The Chico Band is an excellent choice here, and their music covers a variety of styles to provide plenty of opportunities to get on the dance floor or just listen and enjoy.
Posts
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Reminder- Saturday evening event at Our Lady of Guadalupe School
Our Lady of Guadalupe School is having the alumni celebration (dance) Saturday night- May 2, 2000- it should be an enjoyable event for fun and to help the school. Expand image below for details.
The Chico Band is an excellent choice here, and their music covers a variety of styles to provide plenty of opportunities to get on the dance floor or just listen and enjoy.
The Chico Band is an excellent choice here, and their music covers a variety of styles to provide plenty of opportunities to get on the dance floor or just listen and enjoy.
LAUSD easing teacher firing plans; Galatzin not happy with decision
"LAUSD backs off plan to ease firing of teachers;
The board fails to pass the proposal, instead creating a task force to study the issue." By Howard Blume April 29, 2009, L.A. Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd29-2009apr29,0,425306.story
The influence of the teachers union on the issue is obvously pretty heavy. There is always the thought that one's job can be endangered by the subjective judgement of a few superiors. This is the usual reason for rejection of anything that would weaken teacher's job security, but also results in throwing up a formidable firewall for the teachers with tenure.
You have administrators who are in their positions and still don't know basic concepts of law where retaliation is a legally barred practice, but it gets done anyway. The actions actually constitute legal violations, whether the interpretationj by the actor conforms to the view that a violation has been committed. In a school situation, you have the irony present where there are many actions taken to "preserve" rights of students, and then the same people will do things violative of employment laws and other laws and common sense when it comes to dealing with the adults on the school site.
The other offensive basis that makes me wonder how anything would be carried out comes from seeing how a school can be managed or mismanaged in various forms or areas. There have been general and specific observations that I knew of where certain supportive personnel were not properly supervised, causing delays for teachers getting materials and equipment in operation in a timely fashion. The practice was generally acknowledge by many teachers but they were stuck with the condition, lest it be made worse by complaining. A lot of that is in the past at some sites as administrators change, but the practices result in a subpar level of support for teachers and others, ultimately impacting on delivery of services (teaching) to the students. So who do you trust to judge teachers?
I am a skeptical of fairness easily assured. Galatzin appears to be the most pragmatic member since David Tokofsky was on the Board. She's accessible to the media and her presentations don't sound contrived with a lot of platitudes and mumbo-jumbo that's supposed to sound legalistic and serve as a response to a question, like others on the Board. You might look to the local area for examples. Board President Monica Garcia sidetracked the plans and for any "study" to be done, you know that if it's an LAUSD project, it's going to be a huge WASTE OF MONEY - a prediction that so much of the Board's track record will support.
But some situations don't need that- where students have been hurt and a pattern and practice is found with these problems, you should act to terminate; but that would make the school liable, too, based on the inevitably long lead time allowed to fester by the District before any action is taken. Again, it's often a case of the personnel (including management levels, or especially management levels, I should say) absolutely ignorant of the impact of the laws (and for some, either just ignorant of law altogther or acting in spite of the law), in which case training is essential (and often missing or inadequate) if that exposure to more liability is going to be stopped. It's' a big problem and a having such a huge district does not make for a condition conducive for solutions to happen. Even small districts have their own large problems, but they can get to them sooner, in my opinion. If there was a whistle-blower provision in LAUSD for internal ills, I am not aware of it, but you would expect it to either need lots of extensions to take calls, or just an answering machine for lack of faith in the system acting and not retaliating against a caller for his or her trouble.
The board fails to pass the proposal, instead creating a task force to study the issue." By Howard Blume April 29, 2009, L.A. Times, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd29-2009apr29,0,425306.story
Galatzin was interviewed on the radio Wednesday afternoon, expressed thorough frustration with the Board's outcome, choosing to conduct "a study of the issue" instead. She acknowledged that this particular action was effectively, no action.A proposal to make it faster and easier to fire ineffective, unprofessional or abusive teachers failed to pass at Tuesday's meeting of the Los Angeles Board of Education. A slim majority instead voted 4 to 3 to establish a task force to study the issue.
The resolution had been presented by board members Tamar Galatzan and Marlene Canter, who said she had pushed the issue behind the scenes since last fall.
The influence of the teachers union on the issue is obvously pretty heavy. There is always the thought that one's job can be endangered by the subjective judgement of a few superiors. This is the usual reason for rejection of anything that would weaken teacher's job security, but also results in throwing up a formidable firewall for the teachers with tenure.
The hardest part of making this thing work is finding a way that removes as much subjectivity as possible from the evaluation process. If student improvement is a measure of teacher performance, then how is that going to be assessed? If a student is a high performer, how much higher a gain would be possible? If the student is a poor performer, what amount of that behavior do you attribute to the teacher and what part is the responsibility of the student? And there you see a few of the problems. For issues not including student performance, the evaluation might be made more objectively. But the presence of a lot of vindictive and some simply ignorant superiors looms over the situation, and will remain an obstacle acceptance of this change happening."Let's all sit at the table," said board member Richard Vladovic, echoing calls
from leaders of the teachers union. "Let's slow it down and do it right."The successful amended motion to establish a task force was offered by Vladovic,
Yolie Flores Aguilar and board President Monica Garcia.
You have administrators who are in their positions and still don't know basic concepts of law where retaliation is a legally barred practice, but it gets done anyway. The actions actually constitute legal violations, whether the interpretationj by the actor conforms to the view that a violation has been committed. In a school situation, you have the irony present where there are many actions taken to "preserve" rights of students, and then the same people will do things violative of employment laws and other laws and common sense when it comes to dealing with the adults on the school site.
The other offensive basis that makes me wonder how anything would be carried out comes from seeing how a school can be managed or mismanaged in various forms or areas. There have been general and specific observations that I knew of where certain supportive personnel were not properly supervised, causing delays for teachers getting materials and equipment in operation in a timely fashion. The practice was generally acknowledge by many teachers but they were stuck with the condition, lest it be made worse by complaining. A lot of that is in the past at some sites as administrators change, but the practices result in a subpar level of support for teachers and others, ultimately impacting on delivery of services (teaching) to the students. So who do you trust to judge teachers?
I am a skeptical of fairness easily assured. Galatzin appears to be the most pragmatic member since David Tokofsky was on the Board. She's accessible to the media and her presentations don't sound contrived with a lot of platitudes and mumbo-jumbo that's supposed to sound legalistic and serve as a response to a question, like others on the Board. You might look to the local area for examples. Board President Monica Garcia sidetracked the plans and for any "study" to be done, you know that if it's an LAUSD project, it's going to be a huge WASTE OF MONEY - a prediction that so much of the Board's track record will support.
But some situations don't need that- where students have been hurt and a pattern and practice is found with these problems, you should act to terminate; but that would make the school liable, too, based on the inevitably long lead time allowed to fester by the District before any action is taken. Again, it's often a case of the personnel (including management levels, or especially management levels, I should say) absolutely ignorant of the impact of the laws (and for some, either just ignorant of law altogther or acting in spite of the law), in which case training is essential (and often missing or inadequate) if that exposure to more liability is going to be stopped. It's' a big problem and a having such a huge district does not make for a condition conducive for solutions to happen. Even small districts have their own large problems, but they can get to them sooner, in my opinion. If there was a whistle-blower provision in LAUSD for internal ills, I am not aware of it, but you would expect it to either need lots of extensions to take calls, or just an answering machine for lack of faith in the system acting and not retaliating against a caller for his or her trouble.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Another development in LAUSD teacher layoffs
Here is an item from late yesterday on a development from the LAUSD Board in how they are handling of the layoff situation. "L.A. school board proposes plan to avoid layoffs,"10:41 PM PDT, April 28, 2009, by Howard Blume, LOS ANGELES TIMES - http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-briefs29-2009apr29,0,732323.story
To make this work, the cooperation of people NOT endangered by layoffs has to be obtained. That would mean two things: (1.) a membership vote that would take time that is in short supply, and (2.) the majority of the membership ACCEPTING the proposal and that means giving up pay that they otherwise would keep.
That follows the idea that Mayor Villaraigosa, the collaborator working to come up with this plan, and a "leader" of Garcia, politically speaking. The Villaraigosa plan needs union membership to work and if it doesn't, it leaves the proponent of the plan the virtuous "out" as simply, "I tried, but they didn't go along with it." That makes the Mayor look good if it fizzles and the union is left to blame each other for resulting layoffs. The same outcome could be expected with LAUSD employees. If the plan gets to the point of having a vote for it, the Board President, Garcia, is out of the woods, and the employess have their fate in their own hands when it comes to job losses.
I don't expect much, other that a lot of newer teachers looking for jobs elsewhere, maybe changing career, too. The interns working on credentials while they teach are the ones that I see as being in the most precarious position since the teaching job is an integral component to the credential program, and the time allowed to complete the credential work is NOT open-ended. There is where you will see a real waste of resources should the layoffs make the intern programs disintegrate for many participants.
No matter how Monica Garcia wants to look like the hero and save jobs by manipulating the stimulus money, there's a shortfall- and there's also a decline in the enrollment over the last decade, something more and more mentioned in news stories when covering this topic. There's still more money that's coming due and spreading stimulus dollars here stil might be something that will work. That causes some wonder, both as to why there are so many employees still in LAUSD in teaching and non-teaching positions, and why school construction is continuing so hurriedly. The District rep says that there is about one school a month completed, and this will go on for years.The school board president unveiled a surprise plan Tuesday to avoid teacher
layoffs based on a compromise being pushed by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.
Without advance notice, Monica Garcia proposed using more federal economic stimulus dollars right away to prevent the loss of teachers in the 2009-10 school year, which begins July 1. But in exchange, employee unions would have to match each dollar spent now with pay reductions that would apply to the next school year.
Because of a looming budget shortfall, as many as 3,500 non-tenured local teachers have received notice of possible layoffs, as have thousands of non-teaching employees. In addition, because of seniority rules, hundreds of more-senior employees who lose positions could bump out those at school sites in the Los Angeles Unified School District.
On that front, Supt. Ramon C. Cortines delivered a measure of good news. He predicted that no current principals would be let go because of adequate interest in an early retirement program."
To make this work, the cooperation of people NOT endangered by layoffs has to be obtained. That would mean two things: (1.) a membership vote that would take time that is in short supply, and (2.) the majority of the membership ACCEPTING the proposal and that means giving up pay that they otherwise would keep.
That follows the idea that Mayor Villaraigosa, the collaborator working to come up with this plan, and a "leader" of Garcia, politically speaking. The Villaraigosa plan needs union membership to work and if it doesn't, it leaves the proponent of the plan the virtuous "out" as simply, "I tried, but they didn't go along with it." That makes the Mayor look good if it fizzles and the union is left to blame each other for resulting layoffs. The same outcome could be expected with LAUSD employees. If the plan gets to the point of having a vote for it, the Board President, Garcia, is out of the woods, and the employess have their fate in their own hands when it comes to job losses.
I don't expect much, other that a lot of newer teachers looking for jobs elsewhere, maybe changing career, too. The interns working on credentials while they teach are the ones that I see as being in the most precarious position since the teaching job is an integral component to the credential program, and the time allowed to complete the credential work is NOT open-ended. There is where you will see a real waste of resources should the layoffs make the intern programs disintegrate for many participants.
City Council Special Events/Fee Waivers in a Time of Crisis
City Council has agenda items before it that regularly include fee waivers for events. The matters below in Item No. 28 show up today and were routinely approved for whatever was asked for each sub-item listed.
Should the council continue to approve such expenses in this budget crisis?
The Mayor's State of the City speech contained the message to city employees to "share the pain" of the budget crisis. The name of the City Council member sponsoring each motion appears beside each matter. Giving away money for a lot of the events tries to make things look as if "all is well with the city," which it is not. Council members should not continue to make themselve look good by giving away money and services like they have done in the past and begin to accept the Mayor's direction to "share the pain." Yes, cutting down awards will cause them pain- after all, it reduces their ability to be the "benefactor" to so many groups and individuals, but that's what the pain has to be. They are not above it.
"Sharing the pain" should be seen in an even more strict treatment of the Fee Waivers that the City Council approves. When the city sees that lots of the partying FUNDING is cut down, the tone of people to think about how serious this situation is may finally sink in. This doesn't mean to eliminate all events, but the City should not have to finance everything that it does, and maybe fundraising with private money should be used for funding such events.
On the other hand, it might be the intent of the City Council to move as if "ALL IS WELL" with the City. They might be keeping up various facades to convince the public that their Council members are doing "a great job", a routinely heard phrase in City Council's comments on one another's work. If they cut down the fee waivers, there'd be lots of disappointed and maybe angry consituents and many of these have some political clout that could be turned against the Council members. That may be why the spending continues and reality is pushed to the side. All is not well with the city finances, and more is to come.
TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM NO. 28.
"ITEM NO. (28)
07-1304-S2
et al. MOTIONS relative to “Special Events” to be held in the various Council Districts.
Recommendations for Council action:
DECLARE the following community events as “Special Events”; APPROVE any temporary street closures as requested; and, INSTRUCT the involved City departments to perform such services as detailed the Council motions attached to the various listed Council files, including the waiver of fees, costs and requirements and other related issues, as specified:
07-1304-S2
CD 9
a. MOTION (PERRY - REYES) relative to declaring the Asian and Pacific Islander American Heritage Month on April 24, 2009 to May 27, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = none submitted).
09-0915
CD 1
b. MOTION (REYES - PERRY) relative to declaring the Cinco de Mayo Parade on May 2, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $3,800).
