's an updated "LAUSD EMPLOYEES SALARY DATABASE" in the L.A. Daily News from 2-20-09 pubulias part of as series of items on the LAUSD operations and seeing what the facts are for the assorted issues raised among the current news about the educational issues. The database is searchable by name, job title and salary range at http://lang.dailynews.com/socal/lausdpayroll/

The Daily News describes more on it's handling of the salary database in the 2/20/09 publication as part of its 2-Part Series on the LAUSD, and has a number of related stories and items as well as the searchable Salary Database, "Fairness played a key role in publishing LAUSD salaries," http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10579910

An item especially interesting in the current face of cutbacks is the link to a September 2008 story about sucesss at Cleveland High's 4,000 student campus, "Despite cutbacks, students thrive at Cleveland High in Reseda," http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10579910 By George B. Sanchez, Staff Writer, Updated: 02/20/2009. You can see some other related links along with the link to the article on the Beaudry headquarters, Beaudry building in downtown L.A. a pricey place for LAUSD personnel and more on that page.

Pay is one part of the current District concern, trying to save money by eliminating positions and you can search by clicking on "pay ranges" to see who and how many are in various pay ranges and what their job title is. The database has "David Brewer" still as Superintendent at $300.000.00 salary, but "Ramon Cortines" wasn't found on that database by name or pay range search.

Obesity in students and the school-neighbor fast food outlets- "Survey says: ...."

The issue of student health health is in the news in today's L.A. TIMES, with a study of reasons for obesity among students showing some logical conclusions. The study says that the schools where there are fast-food outlets nearby have more students with obesity, finding that factor responsible for a 5.2% increase in the incidence of obesity. "Student obesity linked to proximity to fast-food outlets," by By Jerry Hirsch March 23, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-fastfood23-2009mar23,0,7483715.story?page=2 Personal responsibility and the Nanny State are competing interests here, as is the case with a lot of what government wants to control.

The Times' story gives some accounts of Fullerton students on eating preferences and convenience. Governmental action in response to the student obesity problem is discussed, and the story notes local impact:

California has been one of the most aggressive. Students can no longer
purchase soda or junk food in Golden State schools. Some districts won't allow
bake sales. California has banned artery-cloggingtrans fats, and Los Angeles has
a one-year moratorium on new fast-food outlets in a 32-square-mile area of South
L.A.

The story goes into a lot of details of assorted views on the reasons for obesity among students, as well as comparing that group to others, such as adults with cars and pregnant women. One result is relevant to a big part of the population:

Latino and female students were the most susceptible to weight gain,
according to the study.

Whether that's genetics, environment, or something else- the exact reason still is not known, but NO ONE is mentioning the FACT that Physical Education classes, specifically in LAUSD, but in other districts, too, have been reduced- actually eliminated by HALF as the required time in high school from what I and many others experienced. Instead of one P.E. class required to be taken every semester, you only have 2 years of P.E. classes required out of the 4 high school years. That may be ANOTHER of the more simple REASONS for more obesity in today's students.

Physical activity is not promoted in school as actively now as in other eras. In my opinion from personal observation, that change also accounts for smaller interest in sports programs in high schools- after all, if you had to take P.E., you might as well choose a sport to satisfy the requirement. And with peer pressure being what it is in high school, friends joined sports together with other friends and filling out rosters was not too difficult. Today, there's an increase in time spent sitting at the computer for students that competes with time for other activities. We didn't have that as a demand for our time in high school, like many things of today, since they were still being developed.

The other factor- really the same factor as above- is that there is less exercise. How many students walk to school now compared to many years back? In some neighborhoods, parents are reluctant to have their children go outside to play, fearing harm that can come in the form of gang violence from gunfire. It's happened so many times in the Los Angeles area that such a concern not even being "overly protective" but realistic. THAT is where our politicians should put their energy; solving that problem might have multiple benefits, but it's too easy to pontificate and assume people "need" somebody "smarter" to make "better" decisions- in short, people are too stupid for their own good.

The story demonstrates this growing intrusion of government, though indirectly, from the fact of the government inserting itself in the place of parents in the decision-making process. The South L.A. fast food franchise moratorium on new businesses was sponsored by L.A. Council Member Jan Perry who believes, as many in government, that parents and other residents are simply too stupid to handle their own health decisions, so government has to take over. That should be an offensive concept to any individual, especially considering that it's politicians making decision for you. And, really, how much can you trust any politician's judgment on YOUR WELL-BEING in real life situations?

