“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 eachThe 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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“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.”
Posts