08-0624-S1
CD 1
c. MOTION (REYES - PERRY) relative to declaring the MacArthur Park Spring Carnival on May 1-3, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the
City = $6,000).
07-0037-S1
CD 5
d. MOTION (WEISS - ROSENDAHL) relative to declaring the Westwood Village Certified Farmers’ Market on each Wednesday from April 29, 2009 to June 30, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $3,500).
08-1050-S1
CD 5
e. MOTION (WEISS - LABONGE) relative to declaring the Opening Night of the Los Angeles Asian Pacific Film Festival on April 30, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $1,188).
08-0748-S1
CD 5
f. MOTION (WEISS - LABONGE) relative to declaring the Temple Beth Hillel’s 5K Run, Walk and Stroll/Health Fair on April 26, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $3,755).
07-3034-S1
CD 15
g. MOTION (HAHN - LABONGE) relative to declaring the Island Avenue Block Party on May 8, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $1,226). "
Should the council continue to approve such expenses in this budget crisis?
The Mayor's State of the City speech contained the message to city employees to "share the pain" of the budget crisis. The name of the City Council member sponsoring each motion appears beside each matter. Giving away money for a lot of the events tries to make things look as if "all is well with the city," which it is not. Council members should not continue to make themselve look good by giving away money and services like they have done in the past and begin to accept the Mayor's direction to "share the pain." Yes, cutting down awards will cause them pain- after all, it reduces their ability to be the "benefactor" to so many groups and individuals, but that's what the pain has to be. They are not above it.
"Sharing the pain" should be seen in an even more strict treatment of the Fee Waivers that the City Council approves. When the city sees that lots of the partying FUNDING is cut down, the tone of people to think about how serious this situation is may finally sink in. This doesn't mean to eliminate all events, but the City should not have to finance everything that it does, and maybe fundraising with private money should be used for funding such events.
On the other hand, it might be the intent of the City Council to move as if "ALL IS WELL" with the City. They might be keeping up various facades to convince the public that their Council members are doing "a great job", a routinely heard phrase in City Council's comments on one another's work. If they cut down the fee waivers, there'd be lots of disappointed and maybe angry consituents and many of these have some political clout that could be turned against the Council members. That may be why the spending continues and reality is pushed to the side. All is not well with the city finances, and more is to come.
TODAY'S AGENDA ITEM NO. 28.
"ITEM NO. (28)
07-1304-S2
et al. MOTIONS relative to “Special Events” to be held in the various Council Districts.
Recommendations for Council action:
DECLARE the following community events as “Special Events”; APPROVE any temporary street closures as requested; and, INSTRUCT the involved City departments to perform such services as detailed the Council motions attached to the various listed Council files, including the waiver of fees, costs and requirements and other related issues, as specified:
07-1304-S2
CD 9
a. MOTION (PERRY - REYES) relative to declaring the Asian and Pacific Islander American Heritage Month on April 24, 2009 to May 27, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = none submitted).
09-0915
CD 1
b. MOTION (REYES - PERRY) relative to declaring the Cinco de Mayo Parade on May 2, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $3,800).
08-0624-S1
CD 1
c. MOTION (REYES - PERRY) relative to declaring the MacArthur Park Spring Carnival on May 1-3, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the
City = $6,000).
07-0037-S1
CD 5
d. MOTION (WEISS - ROSENDAHL) relative to declaring the Westwood Village Certified Farmers’ Market on each Wednesday from April 29, 2009 to June 30, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $3,500).
08-1050-S1
CD 5
e. MOTION (WEISS - LABONGE) relative to declaring the Opening Night of the Los Angeles Asian Pacific Film Festival on April 30, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $1,188).
08-0748-S1
CD 5
f. MOTION (WEISS - LABONGE) relative to declaring the Temple Beth Hillel’s 5K Run, Walk and Stroll/Health Fair on April 26, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $3,755).
07-3034-S1
CD 15
g. MOTION (HAHN - LABONGE) relative to declaring the Island Avenue Block Party on May 8, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $1,226). "
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Alumni Association sponsors Essay Competition Scholarship Award
The LHS Alumni Association is sponsoring its 5th Annual Essay Competition open to seniors only, with an entry deadline of THIS Friday, May 1st. Individual awards up to $1,000.00 are offfered to this year's winning competitors.
The deadline is rapidly approaching and the teachers in the English Dept. at Lincoln as well as administrators were apprised at the beginning of April of the contest that can net their graduating seniors some cash for college, so this is just a reminder in the event anyone was missed and wanted to join the competition.
See Announcement
What makes Jan Perry more than just annoying? Arrogance on Ethics Issues
"Jan Perry's Grand Avenue Conflict; An L.A. politician votes for public subsidies that boost her home's value,"
By Tibby Rothman, Published on April 15, 2009 at 10:36pm, http://www.laweekly.com/2009-04-16/news/jan-perry-39-s-grand-avenue-conflict
L.A. Weekly. Here's a good example of what's wrong with City Council members. Council Member Jan Perry, CD-9, is one often shows an arrogant attutude in actions taken more so than in the words spoken. Perry has been firmly opposed to any suggestions that her votes in the Council and committees relating to the area where she owns a condo property downtown should cause her to recuse herself. The idea of recusal from discussions and voting is to keep from having personal bias influencing a particular outcome that affects the official, especially financially. A possible effect on land values affecting one's personal real property in the affected area is such a reason.
Well, read the story, another informative piece from the L.A. Weekly that continues to bring a lot of the operations of our politicians to light. You may say that everone has his or her opinion and freedom to choose what they do, so back off the polticians- maybe even thinking that they are a smart bunch. Smart, well maybe, but intellectually honest? Different story. When you pay them for a level of service in operating the government with TAX COLLECTED DOLLARS- either federal or state collected- then THEY HAVE to act a certain way, so that's why we examine these things.
From the turnout at the last election, many people don't make the connection to how life gets to be controlled by political decisions right under their noses, and then they wonder how it happened. There were lots of people who did not know that there was an election on March 3rd when the Council seats, the Mayor's office, and City Controller's job, among other things were decided by about a combined vote of 18% of all the registered voters in the City of L.A. Less than 20% of the non-voters (78% roughly) could have come out and changed every single result- at least where there were "challengers" running.
Some races for office were "unopposed" like the case with MONICA GARCIA, LAUSD Board President. She had no opponents really because she had the poltical support of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa- and you can be sure that what she does is in line with what the Mayor wants to be done. GLORIA MOLINA's last race for re-election as Supervisor of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors was UNOPPOSED- and she had the absolutely silly idea that it was "because the people know what a good job I am doing." And she's got to be in need of serious theraphy if she believes that. It's all about CAMPAIGN MONEY to keep your name and ideas in the face of the public. You already see how uninformed people are who DO vote. Maybe it's good that NOT everyone votes.
And GLORIA has been socking away $1 million a year of discretionary funds, all of tax dollars assigned to Supervisors for their choice of expenditures. After many years, she chose to hand a huge chunk of money to the Mexican American Cultural Museum, or some such title. The point is that this is a cultural matter, and should be handled like anyone does with personal preferences, not making the public's money get funnelled to a special interest project. I think that the money could have been better applied for all the people when you have emergency rooms and hospitals closing and significant services being cut.
In the current cash poor times of woe for government's own handling of money- and the discretionary choice of Supervisor MOLINA is one example of the negative side, I'd say- you really have to think hard about spending choices. Excuse me, but a "cultural" museum is not anywhere close to being a pick. It's personal in nature, really, not a public item. Hebrew schools, Catholic schools, and others, including ethnic-based schools, should be a personal matters; if you want your culture taught, do it, but not at public expense. There's not enough money and that's not what it supposed to be used for. "Culture" is something done by the family and social groups. If you find it weak, talk to that segment to get it moving BY THEM, NOT THE PUBLIC.
Compare another aspect of life where HOME is supposed to create and promote values and behavior. In the LAUSD schoools where courtesy and manners were often a case of first impression for many students, the families have not carried the job forward, and teachers had to fill in the gap if you wanted to reduce a lot of the negatives in social skills for these students, especially needed for a classroom group to operate properly. To do otherwise is to cripple the students by not equipping them with more of "necessary" skills to survive in the real world. Too often that big picture is not seen, and that's a disservice to the students to allow things to continue uncorrected, and especially so for a teacher to be passive about it. These skills are not cultural but universal, yet the students were not all aware of what was needed; that made it our business. Cultural aspects are a private responsibility teach for their own culture, however.
JAN PERRY being well ensconced in her Council position needs some external influences to get her to consider any "Public" good for a change and act accordingly. Remember, she's the one who wanted the nanny-state action of banning fast food outlets in south Los Angeles since the residents were not able to decide for themselves and were getting obese from eating that food. That assumes a lot of things- you can make up your list, almost all being rebuttable. You would almost expect Perry to add to her motions, "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do." Well, you may be getting the idea now.
The L.A. Weekly has much more on the Grand Avenue Project, being nearly the City's version of expensive waste to match LAUSD's choices in their own Beaudry St. high school and the "Arts High School" ("H.S. #9").
By Tibby Rothman, Published on April 15, 2009 at 10:36pm, http://www.laweekly.com/2009-04-16/news/jan-perry-39-s-grand-avenue-conflict
L.A. Weekly. Here's a good example of what's wrong with City Council members. Council Member Jan Perry, CD-9, is one often shows an arrogant attutude in actions taken more so than in the words spoken. Perry has been firmly opposed to any suggestions that her votes in the Council and committees relating to the area where she owns a condo property downtown should cause her to recuse herself. The idea of recusal from discussions and voting is to keep from having personal bias influencing a particular outcome that affects the official, especially financially. A possible effect on land values affecting one's personal real property in the affected area is such a reason.
A selection from the story last week gives you the idea of the power held and the amount of tax dollars re-directed to the Project that Perry considers something "necessary" to the city.
The story goes on to compare what has been spent on the downtown money pit, compared to what amounts Van Nuys has received. The CRA, "Community Redevelopment Agency," is considered by many to be an agency specializing in wasting the public's money and coming away with not much to show for it. Not the kind of people you'd want handling your retirement funds investments.But even in L.A.’s almost feudal system of development, Councilwoman Jan Perry
stands out.Exhibit 1 is her relentless pursuit of Grand Avenue, a Frank Gehry–designed, bastion-of-luxury, $3.1 billion development on choice public land owned not by developers but by city and county residents. “The Grand” is a taxpayer subsidized, for-profit project including a park that could cost $83.1 million to blow past all previous park spending records. The proposed extravaganza is within a very short walk of Perry’s luxe, chandeliered, security-guarded condo.
Each step of the way, the Grand Avenue Authority, a joint agency composed of five politicians, including Jan Perry, has approved one pricey feature after another: The world-renowned, if expensive, Gehry. The five-star Mandarin Oriental Hotel. The most expensive public park ever built in park-poor L.A. The stunning $246,800 public salary for Grand Avenue Authority staffer Martha Welborne.But let's get down to the idea of the story, that CM Perry is into "conflicts of interest" by being involved in the decision-making for something that would affect her financial interests, and maybe at the expense of the public's best interests. I'd say it's sort of a Conflict of Interest in the classic sense. Anyway, the idea is not simply a legal one: "Is it illegal or not?" but an ethical one, where you ask, "Is it right to do that?" Perry will have none of that discussion and you'd have to drag her away to keep her from being involved in the roles she plays in making decisions.
As a member of the City Council and the Grand Avenue Authority, Perry has not one, but two, votes on spending public subsidies on The Grand. She lives within 500 feet of the project — and stands to directly financially benefit if The Grand and the Civic Park are erected, dramatically enhancing the value of her own home.If she were a judge, she'd be subject to a stricter requirment, ethically, at least, where even "the appearance of impropriety" is sufficient cause to find that an ethics violation has occurred. Politicians probably find those concepts very novel, even though many are attorneys and have seen such standards, even being tested in the state bar exam's "Professional Responsibility Exam"- aka "the ethics exam."
Well, read the story, another informative piece from the L.A. Weekly that continues to bring a lot of the operations of our politicians to light. You may say that everone has his or her opinion and freedom to choose what they do, so back off the polticians- maybe even thinking that they are a smart bunch. Smart, well maybe, but intellectually honest? Different story. When you pay them for a level of service in operating the government with TAX COLLECTED DOLLARS- either federal or state collected- then THEY HAVE to act a certain way, so that's why we examine these things.
From the turnout at the last election, many people don't make the connection to how life gets to be controlled by political decisions right under their noses, and then they wonder how it happened. There were lots of people who did not know that there was an election on March 3rd when the Council seats, the Mayor's office, and City Controller's job, among other things were decided by about a combined vote of 18% of all the registered voters in the City of L.A. Less than 20% of the non-voters (78% roughly) could have come out and changed every single result- at least where there were "challengers" running.
Some races for office were "unopposed" like the case with MONICA GARCIA, LAUSD Board President. She had no opponents really because she had the poltical support of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa- and you can be sure that what she does is in line with what the Mayor wants to be done. GLORIA MOLINA's last race for re-election as Supervisor of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors was UNOPPOSED- and she had the absolutely silly idea that it was "because the people know what a good job I am doing." And she's got to be in need of serious theraphy if she believes that. It's all about CAMPAIGN MONEY to keep your name and ideas in the face of the public. You already see how uninformed people are who DO vote. Maybe it's good that NOT everyone votes.
