Friday, June 12, 2009

More Rocky Delgadillo land mines for Trutanich as outgoing Ctiy Attorney shows he's no friend to taxpayers

The L.A. Times reports again on the sleazy move by soon-to-be ex-City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo that's left the City of Los Angeles taxpayers with political appointees taking on a civil service level of job protection. The souvenirs that Rocky leaves behind are pulling in paychecks for $100,000.00 to0 $200,000.00 a year. Rocky couldn't manage to handle things well for the city during his term, but who would have seen this coming? He applied some of his purported legal skill that ends up at landing his friends a secure, well-paying (actually "over-paid") position when they should be leaving with him.

Again, Rocky costs the taxpayers money unnecessarily. If there no way for the City Council to unwind this trick, the Council should move immediately to create a change to prevent future occurences by city politicians. What a slimy guy Delgadillo is to do that when the budget is all fouled up and the CMs are turning the cities pockets inside out while planning furloughs and layoffs for city workers. And this is supposed to be the top law enforcement officer, the City Attorney for Los Angeles pulling this crap that was done purely intentionally as a favor to his pals.

"Trutanich contends that tenure limits his appointing of a team; Los Angeles' city attorney-elect says aides with job protection under the current officeholder are taking up spots and that there is no budget allocated to bring in his own staff." By Rich Connell, June 12, 2009 Here are the pay details and the view from incoming City Attorney Carmen Trutanich. The Timse report is not entirely accurate if it's basing Trutanich's view as a "complaint" when you consider also the reference to the radio interview by Doug McIntre Thursday morning on KABC radio. I heard that part of the interview and you could not have imagined how tactful and careful he worded his comments to NOT sound angry or frustrated, both of which you would expect. I thought he was too much of a gentleman but really there's not much to be gained by rants from the City Attorney- at least the one coming in shows some class. I happened to hear an evening interview live with Trutanich by John Phillips on KABC radio where STILL he was avoiding any nastiness on a clearly provacative move by Delgadillo. Trutanich said he discussed some things will Delgadillo on the transition and they will work out some things.

And on this very topic, there's some good commentary from Wednesday's City Council meeting by Zuma Dogg. He laid it on the line there for the City Council, and that 2 minute clip is at

ZD's comments are very colorful but more than that, they drive the idea home that the City Council members continue to let things get beyond control through slippery moves of fellow elected officials.

I read the Zuma Dogg entry from Thursday evening in the "L.A. DAILY BLOG" and it's simply a scathing denunciation of Delgadillo and the underlings he installed to continue their sucking up of city money for the long run, like turning on all your faucets at home and going on a trip. Totally useless and destructive of the opportunity for his successor to operate at a 100% level.

Well the ZD comment is not even close to being as kind as Trutanich has been here, and you can read his "no-punches-pulled" commentary, "Did Nick Velasquez PURPOSEFULLY LIE or just make an un-innocent mistake when he said MOST of Hahn Appointees remained wtih tenure when they didn't; What kind of spokesperson is Nick Velasquez if he can't get the facts straight on his own office?"


Another good entry there on the "L.A. Daily Blog" for Thursday is the long item on "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries" (MMDs) and that seems to me exactly what happened. All the blame lies with the City Council's poorly written ordinance with the unspecified criteria for exemptions, and then leaving ALL the applications for hardship exemptions UNTOUCHED by the PLUM committee or Council since Fall of 2007. This is what created the groundwork for what followed. And that was the MMD exemption "filing panic" or "last chance filing" sparked by Jose Huizar's announcement in early May, or so, of his motion to strike the Hardship Exemption. That's where the bulk of the people making the filings got their inspiration, a really big backfire to the purpose of the motion.

Who is on that PLUM committee you might wonder? Chair: Ed Reyes (cd-1), with members: Jack Weiss (cd-5) and Jose Huizar (cd-14). So it kind of fell on Jose's lap, this obligation to respond to his Eagle Rock constituents' complaint on the growing number of MMDs in the local area, being part of the bunch- that being City Council and the PLUM committee- that "dropped the ball" on this (more accurately, they never even picked up the ball). Ed Reyes, reportedly, rejected Huizar's idea of beginning hearing the applications for exemptions with all due speed. If that was correct, Reyes looks like he made a complete turnaround on that view by the time Tuesday's Council meeting came around.

BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT TOPIC. DO read Zuma Dogg's comment on that to see if that's not the case. (I don't agree with the "too many MMD's" analysis by ZD, and I think DENSIFICATION is not the effect that you want with MMDs and the controlled substances sold that are only legal for medical purposes. So far, the sale of caffeinated coffee is not in any way made a crime and a comparison is unfair and misleading.)