The story is one of the examples of how results that come from studies, whether astounding or simply very logically expected, become tools for politicians engineering more changes in lives of citizens where their decision remove a lot of personal freedom. It's just something to consider now so that later on down the road you won't be surprised when those same politicians decide to take another much larger step into your own personal decisons where that over-stepping of intrusion DOES bother you. At that time it just might be too late to control those decisions of theirs.

If you still don't believe that, consider this: The California voters, a few years back, agreed to impose a tax on cigarettes based on the idea that the health damage would be limited by having less smokers and the money collected would be spent on programs to stop people from DECIDING to smoke and help early childhood education, too. That sounds fine to us non-and ex- smokers, but it's really not what's working here if you look into this picture more deeply. The politicians find an unpopular activity and work on that to raise money and pursue the social engineering endeavors "for our well-being."

The cigarette tax generated millions of tax dollars, possibly above a billion dollars, much still unspent in California, as the programs to receive the money only sparsely materialized. Actor Rob Reiner was a celebrity promoting the tax of 50 cents a pack for early childhood education and anti-tobacco efforts that raised $4 billon as of February 2006. There was another measure to raise taxes by $1.50 a pack that did not pass. That anti-tobacco message would be accomplished by "education" and by making it MORE EXPENSIVE to buy cigarettes, influencing that outcome.

The people who continue to smoke just end up spending more money, and many who do smoke are people who may have limited incomes, literally burning up a bigger chunk of it to satisfy their nicotine fix. And that's where we are on that tax-as-a-deterrence situation. What it did was choose an unpopular activity to be controlled by the taxing authority of government, and collecting money from it along the way.

Now the real danger comes when politicians continue to find MORE ills to affect people that "have to be addressed." You see the limitation now on more businesses in South L.A. as such a response. The LAUSD stopped sales of sodas in schools about 6 years ago because of "sugar content" affecting obesity, but they did not allow diet sodas which have no sugar. So much for honesty of motive. They replaced that in many cases with fruit juice beverages as the alternative available, and this can have the same or more sugars in them, under the "fructose" label- just another form of sugar from fruit. The stated reasons usually are not the full reasons for anything that any governmental organization does, and more people should take that into account instead of leaving the thinking to others.

You can see that the door is open for more action by government "for your own good," also known as "NANNY STATE." As you have seen so often in government decision-making- in the ongoing "bailout" handling of money, or the relief response to Hurrican Katrina, or even the selections of cabinet members by President Obama, as examples- there's enough bad decisions on big scale applilcations that continue. Is this a control over your life that you want to hand over to politicians like the ones in LAUSD, the L.A. City Council, the L.A. County Board of Supervisors or the state legislature, all of whom have their own performance issues? And they WILL take that authority if you let them.

Then and Now, Predictions- L.A. high schools and L.A. life-

Checking the L.A. Times, with the “Then and Now” feature for Sunday that has a pretty interesting picture attached of Charlton Heston from the movie, “Earthquake,” that is representative the story topic, “A world of end-of-the-world predictions; End-of-the-world predictions and tales of catastrophe have long been part of the Southland's culture,” by Steve Harvey, March 22, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-then22-2009mar22,0,909297.story The local predictions from the past are brought out in the story and showing us some effects that they had on the people of the times. The 1953 movie, “War of the Worlds,” used Los Angeles as the scene of the alien attack, and I remember it well from the “Noon Movie” presentation at Lincoln, (3 days at 10 cents a segment) or it could have been at Nightingale, for that matter (5 days at 5 cents each). I remember the H.G. Wells’ “The Time Machine,” too, as a noon movie favorite, but that’s another topic for another day.

The look to the past brought little known details out, as usual with Steve Harvey (the columnist, not the comedian and radio host), and I found something that many younger people today might have been puzzled by at the end of the article. Harvey writes about the experience of one guy, “East L.A.-born Val Rodriguez, then a Roosevelt High School student. Rodriguez ditched school the day before the world was to end.”

It was not his excuse that I found as the surprise in the story, but the simple mention of his punishment barely avoided-

“The attendance counselor called the boys' VP, who in turn called the principal
to hear my excuse. They bought it! No swats.”