And GLORIA has been socking away $1 million a year of discretionary funds, all of tax dollars assigned to Supervisors for their choice of expenditures. After many years, she chose to hand a huge chunk of money to the Mexican American Cultural Museum, or some such title. The point is that this is a cultural matter, and should be handled like anyone does with personal preferences, not making the public's money get funnelled to a special interest project. I think that the money could have been better applied for all the people when you have emergency rooms and hospitals closing and significant services being cut.
In the current cash poor times of woe for government's own handling of money- and the discretionary choice of Supervisor MOLINA is one example of the negative side, I'd say- you really have to think hard about spending choices. Excuse me, but a "cultural" museum is not anywhere close to being a pick. It's personal in nature, really, not a public item. Hebrew schools, Catholic schools, and others, including ethnic-based schools, should be a personal matters; if you want your culture taught, do it, but not at public expense. There's not enough money and that's not what it supposed to be used for. "Culture" is something done by the family and social groups. If you find it weak, talk to that segment to get it moving BY THEM, NOT THE PUBLIC.
Compare another aspect of life where HOME is supposed to create and promote values and behavior. In the LAUSD schoools where courtesy and manners were often a case of first impression for many students, the families have not carried the job forward, and teachers had to fill in the gap if you wanted to reduce a lot of the negatives in social skills for these students, especially needed for a classroom group to operate properly. To do otherwise is to cripple the students by not equipping them with more of "necessary" skills to survive in the real world. Too often that big picture is not seen, and that's a disservice to the students to allow things to continue uncorrected, and especially so for a teacher to be passive about it. These skills are not cultural but universal, yet the students were not all aware of what was needed; that made it our business. Cultural aspects are a private responsibility teach for their own culture, however.
JAN PERRY being well ensconced in her Council position needs some external influences to get her to consider any "Public" good for a change and act accordingly. Remember, she's the one who wanted the nanny-state action of banning fast food outlets in south Los Angeles since the residents were not able to decide for themselves and were getting obese from eating that food. That assumes a lot of things- you can make up your list, almost all being rebuttable. You would almost expect Perry to add to her motions, "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do." Well, you may be getting the idea now.
The L.A. Weekly has much more on the Grand Avenue Project, being nearly the City's version of expensive waste to match LAUSD's choices in their own Beaudry St. high school and the "Arts High School" ("H.S. #9").
LHS Classes end early today; Alumni Drama competition at 3 p.m.; and More.
Parents, be informed that your students will be out and about early today as classes end at 1:34 p.m. today. The Alumni Association judging in Drama Competition segment of the "Angel Awards" will begin at 3 p.m. in the Student Cafeteria. Students will be competing for "The Angel Awards in the Performing and Fine Arts," sponsored by the LHS Alumni Association. See "Awards" flyer for schedule.
SCHOOL SITE COUNCIL meeting - There's a meeting at 3:15 p.m. for that group in the library today. For everybody else, you children will be home early today, or maybe not, but school's out early.
For the rest of you, the campus will be mostly empty by that time. Family and friends will likely be the only groups still on campus at 3 p.m. for the drama presentations. The next big drama performances will probably come when the teachers are determining the report card grades and students make their pitches for better marks. Good Luck, Competitors.
MORE LHS CALENDAR NOTES FOR THIS WEEK:
Tomorrow night from 6-7 p.m., General Attendance Assembly, "Auditorium" [I guess it'll take a second year to get used to using the re-dedication's name, "Andrus Theatre."]
"Drop-Out Prevention Assembly" at 9-10 a.m., Thursday, also in "the Auditorium" - the irony here is that the ones you want to continue in school have already left.
The Alumni Association's Angel Awards judging for the Art competition will begin at 3 p.m. Thursday in the Student Cafeteria.
The end of the week is topped off with the "Senior Prom" at the Omni Hotel - downtown, and that's all of the details that I know about it; the cost this year should dwarf whatever we paid for that event during our time at LHS.
SCHOOL SITE COUNCIL meeting - There's a meeting at 3:15 p.m. for that group in the library today. For everybody else, you children will be home early today, or maybe not, but school's out early.
For the rest of you, the campus will be mostly empty by that time. Family and friends will likely be the only groups still on campus at 3 p.m. for the drama presentations. The next big drama performances will probably come when the teachers are determining the report card grades and students make their pitches for better marks. Good Luck, Competitors.
MORE LHS CALENDAR NOTES FOR THIS WEEK:
Tomorrow night from 6-7 p.m., General Attendance Assembly, "Auditorium" [I guess it'll take a second year to get used to using the re-dedication's name, "Andrus Theatre."]
"Drop-Out Prevention Assembly" at 9-10 a.m., Thursday, also in "the Auditorium" - the irony here is that the ones you want to continue in school have already left.
The Alumni Association's Angel Awards judging for the Art competition will begin at 3 p.m. Thursday in the Student Cafeteria.
The end of the week is topped off with the "Senior Prom" at the Omni Hotel - downtown, and that's all of the details that I know about it; the cost this year should dwarf whatever we paid for that event during our time at LHS.
Monday, April 27, 2009
A quick look back to music top of 1970 on this date.
Checking the L.A. Radio.com column for Monday and the Top 5 in the flashback section took me back to a much younger time of life:
Top Five Flashback, April 27, 1970: ABC by the Jackson 5, Let It Be by the Beatles, Spirit In The Sky by Norman Greenbaum, American Woman/No Sugar Tonight by the Guess Who, Instant Karma by John Lennon.
It was yet another interesting time in history. At that time there was another year to go before college graduation and the Vietnam War was still a major life factor, President Nixon was in the middle of his first term of office, and many of the rock legends were beginning to become victims of their lifestyles involving drug use. But the music was still pushing the 60's sounds of assorted types, not moved into the 70's Disco phase yet and you could understand the lyrics without too much work; well, you could understand what the words were, but some meanings were still mostly imagery of assorted imaginations.
Top Five Flashback, April 27, 1970: ABC by the Jackson 5, Let It Be by the Beatles, Spirit In The Sky by Norman Greenbaum, American Woman/No Sugar Tonight by the Guess Who, Instant Karma by John Lennon.
It was yet another interesting time in history. At that time there was another year to go before college graduation and the Vietnam War was still a major life factor, President Nixon was in the middle of his first term of office, and many of the rock legends were beginning to become victims of their lifestyles involving drug use. But the music was still pushing the 60's sounds of assorted types, not moved into the 70's Disco phase yet and you could understand the lyrics without too much work; well, you could understand what the words were, but some meanings were still mostly imagery of assorted imaginations.
An L.A. CITY Tax Hike proposal held off for now.
The L.A. Times reports that the city will hold off on its attempt to get the the city property owners to vote to quadruple their storm water pollution fees (aka "tax") over next 5 years in a story by David Zahniser, "Los Angeles tables storm-water fee hike plan; A plan to ask city voters to approve a quadrupling of storm-water pollution cleanup fees on property owners is shelved over council concerns that it had been rushed and might not pass," 7:43 PM PDT, April 27, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-stormwater-fee28-2009apr28,0,1689138.story
The City of L.A. is holding off on the move that would give the Department of Public Works more money besides the $500 million that was approved by voters in 2004 for storm water clean up. Was the reason maybe that it's too much for an already heavily taxed population of property owners? Of course not.
The idea was scrapped because it was considered to have a weak chance of passing. The idea came to light last week, and the story provides more details. Board President Cynthia Ruiz will work on the P.R. and it's going to come up again. From the story, it looks like Ruiz was looking for some more money to avoid the layoffs that the Mayor's budget reduction would require. This is one of the more simple examples of the never-ending need for tax dollars that politicians look to property owners for to satisfy the budget shortfalls.
Maybe the spending has been too high over the past years. Maybe the expenses chosen to be made were done without much thought to necessity of the expense or to the most economically beneficial supplier used. A lot of reasons to how the deficits arose can be found, but the politician is over that and they simply need the money ASAP to plug the financial hole in their dike. All the P.R. in this case is with that in mind. They just are regrouping their troops. It's really a war of the spenders versus the property owners- who they apparently and mistakenly view as all being rich.
You need to remember that the politicians, when they "brag" about California or Los Angeles being a leader in this or that, they will leave out the part about how much of an additional load that they cause to be placed financially on the citizens by the trailblazing ways toward a "green" society or to some other progressive goal. One other example of the trend: The state passed a measure for a change in the gasoline that will be used in the future and that is going to make the already expensive California gasoline cost us even more. But, to them, that's o.k. since it's a cleaner environment that's being produced. I dare say that it's at a big cost for that result, and at a cost that the public has not any choice at all in so choosing. Why do we HAVE to be FIRST all the time? Has anyone considered what efforts CHINA is making along with us? THEY should be the ones to act, having the largest impact and having the most damaging methods employed in industry. No one mentions those things.
More of the "revenue" generation moves will be forthcoming by our politicians, something that they do well, second only to their ability to burn up tax dollars with all due haste. When you see the Mayor and others say L.A. is going "green" and all the steps that cost us have to be endured, remember that they are working to continue development of the city, not in the sense of evolving the quality of life to an improved state, but quite the opposite. They continue actions that boost building to put more people in less spaces- "densification" as I and others call it. And as they cram more into smaller spaces, the quality of life is sliding downhill just as fast.
You in Lincoln Heights see that honeycomb construction of housing off I-5 just south of the Pasadena Freeway as a big example of this. All that was done with changes in the parking spaces for the units changed to a lesser number. That's why you have so many cars all over the residential streets where there was ample parking before. As well as the increasing practice of not including parking spaces with residential units but charging like a separate property, you have already made conditions deteriorate, and that falls out to the neighbors of these projects and will continue to be seen as more happens.
If you live near a bus route or rail line- like the Gold Line for the Lincoln Heights example- you can see relaxed treatment of codes to enhance the payday for developers while the rest see the quality of life disappear more with each structure built, no matter how "green" they make it. Remember that "run off rain water" is happening because the ground is disappearing and replaced by concrete and steel, and that doesn't allow the earth to soak up the water.
At the bottom of it all are the Council members who facilitate this movement and do nothing to put the brakes on the strain to our city by their actions. They will get their campaign contributions and they will get to go to dinners and be congratulated as people with vision. All that will be done by the people who really see the awarding of contracts as builders and, as Ed Reyes, CD-1, constantly says, these are jobs for our people. Any job gets him excited, I've noticed. The consequences of deals made or the costs spent to get that job don't much matter to him. Jobs are what count for stats, and any jobs will do.
We have a water shortage. OK, so city council makes regulations cutting down the water that can be used or you pay penalties. If they did not push development, there would be less demand for water. The same in the demand for police and the need for fire department services, both already strained past any financially reasonable limit. Remember the Fire Department overtime story? That's overtime more and more because there's a need that's not going away, and development strains it even more, wouldn't you say? Then WHY don't Council Members and the Mayor see it? Actually, they must, but they can't stop the gravy train now.
Sewers, streets, traffc congestion and the crime that denser living generates instead of a traditional style where more people know their neighbors.
Read the story to see what you have been spared for now, and I will leave things at that for the moment. People have said that politicians are able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time- and you have the example of that in City politics.
The City of L.A. is holding off on the move that would give the Department of Public Works more money besides the $500 million that was approved by voters in 2004 for storm water clean up. Was the reason maybe that it's too much for an already heavily taxed population of property owners? Of course not.
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's appointees on the Board of Public Works voted last week to move ahead with the mail-in ballot plan, which would have asked property owners to hike their storm-water fees from $23 per year for the average parcel to $99 per year in 2013.
The idea was scrapped because it was considered to have a weak chance of passing. The idea came to light last week, and the story provides more details. Board President Cynthia Ruiz will work on the P.R. and it's going to come up again. From the story, it looks like Ruiz was looking for some more money to avoid the layoffs that the Mayor's budget reduction would require. This is one of the more simple examples of the never-ending need for tax dollars that politicians look to property owners for to satisfy the budget shortfalls.
Maybe the spending has been too high over the past years. Maybe the expenses chosen to be made were done without much thought to necessity of the expense or to the most economically beneficial supplier used. A lot of reasons to how the deficits arose can be found, but the politician is over that and they simply need the money ASAP to plug the financial hole in their dike. All the P.R. in this case is with that in mind. They just are regrouping their troops. It's really a war of the spenders versus the property owners- who they apparently and mistakenly view as all being rich.
You need to remember that the politicians, when they "brag" about California or Los Angeles being a leader in this or that, they will leave out the part about how much of an additional load that they cause to be placed financially on the citizens by the trailblazing ways toward a "green" society or to some other progressive goal. One other example of the trend: The state passed a measure for a change in the gasoline that will be used in the future and that is going to make the already expensive California gasoline cost us even more. But, to them, that's o.k. since it's a cleaner environment that's being produced. I dare say that it's at a big cost for that result, and at a cost that the public has not any choice at all in so choosing. Why do we HAVE to be FIRST all the time? Has anyone considered what efforts CHINA is making along with us? THEY should be the ones to act, having the largest impact and having the most damaging methods employed in industry. No one mentions those things.
More of the "revenue" generation moves will be forthcoming by our politicians, something that they do well, second only to their ability to burn up tax dollars with all due haste. When you see the Mayor and others say L.A. is going "green" and all the steps that cost us have to be endured, remember that they are working to continue development of the city, not in the sense of evolving the quality of life to an improved state, but quite the opposite. They continue actions that boost building to put more people in less spaces- "densification" as I and others call it. And as they cram more into smaller spaces, the quality of life is sliding downhill just as fast.
You in Lincoln Heights see that honeycomb construction of housing off I-5 just south of the Pasadena Freeway as a big example of this. All that was done with changes in the parking spaces for the units changed to a lesser number. That's why you have so many cars all over the residential streets where there was ample parking before. As well as the increasing practice of not including parking spaces with residential units but charging like a separate property, you have already made conditions deteriorate, and that falls out to the neighbors of these projects and will continue to be seen as more happens.
