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.

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.

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.

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.

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").