“No swats?” Do you remember those days in high school? Well, not from the 40’s- then you really have some years on we of the 60’s generation- but “swats” in high school when it was commonplace. I hadn’t thought of swats in school for awhile, although when I was teaching, it was a topic of retro-days at Lincoln High School that had the students amazed at such a thing happening. The thought of having that practice revived ocassionally crossed my mind with some of the student behavior that I encountered. Then the recollection of the turmoil caused by the teacher who put duct tape on talkative student’s mouth a few years back was the next thing that usually came to mind and that was that, more that enough for the fleeting thought to exit consideration immediately.

Occasionally, as I think of the old reasons for the "Walkouts" of 1968, I wonder whether swats were a part of the school assortment of disciplinary measures used district-wide, or did we have more of that applied more generously on "our side" of town? I don't recall comparing notes with others at college who attended "non-Eastside" high schools in L.A., or even bringing it up later. I'm just now thinking that there was a difference based on geography, which meant "school population," but at that time there were lots of differences for that reason anyway. The "Walkouts" were supposed to be about such things being handled "differently" at Eastside schools.

I don't want to be like Tony Cardenas, an L.A. Council Member who regularly slips in his digs at "us" and "them" and is such an example of a divisive element in local government. Example: One day last year in a Council Meeting, Cardenas said, in connection with LAPD officers acting as something of mentors or volunteers in recreational activities at local parks, "Police should not have any contact with our youth unless there is an official reason," and I paraphrase that, and continue with his take on the situaton, "Parents on the West Side would not tolerate that."

I see some history of "Police v. Tony Cardenas and bad experience" in the crystal ball for that one. The dichotomy of attitudes shown by Cardenas when it comes to police is undeniable. You see that when topics of crime fighting and working with the community are raised, and when congratulations are presented to police officers. Cardenas is right there with the routine praise- Kind of like Jose Huizar's actions when there was a shooting, a fatal one, of a suspected gang memember by an LAPD officer following a foot chase in Ramona Gardens last year.

Jose gets called to the scene at night and is prodded by local residents so he says, "I will be demanding an independent investigation tomorrow." There was an earlier incident, I don't recall which it was, but Jose wanted to be on the "community's" side, and in so doing, effectively said, "LAPD, I don't trust your organization to be honest. I don't trust the D.A.'s office to do a fair investigation of the "Officer-Involved shooting." The smoke barely had cleared on the location, and Huizar's making these accusatory statements when the LAPD had not even finished a preliminary sorting of what happened, yet to Huizar's already putting the blame them by calling for the "independent" investigation.

It was very revealing of the attitudes held by Huizar towards the operation of the police department and the critical view he must have held about the processes that are put into place for investigating shooting situations. A little premature to challenge anyone's veracity in the investigation process, I thought at the time, but Huizar's continual dilemma is choosing what to say and when to say it. Often it's poorly done by Jose, usually a risk when entering discussions on topics during Council meetings. Regardless of the intent, what it sounds like is not very well thought out. Think of the President on Leno's show last Thursday night for another example of choosing to speak at the wrong time on the wrong thing.

But getting to the immediate story again, just a little of the past is brought back to us in a few lines in a story. For another thought of the days past, do you remember when a call from anyone at school was something to be avoided at all costs? Nowadays, many home numbers for students on the speed dial of their teachers’ cell phones. There's more need now to call but there's not much changed after the call for many of the cases. Times change.

Too much Homework is stressing out students- ?

HOMEWORK- something that most students don’t want to think about on a weekend, especially a good one like we’re having now with a little morning rinse off and then sunshine again. There’s a story in the L.A. Times today that shows there is a trend to reducing or cutting out most homework for students. “Some schools are cutting back on homework: When is homework just busywork? Weighing stress against learning, some districts are cutting back on academic work outside the classroom,” by Seema Mehta, March 22, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-homework22-2009mar22,0,1964937.story That’s kind of an odd situation from my viewpoint, but I’ll get to that later. The story mentions that there has been so much homework placed upon students that they don’t have time to be kids. The students get so stressed out by having to keep up with assignments, especially on the weekends, that it interferes with other activities.

There’s a short recap of homework being disfavored by educators at other times in history, but the idea that there should be no busy work is a little more understandable. Some comments are presented with the opinion that the forced reading makes children more resistant to reading on their own for enjoyment. There is a variable on the amount of homework that is given according to the grade level of the student. The story is still not convincing me that there is too much homework for children to handle.