If you live near a bus route or rail line- like the Gold Line for the Lincoln Heights example- you can see relaxed treatment of codes to enhance the payday for developers while the rest see the quality of life disappear more with each structure built, no matter how "green" they make it. Remember that "run off rain water" is happening because the ground is disappearing and replaced by concrete and steel, and that doesn't allow the earth to soak up the water.
At the bottom of it all are the Council members who facilitate this movement and do nothing to put the brakes on the strain to our city by their actions. They will get their campaign contributions and they will get to go to dinners and be congratulated as people with vision. All that will be done by the people who really see the awarding of contracts as builders and, as Ed Reyes, CD-1, constantly says, these are jobs for our people. Any job gets him excited, I've noticed. The consequences of deals made or the costs spent to get that job don't much matter to him. Jobs are what count for stats, and any jobs will do.
We have a water shortage. OK, so city council makes regulations cutting down the water that can be used or you pay penalties. If they did not push development, there would be less demand for water. The same in the demand for police and the need for fire department services, both already strained past any financially reasonable limit. Remember the Fire Department overtime story? That's overtime more and more because there's a need that's not going away, and development strains it even more, wouldn't you say? Then WHY don't Council Members and the Mayor see it? Actually, they must, but they can't stop the gravy train now.
Sewers, streets, traffc congestion and the crime that denser living generates instead of a traditional style where more people know their neighbors.
Read the story to see what you have been spared for now, and I will leave things at that for the moment. People have said that politicians are able to talk out of both sides of their mouths at the same time- and you have the example of that in City politics.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
"Assembly Leaders Withdraw Staffers' Pay Hikes"
That was the next day's story L.A. Times headline following the Part 1 pay hike announcement. "Assembly leaders withdraw staffers' pay hikes; Speaker Karen Bass and minority leader Michael Villines acknowledge that the raises for 136 were ill-advised, given the state's budget crisis," by Patrick McGreevy, April 23, 2009, Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-govt-payraise23-2009apr23,0,4194428.story What a difference a day makes. The alarm clock went off and somebody finally woke up there. The comment and speculation in the story go beyond the simple observation that giving raises was the worst choice of actions under the current circumstances. And again, I remind you that these two, Karen Bass and Mike Villines are the leaders of their respective parties in state Assembly, so contrary to their actions, they cannot be complete idiots, but they are obviously capable of making idiotic decisions. And that demonstration alone should cause you to become vigilant as a voter and not eat up all that is spooned up for you by any politician without applying your own independent examination of what's there. You may soon discover more reasons to examine more things that they do "for the good of the public."
The story noted that the hopes for the politicians to have the voters approve their tax plans was damaged by this move. Bass made a few more comments that have her own way of interpreting things built in.
Secondly, Bass included for a description, "the responsible, urgently needed ballot initiatives..." and that's HER opinion. The ballot initiatives themselves are not "responsible" but are to remedy irresponsible spending by the legislature. The "urgently needed" part is BECAUSE of the financial hole that they have dug for California. Absolutely NO responsibility is ever taken by politicians for HOW things came to be. They only tell you how bad the situation is NOW, as if it was a surprise to everyone that it happened.
And, lastly, think for a moment about Bass's comment, "She said she would not rule out future pay hikes." Politicians, both appointed and elected, along with their staffs, go into public service nowadays without any real acknowledgment of the idea that they are supposed to be "Public Servants." As such, they are supposed to work for the good of the public above all else. You are not supposed to come away from such a job with the idea of achieving any accumulation of wealth, but many do have that objective in their mind and act on it. Expecting pay raises, especially in a very troubled economy, is wrong. If there is not enough money in that job as it is, then leave. There is no one FORCED to enter public service, and all go into it with their eyes wide open. If an easy payday is the real attitude held, it's and expectation that needs to be changed and automatic or large pay raises should not be assumed.
Google searches of the topic will show you more of the same type of spin applied for all the governmental-side screw ups. The only thing that the legislators really work on is trying to figure out WHICH people they want to tax and HOW MUCH it will be.
And, that's at the state level. The city-level style of operation is about the same. It's hard to have a positive attitude about this, other than to try to reduce the amount of waste and self-indulgence undertaken by the persons paid to do a job and not let such things slip by unnoticed.
A private sector remedy for such things is "termination." The public sector remedy is different. It's usually only elections as your main opportunity to be heard- and they CAN be "fired" by NOT re-electing them. As too often seen, it's now becoming deception done as a cooperative effort of both parties as mentioned here with the ballot measures, and not telling you the truth. In that case, when elections do come, a concerted effort to NOT re-elect that party member can send the strongest message for changing their ways. Most politicians don't worry about it since it's not happened before, but only recently becoming used as a remedial device. They are so arrogant and in need of a reality check, courtesy of the voters. That attitude of theirs has got to change and it can be changed this way
The story noted that the hopes for the politicians to have the voters approve their tax plans was damaged by this move. Bass made a few more comments that have her own way of interpreting things built in.
"I absolutely don't want the people who oppose public education to use this as some sort of club against the responsible, urgently needed ballot initiatives Californians will be voting on," Bass said at a Capitol news conference. She said she would not rule out future pay hikes.When she says "people who oppose public education" she's way off base. The opposition to the idea of carrying a heavier tax burden does NOT in any way automatically mean anyone is against public education. Public education is a good thing, but it's not done very well, especially here in L.A. where it looks to be done poorly. The Bass comment reflects her own perception of persons with opposing viewpoints, and unless you agree here, then you are "against public education."
Secondly, Bass included for a description, "the responsible, urgently needed ballot initiatives..." and that's HER opinion. The ballot initiatives themselves are not "responsible" but are to remedy irresponsible spending by the legislature. The "urgently needed" part is BECAUSE of the financial hole that they have dug for California. Absolutely NO responsibility is ever taken by politicians for HOW things came to be. They only tell you how bad the situation is NOW, as if it was a surprise to everyone that it happened.
And, lastly, think for a moment about Bass's comment, "She said she would not rule out future pay hikes." Politicians, both appointed and elected, along with their staffs, go into public service nowadays without any real acknowledgment of the idea that they are supposed to be "Public Servants." As such, they are supposed to work for the good of the public above all else. You are not supposed to come away from such a job with the idea of achieving any accumulation of wealth, but many do have that objective in their mind and act on it. Expecting pay raises, especially in a very troubled economy, is wrong. If there is not enough money in that job as it is, then leave. There is no one FORCED to enter public service, and all go into it with their eyes wide open. If an easy payday is the real attitude held, it's and expectation that needs to be changed and automatic or large pay raises should not be assumed.
The story shows the attempt to be postive on the big error made. The tax measures on the next ballot (May 19) really are loaded with more taxes and deception that the legislators purposely put in to achieve their goal of approval of the tax measures. Giving them more money only allows them to waste more money as this "pay raise" choice of action was a sort of "Freudian slip" but in a non-verbal level of expression of the real nature of their thoughts.[Jon] Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn., also is suspicious that Bass did not rule out raises later this year.
"The implication of what the speaker said is that she will be open to the raises after the election," he said.
Google searches of the topic will show you more of the same type of spin applied for all the governmental-side screw ups. The only thing that the legislators really work on is trying to figure out WHICH people they want to tax and HOW MUCH it will be.
And, that's at the state level. The city-level style of operation is about the same. It's hard to have a positive attitude about this, other than to try to reduce the amount of waste and self-indulgence undertaken by the persons paid to do a job and not let such things slip by unnoticed.
A private sector remedy for such things is "termination." The public sector remedy is different. It's usually only elections as your main opportunity to be heard- and they CAN be "fired" by NOT re-electing them. As too often seen, it's now becoming deception done as a cooperative effort of both parties as mentioned here with the ballot measures, and not telling you the truth. In that case, when elections do come, a concerted effort to NOT re-elect that party member can send the strongest message for changing their ways. Most politicians don't worry about it since it's not happened before, but only recently becoming used as a remedial device. They are so arrogant and in need of a reality check, courtesy of the voters. That attitude of theirs has got to change and it can be changed this way
Karen Bass, Assembly Speaker, Approves Huge Raises to Staff in Cash Strapped Economy
As a review of the past week's "bad judgment" example by an elected state legislator, I bring to you Karen Bass, Assembly Speaker. Karen Bass is the successor to Fabian Nunez as assembly speaker who was termed out of office last fall after living a lavish life on other people's money during the time he was supposed to have "our" best interests at heart. Nunez's son was recently indicted for the stabbing murder in October of a San Diego student while the younger Nunez was visiting the area with friends from Sacramento. They are also charged with the murder.
But that's all another story and Karen Bass has another kind of problem. Bass really stepped into a big pile of her own doing by approving over half a billion dollars in pay raises to 136 staff members. Bass maybe had a mental blackout for that period of time, enough cause her to forget that the State is a bit short on cash, while it furloughed workers and has approved the largest tax increase in the history of California- and presenting more taxes for approval to the voters on the May 19th election.
The L.A. Times, in case you missed it, captures the lurid details of a cash grab. The story presents us with the inescapable conclusion that the elected officials believe that they are ruled by some other form of laws than the rest of us, and that they are ENTITLED to raises, large ones, no matter what financial chaos the rest of the state or the world is experiencing. "State Assembly leaders hand out staff raises; Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) and minority leader Michael Villines (R-Clovis) give 136 staffers increases totaling $551,000," By Patrick McGreevy, April 22, 2009 Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-govt-payraise22-2009apr22,0,3407994.story Mike Villines, Republican minority leader was right up there with Bass in making what surely would qualify as a "politically incorrect" move if ever there was one.
Bass, besides approving the raises, made some idiotic comments besides by which she tried to justify the raises.
This is one of those situations where, when somebody who finds themeself in a hole, needs to stop digging. By her very statement, she acknowledges losses of jobs. I don't need to make any analogies at this point, but the situation is ripe for some. Mike Villines did not want to be left out of the "Let's make a stupid statement" competition as the L.A. Times story reports more,
The story was the beginning of the escapade into financially irresponsible behavior. Like many talk show hosts come to realize in reporting on politics and the unbelievable things that people do, "You can't make this stuff up." The next part of this story comes almost immediately in some very lame attempt to make stupid moves sound reasonable. Standby for part 2.
But that's all another story and Karen Bass has another kind of problem. Bass really stepped into a big pile of her own doing by approving over half a billion dollars in pay raises to 136 staff members. Bass maybe had a mental blackout for that period of time, enough cause her to forget that the State is a bit short on cash, while it furloughed workers and has approved the largest tax increase in the history of California- and presenting more taxes for approval to the voters on the May 19th election.
The L.A. Times, in case you missed it, captures the lurid details of a cash grab. The story presents us with the inescapable conclusion that the elected officials believe that they are ruled by some other form of laws than the rest of us, and that they are ENTITLED to raises, large ones, no matter what financial chaos the rest of the state or the world is experiencing. "State Assembly leaders hand out staff raises; Speaker Karen Bass (D-Los Angeles) and minority leader Michael Villines (R-Clovis) give 136 staffers increases totaling $551,000," By Patrick McGreevy, April 22, 2009 Los Angeles Times. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-govt-payraise22-2009apr22,0,3407994.story Mike Villines, Republican minority leader was right up there with Bass in making what surely would qualify as a "politically incorrect" move if ever there was one.
Bass, besides approving the raises, made some idiotic comments besides by which she tried to justify the raises.
Bass said the raises would be more than offset by a $15-million reduction
in the Assembly's operating budget that included the elimination of 20
jobs."I'm trying to streamline my operations," Bass said. "That allows me to
give a 5% raise to staff who haven't had a raise in three years."
This is one of those situations where, when somebody who finds themeself in a hole, needs to stop digging. By her very statement, she acknowledges losses of jobs. I don't need to make any analogies at this point, but the situation is ripe for some. Mike Villines did not want to be left out of the "Let's make a stupid statement" competition as the L.A. Times story reports more,
In this case, the inability on the part of LEADERS of the legislature to grasp the hypocrisy while displaying utterly selfish greed at taxpayer expense makes this action all the more outrageous. If they are unable to see the picture in front of their face, what other things are they fouling up? And maybe they aren't "lying" about the reasons for the raises, but lying would probably have made them look less absurd in the positions taken on the matter.Villines similarly said the raises would be paid for by "significant spending reductions to our budget."
The story was the beginning of the escapade into financially irresponsible behavior. Like many talk show hosts come to realize in reporting on politics and the unbelievable things that people do, "You can't make this stuff up." The next part of this story comes almost immediately in some very lame attempt to make stupid moves sound reasonable. Standby for part 2.
Saturday, April 25, 2009
The Woes of Gil Cedillo, lavish spender- Saga Recap
On May 19th, some of you in the San Gabriel Valley will have the opportunity to vote for a replacement to fill the Congressional seat vacated by Hilda Solis who moved to the Obama cabinet post. There are several candidates running for that office, with the leading contenders being Judy Chu, state controller, and Gil Cedillo, state asssembly member.
