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 powerfulThere'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.
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."
"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."
Posts