But my opinion comes from my own experience at Lincoln High. The story’s point has to be based upon the important consideration that these students ARE DOING all the assigned homework. I suppose there is still some stress when the students continue to IGNORE or struggle with getting homework assignments partially done. I tried to give a little each day, hoping that the doing some work in the subject at different time of the day might help them actually learn the subjects a little more.

But as a more productive activity, my students would probably have been getting more out of being in school longer each day than having to be on their own with homework. I don’t think I gave much homework in the overall picture of a semester's time simply because the bottleneck in the path to moving ahead was reading. Plain and simple, the reading skills were poor, generally, and THAT was the key to having all the rest of school work become something that the students could handle at an appropriate, or even outstanding level.

If anything, being able to do homework on a regular basis- and not at amounts that will require the same daily amount of hours as the school day- will get their work habits up so that they will be better able to function AFTER they get out of high school. With the dropout level as high as it’s been, if students don’t meet some success at school SOMEWHERE, either in academics or other school activities, they become candidates for increasing absenteeism, declining grades, loss of social acceptance, and then dropping out begins to make sense to them.

Like I said, the story’s premise has to assume students are doing all the homework. My experience doesn’t have that many students doing all the homework, or even able to handle much of what should be homework. What I think would help would be more monitoring of the progress after assessments are made of work level for the students, so that they don’t fall more behind. They need to catch up to grade level in most cases where I was assigned, and that’s a different problem to add to the job of teaching.

Most students had more potential that was not being realized- and who doesn’t? - but in their cases, the ones that were my students, the non-achievement often led to anti-social behavior that accelerated poorer performance in academics and in regular school socialization. And that was long before they reached me in the chain of events that is LAUSD's social promotion. I won’t even get into the influence of the gang environment in high school, yet another factor in how the high school experience is handled by students of today in Los Angeles.

Homework has several functions and deciding which are the most important ones for your purposes- and it should be educating the student- will be what influences when and what kind and how much homework you will assign. It all depends. How's that for a definitive answer on the matter?

Highland Park violence- Steve Lopez visits "combat zone"; More teen deaths.

Columnist Steve Lopez writes in the weekend edition of the L.A. TIMES (3-22-09) about the Highland Park area becoming a scene for more shootings that endanger Monte Vista Elementary School students, faculty and parents, “Surge in Highland Park violence terrifies students; Reading, writing, and diving to the floor when gunshots are heard are all part of the routine for second-graders.” http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez22-2009mar22,0,2583393.column

Lopez spoke with Monte Vista’s principal Jose Posada who described a recent incident of a daylight shooting that happened last Monday as parents and children were on their way to school. Six to eight shot were fired, and shootings have happened in the area between gangs too regularly.

The survival drill follwed by students on the command, “Pancake,” was demonstrated for Lopez. It is similar to the old “Drop Drill” but you have to lay flat on the ground instead of huddled under a desk in order to reduce your chance of being hit by bullets.

The urgency of the safety issue has pushed the students to write to elected representatives, Ed Reyes, Council member and Antonio Villaraigosa, the Mayor, for assistance. In my view, these two persons have been and continue to be ineffective in addressing these issues. The mayor has long dragged his feet on this, although he talks a good game. The style that he seems to favor is entirely weighted towards intervention, and what appears to be his pet project, midnight basketball. Ed Reyes is one of the Villaraigosa disciples so you can’t expect much from him that is not Villaraigosa-approved.

Most on the City Council have treated crime issues, principally gang crime, as matters to be kept on the "back burner." You continue to see more attention paid to such things as awards and festivities at the Friday City Council meetings and numerous hours spent at Council meetings on non-crime matters, like the Zoo elephant’s housing, than you ever have spent concerning the violent crime conditions complained of in Lopez’s column.

Ed Reyes is more interested in development and re-election, although I did not hear anything of him putting out an effort for vote-getting. by giving presentations of a public forum nature at any time before the March 3rd elections. Reyes assumed an attitude of entitlement when it came to his campaign for re-election. Reyes’ opponent, Jesus Rosas, gathered about 25% of the vote in Council District 1 with a very passive campaign, still being an "unknown" to most voters. That hints at the voter dissatisfaction with Reyes’ after two terms in office. Reyes’ contribution, as I recall, to the recreation area on the old train yard off San Fernando Road in Glassell Park was to add “berms” to the landscape next to the street. “Berms” are mounds of earth that are raised to provide a physical barrier to gunfire. To me, that only signals capitulation to the problem instead of being a solution, leaving things otherwise unchanged.