Gil Cedillo, to refresh your memory, filed reports on the money raised by his campaign and it showed a high style of living. The report was in contrast to Judy Chu's filing that showed a modest sum spent. The San Gabriel Valley Tribune's blog, "Leftovers from City Hall" is a continuing source of the events of the Cedillo journey in this campaign. The entry entitled, "Maximum Cedillo exposure," By Tania Chatila on April 15, 2009. was an early exposure of the response of readers, most critical of the financial generousity of Cedillo to himself. http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/2009/04/maximum-cedillo-exposure.html#comments
The story progressed to time that Mayor Villaraigosa gave an endorsement to a different candidate running for that office and it was for Chu, not the longtime buddy Cedillo. "Chu gets Villaraigosa endorsement," http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/2009/04/chu-gets-villaraigosa-endorsem.html by Jennifer McLain on April 21.
Well, that was something that generated a quick response, Fighting words from Cedillo's camp," By Jennifer McLain on April 22, 2009, http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/2009/04/fighting-words-from-cedillos-c.html, McLain wrote, "I was wondering just how Sen. Gil Cedillo would be combating Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's endorsement of Board of Equalization Chairwoman Judy Chu." It was brief press release from the Cedillo campaign that discounted the endorsement.
Next phase: First Cedillo disses endorsements, then he touts 'em
By Frank Girardot on April 23, 2009 http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/2009/04/first-cedillo-disses-endorseme.html So now it "who's supporters are more important?"
The last entry has brought another action called for by another candidate- "Rival asks Cedillo to donate campaign contributions to homeless" By Rebecca Kimitch on April 23, 2009. And now we see some constructive applications to the discussion- donate the money to the homeless and other worthy causes. As the filed report was all about, "money spent," I don't think there's any ability to do that, but there's even more resistance by Cedillo to the idea that he did anything wrong. You can read the "challenge" presented in the blog entry:
It's not my congressional district for voting on that one, but since I see too much of "the bought-off style" of representation already, if I had the opportunity, I would end that string of bad news for us ASAP, and that would be at the May 19th election.
Gil Cedillo, to refresh your memory, filed reports on the money raised by his campaign and it showed a high style of living. The report was in contrast to Judy Chu's filing that showed a modest sum spent. The San Gabriel Valley Tribune's blog, "Leftovers from City Hall" is a continuing source of the events of the Cedillo journey in this campaign. The entry entitled, "Maximum Cedillo exposure," By Tania Chatila on April 15, 2009. was an early exposure of the response of readers, most critical of the financial generousity of Cedillo to himself. http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/2009/04/maximum-cedillo-exposure.html#comments
The story progressed to time that Mayor Villaraigosa gave an endorsement to a different candidate running for that office and it was for Chu, not the longtime buddy Cedillo. "Chu gets Villaraigosa endorsement," http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/2009/04/chu-gets-villaraigosa-endorsem.html by Jennifer McLain on April 21.
Well, that was something that generated a quick response, Fighting words from Cedillo's camp," By Jennifer McLain on April 22, 2009, http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/2009/04/fighting-words-from-cedillos-c.html, McLain wrote, "I was wondering just how Sen. Gil Cedillo would be combating Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's endorsement of Board of Equalization Chairwoman Judy Chu." It was brief press release from the Cedillo campaign that discounted the endorsement.
Next phase: First Cedillo disses endorsements, then he touts 'em
By Frank Girardot on April 23, 2009 http://www.insidesocal.com/sgvgov/2009/04/first-cedillo-disses-endorseme.html So now it "who's supporters are more important?"
The last entry has brought another action called for by another candidate- "Rival asks Cedillo to donate campaign contributions to homeless" By Rebecca Kimitch on April 23, 2009. And now we see some constructive applications to the discussion- donate the money to the homeless and other worthy causes. As the filed report was all about, "money spent," I don't think there's any ability to do that, but there's even more resistance by Cedillo to the idea that he did anything wrong. You can read the "challenge" presented in the blog entry:
As the various campaigns near election day, you can see more attempt to capture the votes, both by truthful communications and by the usually used twisted logic and omitted facts that sell the ideas on the uninformed- which is what they want to get the votes. It's hard to tell people in the Cedillo case that he did not spend the money, so it's going to be a question of how important is being so loose with money a factor to taxpayers, and just "what" do the campaign donors expect in return for all the buck put out for Cedillo's pleasure?Rafael Nadal, who, like Cedillo, is a candidate for the 32nd Congressional district, is asking Cedillo to donate to the homeless and needy the $125,000 in campaign contributions the LA Times reported the senator spent on lavish hotels, meals and shopping trips.
It's not my congressional district for voting on that one, but since I see too much of "the bought-off style" of representation already, if I had the opportunity, I would end that string of bad news for us ASAP, and that would be at the May 19th election.
Friday, April 24, 2009
Grilled Cheese At the "Cornfield"- 2009 Competition Saturday
Here's something that I got clued into by CM Ed Reyes, CD-1, during Friday's "announcements" at the end of the Council meeting. Besides all the Council Members' mutual back-patting going on about the work of Reyes in his CD, it seems that there's a Grilled Cheese contest that is called, "The Grilled Cheese Invitational" happening tomorrow, Saturday, April 25th, beginning at Noon and continuing to 6 p.m.
Place:
Los Angeles State Historic Park
1245 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
See: http://grilledcheeseinvitational.com/?p=2139 includes a Google map. It's close to Chinatown, by the Gold Line's Chinatown Station, and it seems that if you pay, you can judge and get to eat lots of samples, too. Parking may get slim and using the rail line is suggested (read the linked announcement).
I never heard of this event before, not even the publicity, but if you are in the area, it might be interesting- read the information at the linked site above.
If you don't remember the train yards by Chinatown- well, that's a park now, off of North Spring St. where it meets Alameda St. They gave it a cleaned up name of Los Angeles State Historic Park. That sounds important but it doesn't tell much of what's the "historic" part of that place. I guess that's not the important part anyway- at least they didn't have it named after a person or corporations; I am so tired of those deals. But keep checking for that idea coming up- fortunately, it's not a city property, but a State piece, so it won't be pimped off for cash like the plans for the Zoo, the city parking facilities and meters, the Convention Center and a few more things to get the City budget balanced. Be on the lookout for that.
Place:
Los Angeles State Historic Park
1245 N. Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012
See: http://grilledcheeseinvitational.com/?p=2139 includes a Google map. It's close to Chinatown, by the Gold Line's Chinatown Station, and it seems that if you pay, you can judge and get to eat lots of samples, too. Parking may get slim and using the rail line is suggested (read the linked announcement).
I never heard of this event before, not even the publicity, but if you are in the area, it might be interesting- read the information at the linked site above.
If you don't remember the train yards by Chinatown- well, that's a park now, off of North Spring St. where it meets Alameda St. They gave it a cleaned up name of Los Angeles State Historic Park. That sounds important but it doesn't tell much of what's the "historic" part of that place. I guess that's not the important part anyway- at least they didn't have it named after a person or corporations; I am so tired of those deals. But keep checking for that idea coming up- fortunately, it's not a city property, but a State piece, so it won't be pimped off for cash like the plans for the Zoo, the city parking facilities and meters, the Convention Center and a few more things to get the City budget balanced. Be on the lookout for that.
Music- 1966- a very good year today
Checking the L.A.Radio.com's http://www.laradio.com/ "Flashback" featured songs today brought a quick recollection of another good period of music and times to mind, a full year before leaving high school and a year after the Watts Riot. The coming summer would be good and the next year's summer was "The Summer of Love" with "Monterey Pop" happening in June 1967. This was a good time musically and more was to come.
The top five songs on April 24, 1966 were:
Good Lovin’ by the Young Rascals, Soul & Inspiration by the Righteous Brothers, Monday Monday by the Mamas & Papas, Sloop John B by the Beach Boys, Secret Agent Man by Johnny Rivers.
The top five songs on April 24, 1966 were:
Good Lovin’ by the Young Rascals, Soul & Inspiration by the Righteous Brothers, Monday Monday by the Mamas & Papas, Sloop John B by the Beach Boys, Secret Agent Man by Johnny Rivers.
Thursday, April 23, 2009
LAPD Overtime a City Council Topic last week. Can they handle it?
The LAPD has it's own overtime considerations on overtime that the City Council is examining as part of the city budget items. "City grapples with LAPD's overtime pay," By Jason Kandel, Staff Writer http://www.dailynews.com/ci_10707094 is a story that appeared in the DAILY NEWS on April 17, 2009, a little earlier than the Fire Department's overtime story. The LAPD has it's overtime cost rising over the last 10 years but the workforce has been relatively stable, and that's caused concern.
Sizable increases in base pay - which is how overtime pay is determined -Greig Smith, Council Member and an LAPD Reserve officer, offered an explantion,
are also part of the reason LAPD's annual overtime bill surged from about $32
million in fiscal year 1997-98 to nearly $79 million in 2007-08, according to
LAPD figures.
It's cheaper than hiring more police officers," said Los Angeles City
Councilman Greig Smith, a member of the city's Budget and Finance Committee.
"For a long time that was our reasoning. It was acceptable because it is
actually cheaper."It kind of spun out of control."
Regardless of what Smith says, and often it's in the form of a poor analysis or inappropriate analogy, the overtime is an increasing expense to be dealt with directly.
The city council is trying to get the budget balanced and some have asked that the mayor's plan to arrive at a 10,000 officer force by continued hiring be held off temporarily to help financially. Mayor Tony is intent on this goal, as he's in urgent need of more feathers in his cap to use in his bid for California's next Governor- as if he hasn't done enough for us at the city level already. The union, of course, would like to have more members and says that would ease the OT, which is often due to time spent in waiting in court to testify on cases.
The LAFD overtime as the city's other financial concern, will keep council busy for the near future, and satisfactory "solutions" rarely can be expected by the Council.
If you have any views of this council having some special skill or lofty ideals applied, you can forget that. Just tune in online live or on-demand to the meetings and after a few of those sessions you will either be thoroughly frustrated and disillusioned, wondering why no one runs against them, or you will be like many others who have no time to see that and become an "admirer" of these noble folks who are able to work so intently on the city's problems.
Let me tell you now, a lot of the problems were created BY them and their "lofty" ideals and ideas. Remember, each Council Member makes almost $180,000.00 cash salary a year and all have another $100,000.00 or so of benefits to help them get their job done. 15 Council Members with a staff of 20 and they've had up to 8 city cars apiece assigned full time to them and they still waste time with personal agendas for Resolutions and other items, all out of their jurisdiction, to send to D.C. or to Sacramento for those elected representative to ignore or to acknowledge courteously and then ignore, but to sound as if they are taking in such offerings.
The budget crisis comes, in part, from spending for programs without enough checking into worthiness of the programs they fund. A good deal of cronyism is showing in this area. Sometimes it's just throwing money at a problem on some "snake-oil salesman's" pitch for a cure that they are to lazy or ignorant to work on. This tradition is not new, but the dollar values increased and the assumption of continued tax money rolling in was a bad one to adopt.
So now, taxpayers get more taxes and "fees" imposed to cover the past council shortcomings in judgment and there's plans for MORE- (May 19th brings a lot of them for you to hang yourself with.)
More on LAFD Overtime story; Union publishes statement.
Yesterday's posting here about the L.A. Daily News story - "L.A. Fire Department overtime pay going through the roof," by Jason Kandel, Staff Writer- http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_12175241 -on the high cost of LAFD overtime has stirred up a lot of opinions. There is now a statement, "Overtime Issues," issued by the Executive Board of Local 112 of the firefighters union, the United Firefighters of Los Angeles City. You can see that on their website, http://www.uflac.org/index.cfm?section=1
The response takes the position that the Daily News story is an inflammatory one that was purposely printed to work against the firefighters union in their contract negotiations. It also states that the overtime conditions are created by the employer and not any fault of the employees. In the end, the urging is to hire more firefighters so that the current firefighters will have better work schedules and home lives.
There still has not been any union rep coming on the radio so far. KABC-AM 790 morning host Doug McIntyre has invited Pat McOsker, President of Local 112 speak on the topic, and so far there's been no response. The author of the story Jason Kandel, Staff Writer for the Daily News, was a guest this morning and described how the story originated and how the public records request was made for the underlying data. The numbers that came out were what make this story so surprising. I don't think that accusations by the union aren't valid. Trying to somehow work against the firefighters in their contract negotiations is not the point of the story, as the findings themselves are both newsworthy as showing some management styles that appear as costly approaces to personnel management, and secondly, the costs are entirley borne by the taxpayer. All this is when we have a city budget that is deeply in the red, making all expenses important to consider and "high" expenses deserving of special attention.
A Fire Commission member was interviewed on KABC radio this morning and did not have specific explanations for the showing made by the news story. He asked that they be given a few weeks to examine the situation before anyone criticizes the overtime conditions. It does seem that as a commission, they should have been on top of this in the first place and have information available to answer questions now. It looks like the were not aware of the condition and that it was news to them, too. Asking to hold criticism until they have a response is not a reasonable request.
Some explanation offered have shown that the job description of an employee vacancy on a shift requires that the substitution under overtime conditions calls for using an employee with the same "job classification" - for example, certain employees handle driving trucks and others handle other tasks, so the same class of employee is required if it's the ladder truck driver spot vacant on a shift, and that is who can do overtime for that vacancy and so on. That's an explanation for some of the OT going to certain persons more than others, but there still has been a big increase in OT and one employee has made a half million dollars of OT in three years, and that does not seem to be saving money. Some cross-training sounds like it might help but unions tend to resist changes.
Training, pension, and other costs for each new hire are what is said to be saved by using overtime. Still, you would seem to have a lot of tired firefighers from time to time, and a bigger work force might get you more man(woman)power in cases where lots are needed at the same time, like wild fires, and having a fresh workforce sounds like a benefit all around. There's a lot of interpretations to this, but the idea that OTHER cities don't have the same situations in OVERTIME has to make you wonder what is going on. And there's really no one in their right mind operating against firefighters, who do a necessary and worthy service for the public.
