I suppose that there is some responsiveness still left in government, fortunately for us. This is coming from the District Attorney's office public integrity division. And the way things are going in government, you would think this could be a be division by now. Stil, I would like to see something actually materialize from these things. If ex-Los Angeles City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's circus performance as the city attorney office-holder did not earn more than mild notice by his colleagues, fellow prosecutors on the county side of things, then not much really is expected beyond the investigation stated here.
You have to remember that these supervisors have accumulated lots of favors with their years of building politcal alliances. How much of the "building" of those alliances came at the expense of public money, the tax dollars that came from all of us? What a clever set up. We fund their empire building and are all the poorer for it, money and condition-wise.
From the L.A. Times' L.A. Now newsblog, "Prosecutors examine spending by L.A. supervisors," March 18, 2010, by Jack Leonard. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/03/prosecutors-examine-spending-by-la-supervisors.html
The District Attorney's office is checking on the use of public money in the "discretionary spending" funds ($3.4 million per year each) that the county supervisors have done to follow up on a complaint about this subject. There are some challenges that the story identifies that question whether the procedures have been followed and whether the subjects are even permissible for the spending done in certain casess. Ridley-Thomas' $25,000 payment to be included in "Who's Who in Black Los Angeles," something like an ad in the Yellow Pages for the people who are listed, is more likely an entirely personal vanity issue than being anything of a necessity for improving the lives of the public he is supposed to be serving.
The Supervisor's high visibiity case of recent times was the request for approval by fellow supervisors for a $707,000.00 expense to remodel Mark Ridley-Thomas' office. That was approved and then the public outcry changed their minds, with complaints based on the waste, the fiscal imprudence of the decision, and highlighted by current conditions of the economy, and demonstrated even more strongly by cutbacks of people in governments. The spending that would rise after a reported planned expense of $300,000.00 on furniture would total a million dollars. Ridley-Thomas is so out of touch with real lives and the support of public employee unions who got him elected is his real boss, in my opinion.
And on this, all we can do is wait and see. You may think the reliance on the County lawyers for any advice sought by the supervisors on their spending makes them right in this siutation. Well, the government has a lot of lawyers who give out wrong advice and do misinterpret applications of the law because are not experienced in the law, even in terms of commonly encountered issues like employment law and retaliatory actions against whistle blowers. It can happen due to lack of training, interest, experience or just egos that are too big to allow any different notions to enter.
Maybe there's enough to be found here that will cause the supervisors to take off their crowns, at least while discussing the matter over with the D.A.'s office. And what about the L.A. county's D.A.'s investigating their own county supervisors? Any conflicts there?
Posts