The shooting deaths of two teens last week at York Blvd. and Figueroa St. in Highland Park is another example of recent deadly violence that continues to jeopardize the local community. My wife has a cousin who is a teacher at Luther Burbank Middle School, located a few blocks north of the shooting scene and those victims were his former students. See LAPD Blog, March 16, "Two Teens Killed in Highland Park," http://lapdblog.typepad.com/lapd_blog/2009/03/two-teens-killed-in-highland-park-.html (Note: the address in the posting is wrong, "1600 Figueroa St." which is downtown- the correct location was probably supposed to be "6100 Figueroa St." where the Gold Line tracks cross Figueroa, by the Recreation Center.

The local culture-oriented blog, “L.A. Eastside,” comments on the shooting deaths, "Memorial in Highland Park," noting the memorial on the site where two young boys, Alejandro Garcia, 16 and Carlos Hernandez, 15 were gunned down on their walk home from Franklin High School," and criticizes the major print media icon, the Los Angeles Times, that barely mentioned the crime. http://laeastside.com/2009/03/memorial-in-highland-park/

The usual handling of problems by the Council and the Mayor is to solicit applications from organizations, usually “non-profits,” who submit proposals and, upon approval, receive allotments of funds to run the programs. There is a cottage industry in such activities where much more than a tidy sum can be gained. The city's process is examined in the L.A. Weekly. They discuss the mysterious method that the Mayor created to evaluate applicant programs. “Secrecy Rules in L.A.'s $24 Million Gang Program; Carr and Villaraigosa use 50 anonymous people to decide who gets the money,”
By Daniel Heimpel, published on December 17, 2008, http://www.laweekly.com/2008-12-18/news/secrecy-rules-in-l-a-39-s-24-million-gang-program/ describes the process that is anything but the “transparency” in government that was promised by the Mayor as he took office.

There was a follow-up story in the L.A. Weekly, “Why Do Secret Citizens Control the Gang Contracting?; Villaraigosa says they have to be anonymous. A dead city attorney told him so,” By Daniel Heimpel, published on January 07, 2009, http://www.laweekly.com/2009-01-08/news/why-do-secret-citizens-control-the-gang-contracting/

This story further examined “Villaraigosa’s unprecedented decision to create a committee of about 50 anonymous private citizens — whose own backgrounds and conflicts are unknown — to decide where to award $24 million in taxpayer funds.”

From that story: ”[Editor's Note: The mayor released the names of the 50 anonymous citizens cited below on Tuesday evening after L.A. Weekly went to press. On January 8, LA Daily blog will publish the list]”

As usual, the L.A. Weekly does more than simply scratch the surface with their stories compared to what is so often the case with the L.A. Times, and more now, with the Daily News, as they provide more details gained from better investigaton and reporting.

Many of the programs have little or no real method of demonstrating their effectiveness at activity other than running a program that can be guaranteed to use up whatever taxpayer funds it can acquire. There is more hope than results involved in such programs, in my opinion. Pointing to these programs as the “solutions” is not and should not be considered to be all that the City Council has to do to fulfill it's responsibility to the public.

Until there is a serious attempt to address the crime problem, it will continue. LAPD Chief Bratton said that "we can’t arrest our way out of the problem,” but there’snever been a showing that such action has really been attempted. Looking at this conditon on a fairness basis, something has to be done to make this picture right. The facts are that residents have to remain fearful of becoming a homicide crime victim statistics in their own neighborhoods, while the actual perpetrators have virtually unlimited freedom to do what they do best, conduct criminal acts, including shootings.

The Steve Lopez article added that Principal Posadas was a Marine and veteran of the Gulf War and he did not see as much action as what has been happening around the school’s neighborhood.

=======================================================

FOR ADDITONAL REFERENCE on the Gang Program Selection:

See: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/65.php
The gang program's selection procedures and the justifications are discussed in an 11 minute video, “WHO DECIDES WHICH GANG ORGANIZATION GETS THE MONEY?; Mayor’s Plan Includes Anonymous Selection Committee,” released January 4, 2009, from “Full Disclosure,” a public channel program, interviews people involved on the gang program, including Reverend Carr, the city's "gang czar," describing the programs, and the L.A. Weekly reporter, Daniel Heimpel. The program notes said, “approximately $24 million taxpayer dollars will be doled out to groups that have both gang members and former gang members on their staffs.”