More to come from the various sources. We definitely will see what develops and what kind of solutions, if any can be found, will be called for.
The response takes the position that the Daily News story is an inflammatory one that was purposely printed to work against the firefighters union in their contract negotiations. It also states that the overtime conditions are created by the employer and not any fault of the employees. In the end, the urging is to hire more firefighters so that the current firefighters will have better work schedules and home lives.
There still has not been any union rep coming on the radio so far. KABC-AM 790 morning host Doug McIntyre has invited Pat McOsker, President of Local 112 speak on the topic, and so far there's been no response. The author of the story Jason Kandel, Staff Writer for the Daily News, was a guest this morning and described how the story originated and how the public records request was made for the underlying data. The numbers that came out were what make this story so surprising. I don't think that accusations by the union aren't valid. Trying to somehow work against the firefighters in their contract negotiations is not the point of the story, as the findings themselves are both newsworthy as showing some management styles that appear as costly approaces to personnel management, and secondly, the costs are entirley borne by the taxpayer. All this is when we have a city budget that is deeply in the red, making all expenses important to consider and "high" expenses deserving of special attention.
A Fire Commission member was interviewed on KABC radio this morning and did not have specific explanations for the showing made by the news story. He asked that they be given a few weeks to examine the situation before anyone criticizes the overtime conditions. It does seem that as a commission, they should have been on top of this in the first place and have information available to answer questions now. It looks like the were not aware of the condition and that it was news to them, too. Asking to hold criticism until they have a response is not a reasonable request.
Some explanation offered have shown that the job description of an employee vacancy on a shift requires that the substitution under overtime conditions calls for using an employee with the same "job classification" - for example, certain employees handle driving trucks and others handle other tasks, so the same class of employee is required if it's the ladder truck driver spot vacant on a shift, and that is who can do overtime for that vacancy and so on. That's an explanation for some of the OT going to certain persons more than others, but there still has been a big increase in OT and one employee has made a half million dollars of OT in three years, and that does not seem to be saving money. Some cross-training sounds like it might help but unions tend to resist changes.
Training, pension, and other costs for each new hire are what is said to be saved by using overtime. Still, you would seem to have a lot of tired firefighers from time to time, and a bigger work force might get you more man(woman)power in cases where lots are needed at the same time, like wild fires, and having a fresh workforce sounds like a benefit all around. There's a lot of interpretations to this, but the idea that OTHER cities don't have the same situations in OVERTIME has to make you wonder what is going on. And there's really no one in their right mind operating against firefighters, who do a necessary and worthy service for the public.
More to come from the various sources. We definitely will see what develops and what kind of solutions, if any can be found, will be called for.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
L.A.F.D. overtime pay rises as Mayor spins budget
Mayor Tony gave his State of the City speech last week, telling us what we already knew- that the city was spending more money than it had. The Mayor continues to proclam the theme he's pushing, "Everyone has to share in the pain of the financial hardship." More symbolic than "painful," he's even pledging to cut an hour of his own pay. I dare say that his hour of lost pay will barely be noticed in his life style and pay rate- it's like swatting a fly at a picnic for him, but for others much lower on the pay scale, it's closer to bumping into a beehive with angry bees joining your picnic. But we can quibble later about the fallacies of his speech and actions. Meanwhile, the story of the L.A. Fire Department "overtime costs" continuing to rise has surfaced in numerous news outlets (but not much in the L.A. Times here) and there's been a lot of views on "why" this is happening, and "what" it means, and "what" cutting might do to hurt the public and "what's" responsible.
All well and good to find these things out, but as the "powers that be" start to look for solutions as to this aspect, you are witnessing a "circling of the wagons," a normal behavior when there's an agency, company or department of any group that comes under scrutiny of any sort, especially when it has to do with money operations.
The L.A. Daily News is on the topic, "L.A. Fire Department overtime pay going through the roof," By Jason Kandel, Staff Writer, April 19, 2009. [http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_12175241 link earlier omitted in error.]
The story observes that,
You might check the Daily News story and form your own impressions. The story is being treated in assorted ways by different people and groups. The KTLA TV news story, Report: Los Angeles Fire Department Racking Up Overtime states "The Los Angeles Fire Department is apparently under fire for racking up the overtime." While it tries to handle this topic delicately, adding the word, "apparently," does appear to be hedging the bet needlessly. Firefighters and a fire department are essential components of city services. But that still creates no entitlement to "carte blanche" terms as an expense. No one wants to see the loss of city services or the unnecessary spending of tax dollars. The city needs to cut expenses or collect more money overall and this area looks like it could use some changes.
I heard one question on the radio about whether as some calculate, that a pension is calculated with the highest yearly (or series of years) income used as the base to set the pension value. So "spiking" the pay with lots of overtime has the real benefit to come up for an even longer lasting benefit. That is just someone's speculation and there's not anything to say if that would apply to city service in any way, but if it does, there's another bit of motivation for an employee to keep up earning the overtime hours.
Neither losing services or paying more taxes is a choice that city residents will enjoy. But that's the way that the Mayor is begining to build his case. I think that there's a need to get into this topic before the city goes entirely down the drain. (I am still trying to see how the Mayor's "Summer Midnight Basketball" pet program fits in as an additional expense to a service-slashing endangered parks and recreation dept.)
If we think this is all part of operating a big city and we have to just suck it up, then I ask, "Why don't other big cities have the same catastrophic sized budget conditions?" Management would be the word you might look for, good management, actually. We don't have that. Look for more taxes- sales taxes- to be the way out for those who see taxes rising to meet expenses instead of better management. Check how much is going to sales taxes NOW and think about another 1% here and .5% there. I say we need to check "expenses" and if current management (Mayor and City Council) can't do it, then we need new attitudes and new people without that DNA spending gene so prominently operative to be our leaders.
On top of all this financial chaos, Mayor Villaraigosa continues to have his eye on the prize, in this case, it's the Governor's office. Villaraigosa's speech says "share the pain" and still no layoffs in city service- he does not want to have anyone angry at him, not city employees or trades unions or anyone who could possibly be a vote. There's some real wheeling and dealing going on by Tony to try to keep his chance at being Governor of California within his grasp, so keep that in mind as you read more on the city scene. "It's not all as it appears to be," is the punchline to a colorful story involving cellmates in prison, told to me years ago in a different setting to illustrate the point. These are words to keep in mind to apply regularly in connection to current events.
All well and good to find these things out, but as the "powers that be" start to look for solutions as to this aspect, you are witnessing a "circling of the wagons," a normal behavior when there's an agency, company or department of any group that comes under scrutiny of any sort, especially when it has to do with money operations.
The L.A. Daily News is on the topic, "L.A. Fire Department overtime pay going through the roof," By Jason Kandel, Staff Writer, April 19, 2009. [http://www.dailynews.com/news/ci_12175241 link earlier omitted in error.]
The story observes that,
Some of the information is an eye-opener, to say the least.Los Angeles firefighters now average six times more overtime than their counterparts in Chicago, five times more than in Houston and two times more than
in San Diego - a city that has roughly the same ratio of firefighters-to-residents as Los Angeles.
The story also includes views on why the overtime situation is justified and may still be cheaper than hiring more persons to fill the need. It's something that's been going on for years and growing. You have to wonder why some of the solutions were not considered earlier. It has to come to reaching this "city budget crisis" for any examination of internal operations to come to the light of day.The Daily News analysis found:
--56 firefighters earned at least $100,000 in overtime on top of their annual salaries last year, up from three in 1999 and 10 in 2005.
--The average Los Angeles firefighter earned about $36,500 in overtime in 2008, compared with $29,000 in 1999. Their average salary and overtime compensation totaled $117,000.
--The department's top earner racked up a total of $570,276 in overtime in the last three years, including $206,685 in 2006. His three-year overtime total was nearly double his base salary for that period.
You might check the Daily News story and form your own impressions. The story is being treated in assorted ways by different people and groups. The KTLA TV news story, Report: Los Angeles Fire Department Racking Up Overtime states "The Los Angeles Fire Department is apparently under fire for racking up the overtime." While it tries to handle this topic delicately, adding the word, "apparently," does appear to be hedging the bet needlessly. Firefighters and a fire department are essential components of city services. But that still creates no entitlement to "carte blanche" terms as an expense. No one wants to see the loss of city services or the unnecessary spending of tax dollars. The city needs to cut expenses or collect more money overall and this area looks like it could use some changes.
I heard one question on the radio about whether as some calculate, that a pension is calculated with the highest yearly (or series of years) income used as the base to set the pension value. So "spiking" the pay with lots of overtime has the real benefit to come up for an even longer lasting benefit. That is just someone's speculation and there's not anything to say if that would apply to city service in any way, but if it does, there's another bit of motivation for an employee to keep up earning the overtime hours.
Neither losing services or paying more taxes is a choice that city residents will enjoy. But that's the way that the Mayor is begining to build his case. I think that there's a need to get into this topic before the city goes entirely down the drain. (I am still trying to see how the Mayor's "Summer Midnight Basketball" pet program fits in as an additional expense to a service-slashing endangered parks and recreation dept.)
If we think this is all part of operating a big city and we have to just suck it up, then I ask, "Why don't other big cities have the same catastrophic sized budget conditions?" Management would be the word you might look for, good management, actually. We don't have that. Look for more taxes- sales taxes- to be the way out for those who see taxes rising to meet expenses instead of better management. Check how much is going to sales taxes NOW and think about another 1% here and .5% there. I say we need to check "expenses" and if current management (Mayor and City Council) can't do it, then we need new attitudes and new people without that DNA spending gene so prominently operative to be our leaders.
On top of all this financial chaos, Mayor Villaraigosa continues to have his eye on the prize, in this case, it's the Governor's office. Villaraigosa's speech says "share the pain" and still no layoffs in city service- he does not want to have anyone angry at him, not city employees or trades unions or anyone who could possibly be a vote. There's some real wheeling and dealing going on by Tony to try to keep his chance at being Governor of California within his grasp, so keep that in mind as you read more on the city scene. "It's not all as it appears to be," is the punchline to a colorful story involving cellmates in prison, told to me years ago in a different setting to illustrate the point. These are words to keep in mind to apply regularly in connection to current events.
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Today's the Santa Anita Park event- "A Day at the Races"- for the Alumni Association.
Today is the annual event, a fundraiser, “A Day at the Races,” at Santa Anita, for the Lincoln High Alumni Association. Supporting fundraising events helps provide the money to enable the Alumni Association to give assistance to LHS students, athletic programs, and to make scholarships awards each year, and along the way, the social events planned should provide a time to visit fellow alumni and to meet others.
See the earlier announcement with details posted way back in January- http://lincolnquicknotes.blogspot.com/2009/02/lhs-fundraising-horse-racing-and-picnic.html
It should be a day of fun and some renewed acquaintances and memories and the family can be part of it, too.
If don’t have a ticket yet, you can try calling the LHSAA person with tickets real soon, like now, Call:
Contact Person >> Genevieve Granados, (323) 222-2847
See the earlier announcement with details posted way back in January- http://lincolnquicknotes.blogspot.com/2009/02/lhs-fundraising-horse-racing-and-picnic.html
It should be a day of fun and some renewed acquaintances and memories and the family can be part of it, too.
If don’t have a ticket yet, you can try calling the LHSAA person with tickets real soon, like now, Call:
Contact Person >> Genevieve Granados, (323) 222-2847
Friday, April 17, 2009
DWP rate hikes going up; City Council Approves Plan
As expected, the L.A. City Council approved the changes requested by the DWP that will cost you if you don't conserve, according to their formula.
"L.A. City Council approves DWP rate changes; In an effort to cut the city's water use by 15%, the base water allocation will decrease by 15% and the cost for usage above that will increase by 44%," by Bettina Boxall 5:24 pm PDT, April 17, 2009, L.A. Times.
There was some spirited discussion on this and only Council Members Janice Hahn and Dennis Zine voted against it. For some reason, I just don't happen to trust the presentation made by the DWP and David Nahai, the general manager.
There was another story under "Environment" in the L.A. TIMES this morning by the same reporter, Bettina Boxall, "California water deliveries creeping up, " http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2009/04/water-deliveries-.html that told of the state being less strict on the amount of water that would be allotted to Los Angeles, and one of the council members asked David Nahai if he was taking that into account in coming up with the measures that were requested. I only heard a part of the meeting but I did not hear if there was a direct answer to that question. Those guys are always squirming out of getting caught by their own lies and mistakes, so maybe there was no direct answer. That change was too recent to have been taken into account by the current proposal submitted.
But the Council appears to have bought the whole thing like I predicted that they would the last time it came before them. Janice Hahn was not as angry as last time but still stuck to her guns on how everyone waited until there was such an urgency until acting and then they add in a rate increase. I don't know if Hahn could have done more in spite of not being supported in her concern over the water shortage looming, and I am just giving her the benefit of a doubt and say she did all she could. Otherwise, why should she complain about no one acting earlier?
Read the two articles and you will see where this puts us all. Some council members, starting with Zine, said that the DWP bills just don't tell you clearly with all the symbols and codes how much you can use or what the limit is before it will be past the limit. That was what he wanted made clear and was not pleased with the way they present bills that cannot easily be deciphered.
The answer there for DWP is "because they don't care- they don't have to." And that's paraphrasing actress and comedienne Lily Tomlin's telephone operator character on the old, very old, "Laugh-In" television show as she explained the telephone company's customer service. Truer words were never spoken.
"L.A. City Council approves DWP rate changes; In an effort to cut the city's water use by 15%, the base water allocation will decrease by 15% and the cost for usage above that will increase by 44%," by Bettina Boxall 5:24 pm PDT, April 17, 2009, L.A. Times.
There was some spirited discussion on this and only Council Members Janice Hahn and Dennis Zine voted against it. For some reason, I just don't happen to trust the presentation made by the DWP and David Nahai, the general manager.
There was another story under "Environment" in the L.A. TIMES this morning by the same reporter, Bettina Boxall, "California water deliveries creeping up, " http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2009/04/water-deliveries-.html that told of the state being less strict on the amount of water that would be allotted to Los Angeles, and one of the council members asked David Nahai if he was taking that into account in coming up with the measures that were requested. I only heard a part of the meeting but I did not hear if there was a direct answer to that question. Those guys are always squirming out of getting caught by their own lies and mistakes, so maybe there was no direct answer. That change was too recent to have been taken into account by the current proposal submitted.
But the Council appears to have bought the whole thing like I predicted that they would the last time it came before them. Janice Hahn was not as angry as last time but still stuck to her guns on how everyone waited until there was such an urgency until acting and then they add in a rate increase. I don't know if Hahn could have done more in spite of not being supported in her concern over the water shortage looming, and I am just giving her the benefit of a doubt and say she did all she could. Otherwise, why should she complain about no one acting earlier?
Read the two articles and you will see where this puts us all. Some council members, starting with Zine, said that the DWP bills just don't tell you clearly with all the symbols and codes how much you can use or what the limit is before it will be past the limit. That was what he wanted made clear and was not pleased with the way they present bills that cannot easily be deciphered.
The answer there for DWP is "because they don't care- they don't have to." And that's paraphrasing actress and comedienne Lily Tomlin's telephone operator character on the old, very old, "Laugh-In" television show as she explained the telephone company's customer service. Truer words were never spoken.
Music: Memory jogger from this date in 1962
Just to get into things from another time, here's a list from today's L.A. Radio.com edition that caught my attention and I show it here for you to think about. If you remember these when they were new, you go way back. I think about Nightingale Jr. High when looking at these tunes and now it seems so incredibly long ago, but the songs still are vividy remembered. I think we even bought some of those 45's, too.
Top Five Flashback from April 17, 1962: Good Luck Charm by Elvis Presley, Johnny Angel by Shelley Fabares, Mashed Potato Time by Dee Dee Sharp, Slow Twistin’ by Chubby Checker & Dee Dee Sharp, Young World by Rick Nelson.
Just 9 years later on this day in 1971, the song "Joy to the World" by Three Dog Night topped the charts and stayed there for 6 weeks. At least I wasn't still at Nightingale at that time.
Top Five Flashback from April 17, 1962: Good Luck Charm by Elvis Presley, Johnny Angel by Shelley Fabares, Mashed Potato Time by Dee Dee Sharp, Slow Twistin’ by Chubby Checker & Dee Dee Sharp, Young World by Rick Nelson.
Just 9 years later on this day in 1971, the song "Joy to the World" by Three Dog Night topped the charts and stayed there for 6 weeks. At least I wasn't still at Nightingale at that time.
Thursday, April 16, 2009
If Water is Too Cheap, Will Charging More Stop the Waste?
Here’s something for you to consider from a Daily News reporter on their opinion blog, "Friendly Fire," on the situation of decreasing water supply and DWP’s proposal to force conservation by making changes in the rates based on the amount of conservation done.
"Stop your complaining. Water is too cheap,” By Kerry Cavanaugh on April 15, 2009 http://blogs.dailynews.com/friendlyfire/2009/04/farm-workers-are-marching-in.html
The article here is gives an overly simplified view that totally ignores the added impact created by the "across the board" rate hike. The consequences either are not fully played out or just don’t seem to matter to the author. The comparison made in water usage demands between apartment buildings and lawns is one bothersome illustration.. The complaint presented mentions that lawns use up more water as the reply to conservationists urging a slowing down of the continued development. That conclusion is not sounding quite right if you are saying a certain size of lawn uses more water than the same area of space being occupied by an apartment building. The idea that dozens of people who flush toilets, wash dishes, bath and shower would use less water that the lawn on the same space would use just does not ring true. I don't have any scientific information to support the comparison numbers, but that's my suspicion.
The price theory of controlling usage is just to loaded with bad consequences. Just "raise the cost 'til they slow down" the usage is directly comparable to the gasoline-pricing situation. At $4.50 a gallon, lots of living and driving choices were made with some deliberate though given. There were some who had no choice of whether to drive or not and had to pay the going rate. The same for water would hold true, I believe. Jacking up prices will hurt fixed and low-income persons most. People and organizations with money will always manage since they have more money to work with to meet any higher pricing plans applied to water rates.
Raising prices is certain to create an "effect" but is not a solution. I still say putting more people into existing spaces and knowing there is a shortage in supplies of water and other natural resources just does not make any sense. Further, knowing that there are short supplies of resources and inadequate capacity now in city services just makes continuing with this level of growth completely insane if you have any intention of preserving any quality of life here. But you don’t see any of that view in the city's development plans that are continuing to be made for downtown spaces and other city housing and business construction. It does not seem to matter to the City Council as long as they keep collecting their pay check and making their deals.
"Stop your complaining. Water is too cheap,” By Kerry Cavanaugh on April 15, 2009 http://blogs.dailynews.com/friendlyfire/2009/04/farm-workers-are-marching-in.html
The article here is gives an overly simplified view that totally ignores the added impact created by the "across the board" rate hike. The consequences either are not fully played out or just don’t seem to matter to the author. The comparison made in water usage demands between apartment buildings and lawns is one bothersome illustration.. The complaint presented mentions that lawns use up more water as the reply to conservationists urging a slowing down of the continued development. That conclusion is not sounding quite right if you are saying a certain size of lawn uses more water than the same area of space being occupied by an apartment building. The idea that dozens of people who flush toilets, wash dishes, bath and shower would use less water that the lawn on the same space would use just does not ring true. I don't have any scientific information to support the comparison numbers, but that's my suspicion.
The price theory of controlling usage is just to loaded with bad consequences. Just "raise the cost 'til they slow down" the usage is directly comparable to the gasoline-pricing situation. At $4.50 a gallon, lots of living and driving choices were made with some deliberate though given. There were some who had no choice of whether to drive or not and had to pay the going rate. The same for water would hold true, I believe. Jacking up prices will hurt fixed and low-income persons most. People and organizations with money will always manage since they have more money to work with to meet any higher pricing plans applied to water rates.
Raising prices is certain to create an "effect" but is not a solution. I still say putting more people into existing spaces and knowing there is a shortage in supplies of water and other natural resources just does not make any sense. Further, knowing that there are short supplies of resources and inadequate capacity now in city services just makes continuing with this level of growth completely insane if you have any intention of preserving any quality of life here. But you don’t see any of that view in the city's development plans that are continuing to be made for downtown spaces and other city housing and business construction. It does not seem to matter to the City Council as long as they keep collecting their pay check and making their deals.
LHS Alumni April Meeting on Saturday- Elections coming up soon
The LHS Alumni Association monthly meeting for April will be April 18th (the 3rd Saturday of the month) at 9:30 a.m. in the Student Cafeteria on campus. We have some elections coming up and are still taking nominations. Open offices include President and Secretary. Nominations are continuing.
There will be discussions on upcoming events and any changes or details that are happening can be discussed.
New attendees are encouraged and welcomed. That includes alumni and friends. Interested faculty, staff or administrators, too, of course, would be a nice addition. Any paid memberships can be made in person, too, on Saturday.
There will be discussions on upcoming events and any changes or details that are happening can be discussed.
New attendees are encouraged and welcomed. That includes alumni and friends. Interested faculty, staff or administrators, too, of course, would be a nice addition. Any paid memberships can be made in person, too, on Saturday.
Wednesday, April 15, 2009
"Open House" at LHS Thursday, 5 pm to 7 pm- visitors needed.
The Lincoln High campus will be the site of an "Open House" event tomorrow, Thursday, April 16, 2009 from 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. From the LHS web site, "See great displays of student work, including exhibits, demonstrations, and more!" with a PDF file that gives a few more notes.
The school information is listed on the school's web site, but as with most postings, they are sparse on showing any expected details. That's an annoying part of the web "Calendar" feature, I find- and you can see what I mean by clicking the " News and Announcements" for more details on an item and you will get the the identical text in most cases, not very informative. I did see that the Debate team had a competition and LHS had students moving to higher steps in the competitions, but last names were left off on the click-thru page. Maybe it's in deference to security and privacy concerns. Just too "insider," in my opinion, to accomplish giving any real credit to the competitors, the "debators" (and that uncommon spelling may be too "insider," as well). http://www.lincolnhs.org/ Congratulations goes out to the Debate Team, duly earned in spite of it appearing untrumpeted as an achievement and lacking more details for following the nest competitions.
I noticed that there is a Professional Development Day coming this Saturday on campus for teachers. That's one of the puzzling things about LAUSD, well, "another" of the puzzling things about LAUSD. Supt. Cortines mentioned, actually he announced, there were reductions, some of the LAUSD budget-cutting steps taken to try to help the ongoing crisis. I thought it included some Professional Development spending and the elimination of "buy-back" days, but this activity appears to be outside of that expense-cutting action that he announced. Usually Professional Development time is included within the scheduled school time for a teacher, so it's not making any additional impact on costs, it's just shifting the activity for teachers from teaching students to being trained or informed in some additional way.
Saturday's Professional Development activity is getting another day's worth of hours at the teacher's particular pay rate, and that's what I thought had been cut. However, if it's a contract-required item, then I see it's not able to be eliminated. The school's audio "bulletin" announcement sounded like they were still trying to get more participation, which would be good to get while it's there. And there's meals included, always a big "plus" to get teachers involved when you wanted attendance at anything on campus. That's just an observation from seeing attendance improved when food is present.
The audio bulleting for April 14 also contained the announcement that the Field Trips to ELA Community College and L.A. City College was cancelled due to low numbers of Parent Permission slips returned for the Tuesday and Wednesday trips. The events were being rescheduled for next month and students were urged to get the papers in on time. That announcement was somewhat related to expectations that students have, and even just the act of touring the Communtiy Colleges doesn't grab their attention.
Expectations of attending college after high school seems to be held only by the LAUSD Board and not students or their families. In LAUSD, just staying in the system to graduate from high school is its own special kind of achievement, and an end in itself. Some interest in going to a college or post-high school training is stirred up at school but there's only so much you can do. If you don't have families pushing education as a valued commodity, then the uphill battle is waged on a steeper slope. Some may disagree with that observation and maybe a lot of the students have other activities conflicting with the time for the field trips, and maybe some are just focused on applying to four-year colleges and universities, not the two-year schools. I just don't know. I think my view is closer to what the situation actually is. You should note that the community colleges threshold for admission is the attainment of age 18.
Maybe Council Member Jose Huizar was wrong in taking steps to change curriculum to a mandatory college track for every student, something he takes credit for doing while he was on the LAUSD Board of Education. Changing values would have been a more useful endeavor instead. Monica Garcia, the Huizar-successor at the LAUSD, is concerned with reaching "100 percent" graduation rates for schools. Some people say that you should work on things in increments and move on as fast as those steps permit. Assuming a 100-percent graduation is going to happen just ignores a lot of realities for students, and even the ones who want to graduate run into personal situations, not the least of which is teen pregnancy for girls.
But all that wasn't in the bulletin, of course.
The school information is listed on the school's web site, but as with most postings, they are sparse on showing any expected details. That's an annoying part of the web "Calendar" feature, I find- and you can see what I mean by clicking the " News and Announcements" for more details on an item and you will get the the identical text in most cases, not very informative. I did see that the Debate team had a competition and LHS had students moving to higher steps in the competitions, but last names were left off on the click-thru page. Maybe it's in deference to security and privacy concerns. Just too "insider," in my opinion, to accomplish giving any real credit to the competitors, the "debators" (and that uncommon spelling may be too "insider," as well). http://www.lincolnhs.org/ Congratulations goes out to the Debate Team, duly earned in spite of it appearing untrumpeted as an achievement and lacking more details for following the nest competitions.
I noticed that there is a Professional Development Day coming this Saturday on campus for teachers. That's one of the puzzling things about LAUSD, well, "another" of the puzzling things about LAUSD. Supt. Cortines mentioned, actually he announced, there were reductions, some of the LAUSD budget-cutting steps taken to try to help the ongoing crisis. I thought it included some Professional Development spending and the elimination of "buy-back" days, but this activity appears to be outside of that expense-cutting action that he announced. Usually Professional Development time is included within the scheduled school time for a teacher, so it's not making any additional impact on costs, it's just shifting the activity for teachers from teaching students to being trained or informed in some additional way.
Saturday's Professional Development activity is getting another day's worth of hours at the teacher's particular pay rate, and that's what I thought had been cut. However, if it's a contract-required item, then I see it's not able to be eliminated. The school's audio "bulletin" announcement sounded like they were still trying to get more participation, which would be good to get while it's there. And there's meals included, always a big "plus" to get teachers involved when you wanted attendance at anything on campus. That's just an observation from seeing attendance improved when food is present.
The audio bulleting for April 14 also contained the announcement that the Field Trips to ELA Community College and L.A. City College was cancelled due to low numbers of Parent Permission slips returned for the Tuesday and Wednesday trips. The events were being rescheduled for next month and students were urged to get the papers in on time. That announcement was somewhat related to expectations that students have, and even just the act of touring the Communtiy Colleges doesn't grab their attention.
Expectations of attending college after high school seems to be held only by the LAUSD Board and not students or their families. In LAUSD, just staying in the system to graduate from high school is its own special kind of achievement, and an end in itself. Some interest in going to a college or post-high school training is stirred up at school but there's only so much you can do. If you don't have families pushing education as a valued commodity, then the uphill battle is waged on a steeper slope. Some may disagree with that observation and maybe a lot of the students have other activities conflicting with the time for the field trips, and maybe some are just focused on applying to four-year colleges and universities, not the two-year schools. I just don't know. I think my view is closer to what the situation actually is. You should note that the community colleges threshold for admission is the attainment of age 18.
Maybe Council Member Jose Huizar was wrong in taking steps to change curriculum to a mandatory college track for every student, something he takes credit for doing while he was on the LAUSD Board of Education. Changing values would have been a more useful endeavor instead. Monica Garcia, the Huizar-successor at the LAUSD, is concerned with reaching "100 percent" graduation rates for schools. Some people say that you should work on things in increments and move on as fast as those steps permit. Assuming a 100-percent graduation is going to happen just ignores a lot of realities for students, and even the ones who want to graduate run into personal situations, not the least of which is teen pregnancy for girls.
But all that wasn't in the bulletin, of course.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
A decision on LAUSD Layoffs; Stimulus funds to apply now.
"L.A. school board OKs cuts that could lay off thousands," 5:37 PM April 14, 2009, reported by Howard Blume, the education reporter for L.A. Times, http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/04/moments-ago-the-los-angeles-board-of-education---approved-budget-measures-that-could-result-in-more---than-5000-job-losses.html
The final deadlines for decisions are not here yet, but high schools and middle schools will be most affected with the teacher retentions set to preserve elementary school situations above the others. The seniority system largely means younger teachers out and older teachers in, but the protesting teachers don't want any layoffs. A lot of non-teaching positions will be cut, too, but the story and parent concern is mostly on the classroom situations.
Board member Tamara Galatzan was not in agreement in the voting, 4-3, and her district has a lot of the burden as lots of middle class schools in the Valley will be hardest hit. There's more to come on that story.
If there is a change in the system, it's going to be an uphill battle to change the contract to something other than "seniority" to determine layoff priorities. It's unlikely to see teachers with seniority voting on any proposal to give up that term and use some "merit", "quality", or "effectiveness" as a basis for retention with the first problem being to have it introduced as a proposal and then, maybe first, to see "how" you can determine "quality" teachers? Get a class with a bunch of tough kids with their social skills being hostile to compliance and you may not look to be as effective as the Advanced Placement or Academically Enriched classroom teacher, and so on.
A radio news report just played a sound bite of some teachers outside the Board meeting shouting, "Strike, Strike." Well, THAT would be probably the worst choice for teachers to follow and the union would not do well to choose that action in times of extended budget deficits in LAUSD and other districts, and when enrollment in the District is dropping each year.
The final deadlines for decisions are not here yet, but high schools and middle schools will be most affected with the teacher retentions set to preserve elementary school situations above the others. The seniority system largely means younger teachers out and older teachers in, but the protesting teachers don't want any layoffs. A lot of non-teaching positions will be cut, too, but the story and parent concern is mostly on the classroom situations.
Board member Tamara Galatzan was not in agreement in the voting, 4-3, and her district has a lot of the burden as lots of middle class schools in the Valley will be hardest hit. There's more to come on that story.
If there is a change in the system, it's going to be an uphill battle to change the contract to something other than "seniority" to determine layoff priorities. It's unlikely to see teachers with seniority voting on any proposal to give up that term and use some "merit", "quality", or "effectiveness" as a basis for retention with the first problem being to have it introduced as a proposal and then, maybe first, to see "how" you can determine "quality" teachers? Get a class with a bunch of tough kids with their social skills being hostile to compliance and you may not look to be as effective as the Advanced Placement or Academically Enriched classroom teacher, and so on.
A radio news report just played a sound bite of some teachers outside the Board meeting shouting, "Strike, Strike." Well, THAT would be probably the worst choice for teachers to follow and the union would not do well to choose that action in times of extended budget deficits in LAUSD and other districts, and when enrollment in the District is dropping each year.
Mayor Villaraigosa makes 4th "State of the City" address this afternoon; and Check MTA rail scheme
The Mayor's theme for his fourth "State of the City" address today will be "Green Collar Jobs" according to the L.A. City News Service story posted on NBC's web news, http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Mayor-Wants-LA-to-Green-Collar.html "Mayor: 'Green Collar' Jobs Tied to LA's Future, " Tuesday, April 14, 2009.
Villaraigosa is in a situation of a monumental budget deficit as far as that record goes for Los Angeles. The time for some layoffs of City workers appears to be nearing. Both he and the council have cut so many of the city services, sold city "surplus" real property and worked hard to maximize fees and taxes imposed on the city folks to really put it to the residents and it just doesn't end. The idea is that the government was supposed to exist to serve the people in providing an organized and orderly environment in which they can live, not for the politicians to screw it up and then have all the bills mount up higher and higher every year.
The address theme first used by Villaraigosa was "Dream with me" and that was really about what he wanted to do in the future, and not much about what was done at the moment. In a sense, we are still in that zone. The idea for now in tryiny to take out some of the citizens' pain from all this chaos is to hear about employment opportunities that he will bring up. "Jobs." That's always good to work into speeches and plans. When it comes to government, though, it's usually "government-created" jobs that would not exist in other circumstances and the employment is funded by tax dollars, a "robbing Peter to pay Paul" situation if you happen to follow the money trail.
A lot of the "green" items are just expensive matters and there's money to be made that creates a danger of inside dealings with favors traded for personal benefit in financial and political terms.
What would be good is for private sector jobs to open up. That's another angle of what's happening to the plan to get rail cars for the MTA. An Italian firm with a history of failing to meet contract deadlines and specifications is favored by Mayor Tony for getting the big dollars coming from the billions that Prop. S will be spreading as it's collected in sales taxes. The L.A. Weekly has a good article last week on that job picture, "Los Angeles Infrastructure or Bust- Metro gives second chance to a snafu-riddled Italian railcar builder," by Beth Barrett, April 8, 2009, http://www.laweekly.com/2009-04-09/news/metro-gives-second-chance-to-a-snafu-riddled-italian-railcar-builder/
In that situation to make the firm's proposal sweeter to tilt the balance in their favor, they said that they will open a manufacturing company here in L.A. and employ hundreds. Good approach to use. But nothing is verified and you can say anything at this stage. The Mayor is trying to get them to be chosen, and the bad track record for an existing contract doesn't seem to be making much difference. And why should the Mayor care what the REAL cost to the city will be? He's trying out for becoming the candidate for Governor and needs all the points he can get to use as his "accomplishments."
Good politicians use even their mistakes and failures as positivies, once they turn around some concepts or re-cast the applicable facts. I said "good politicans" and that doesn't mean that a "good poltician" is the same as a "good person" or anything like that. It's all unrelated, and totally coincidental if found so. They just happen to get a lot of mileage out of bad things. And Villaraigosa is that, very good since he is still in office, being re-elected by a slim margin of the small voter turnout in March. That happened when Villaraigosa should have been replaced by just about anyone willing to get down to doing real city business. What we have are decisions that are affected by all the "how will this impact on my career advancement?" thinking. You will undoubtedly see that in today's address.
To his credit, Tony has dropped the annoying speech style of delivering it as if he himself were the reincarnation of Martin Luther King, Jr.. Listen to that first speech and you can see how pretentious it is. I thought that Tony did this so he could collect his speeches to roll out again after he climbed the political ladder, something like a high school yearbook, video-style, and address his ego-centric needs. But really we are in bad shape as a city and a lot of what people don't want to acknowledge is a big part of the problem. Illegal immigration, though it affects many personally, is one of the issues that really is never touched as a negative and that's probably a big failing of the lawmakers who pander to every and any source of votes, no matter how costly in the overall picture.
Tony will now get around problem areas in speaking events by not taking any questions. He only does rehearsed speaking. Too much "off-the-cuff," unscripted speaking brings out a flurry of "uhhs" and "aahs" and other gastric noises mixed into the content that you might get from consuming too much rich food. No, Tony knows his strength is not that and he leaves spokesman Matt Szabo or his personal counsel Tom Saenz with the job of handling delivery of the heavy duty explanations to the press.
But another cause of the financial predicament is the increased spending decisions without any well thought-out plans to fully meet the expenses they generate. Expecting the boom economy of the real estate market to generate untold amounts of revenue was another mistake. Much of the Benjamin Franklin stockpile of sayings would have been useful to follow to be more careful with the money. And they STILL spend like nobody's business in city hall and Sacramento.
Tune in on the radio or t.v., if it's important enough to carry there, and decide about those things for yourself. Even if you don't live in the city, you will always have an impact from the fallout in assorted ways, so no one is insulated from the nonsense and shady dealings of Los Angeles poltitics. THAT would be a useful subject for our high schoolers to learn, and they might be able to see how they need to change things that don't automatically come up "right" by being ignored, as many now assume.
------
Villaraigosa is in a situation of a monumental budget deficit as far as that record goes for Los Angeles. The time for some layoffs of City workers appears to be nearing. Both he and the council have cut so many of the city services, sold city "surplus" real property and worked hard to maximize fees and taxes imposed on the city folks to really put it to the residents and it just doesn't end. The idea is that the government was supposed to exist to serve the people in providing an organized and orderly environment in which they can live, not for the politicians to screw it up and then have all the bills mount up higher and higher every year.
The address theme first used by Villaraigosa was "Dream with me" and that was really about what he wanted to do in the future, and not much about what was done at the moment. In a sense, we are still in that zone. The idea for now in tryiny to take out some of the citizens' pain from all this chaos is to hear about employment opportunities that he will bring up. "Jobs." That's always good to work into speeches and plans. When it comes to government, though, it's usually "government-created" jobs that would not exist in other circumstances and the employment is funded by tax dollars, a "robbing Peter to pay Paul" situation if you happen to follow the money trail.
A lot of the "green" items are just expensive matters and there's money to be made that creates a danger of inside dealings with favors traded for personal benefit in financial and political terms.
What would be good is for private sector jobs to open up. That's another angle of what's happening to the plan to get rail cars for the MTA. An Italian firm with a history of failing to meet contract deadlines and specifications is favored by Mayor Tony for getting the big dollars coming from the billions that Prop. S will be spreading as it's collected in sales taxes. The L.A. Weekly has a good article last week on that job picture, "Los Angeles Infrastructure or Bust- Metro gives second chance to a snafu-riddled Italian railcar builder," by Beth Barrett, April 8, 2009, http://www.laweekly.com/2009-04-09/news/metro-gives-second-chance-to-a-snafu-riddled-italian-railcar-builder/
In that situation to make the firm's proposal sweeter to tilt the balance in their favor, they said that they will open a manufacturing company here in L.A. and employ hundreds. Good approach to use. But nothing is verified and you can say anything at this stage. The Mayor is trying to get them to be chosen, and the bad track record for an existing contract doesn't seem to be making much difference. And why should the Mayor care what the REAL cost to the city will be? He's trying out for becoming the candidate for Governor and needs all the points he can get to use as his "accomplishments."
Good politicians use even their mistakes and failures as positivies, once they turn around some concepts or re-cast the applicable facts. I said "good politicans" and that doesn't mean that a "good poltician" is the same as a "good person" or anything like that. It's all unrelated, and totally coincidental if found so. They just happen to get a lot of mileage out of bad things. And Villaraigosa is that, very good since he is still in office, being re-elected by a slim margin of the small voter turnout in March. That happened when Villaraigosa should have been replaced by just about anyone willing to get down to doing real city business. What we have are decisions that are affected by all the "how will this impact on my career advancement?" thinking. You will undoubtedly see that in today's address.
To his credit, Tony has dropped the annoying speech style of delivering it as if he himself were the reincarnation of Martin Luther King, Jr.. Listen to that first speech and you can see how pretentious it is. I thought that Tony did this so he could collect his speeches to roll out again after he climbed the political ladder, something like a high school yearbook, video-style, and address his ego-centric needs. But really we are in bad shape as a city and a lot of what people don't want to acknowledge is a big part of the problem. Illegal immigration, though it affects many personally, is one of the issues that really is never touched as a negative and that's probably a big failing of the lawmakers who pander to every and any source of votes, no matter how costly in the overall picture.
Tony will now get around problem areas in speaking events by not taking any questions. He only does rehearsed speaking. Too much "off-the-cuff," unscripted speaking brings out a flurry of "uhhs" and "aahs" and other gastric noises mixed into the content that you might get from consuming too much rich food. No, Tony knows his strength is not that and he leaves spokesman Matt Szabo or his personal counsel Tom Saenz with the job of handling delivery of the heavy duty explanations to the press.
But another cause of the financial predicament is the increased spending decisions without any well thought-out plans to fully meet the expenses they generate. Expecting the boom economy of the real estate market to generate untold amounts of revenue was another mistake. Much of the Benjamin Franklin stockpile of sayings would have been useful to follow to be more careful with the money. And they STILL spend like nobody's business in city hall and Sacramento.
Tune in on the radio or t.v., if it's important enough to carry there, and decide about those things for yourself. Even if you don't live in the city, you will always have an impact from the fallout in assorted ways, so no one is insulated from the nonsense and shady dealings of Los Angeles poltitics. THAT would be a useful subject for our high schoolers to learn, and they might be able to see how they need to change things that don't automatically come up "right" by being ignored, as many now assume.
------
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
