Press access limited by Council President Eric Garcetti "rules"

Garcetti remarked today, during the first Council meeting of the week, about some changes that he's made (presumably with assent of the others in the Council) in response to complaints about noise duiring meetings, "This will allow the the proceedings to be better heard," to paraphrase Garcetti.

The more complete background and impact is discussed in the blog, "LA Observed" today- "City Hall reporters in uproar over access rules," by Kevin Roderick • May 11 2010 1:59 PM http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2010/05/city_hall_reporters_in_up.php

The change makes a lot of the City Hall off limits to reporters and allows the council members to evade questions that they used to hear as the reporters would catch up with them. Now they have an easier time of not having to be confronted by reporters. Well, if good ol' Eric is thinking that he's the real brain of the place, he's really IS out of touch with too many things.

I always sensed that he's just too smug and condescending and not much changed when I was at a small meeting in Glassell Park last month with Garcetti as one of the speakers. He's a smooth talker but that's his strength. The weakness is the content.

I don't think Eric should keep "Mayor" as one of his career goals as he continues to show he's not accountable and doesn't care to be, but a "just get out of my way, please," kind of guy.

A few City Council items to shift cost to you.

Just a quick note to point out another way that City Council is looking for ways to get out of their economic jam and put you there instead. They now want to have the homeowner pay the bill for fixing sidewalks in front of their property. That's not a cheap proposition, either. (That' why they want to make the change, of course.)

From the L.A.Times news blog, "L.A. NOW," we have this story on that clever little move from the Council Members: "L.A. may stop footing bills for sidewalk and driveway repairs." Martha Groves, May 9, 2010 http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/05/la-may-stop-footing-bills-for-sidewalk-and-driveway-repairs.html

Now, if there were better management of city spending and some attention paid to forecasts, we might not see the CMs go into the "money-grubbing" gouging of the public modus operandi that is becoming nearly all they do these days. The idea that the economic downturn is the major reason for the chaos is really a lot of B.S. but then that would mean that they would have to take some of the blame for the bad decisions they made, and you know that's not going to happen. They would be better off not saying anything about the causes than to blame it on Wall St. or anything besides their own lack of planning and foresight.

True, the outside economic forces did foul up a lot, but to use that as the excuse for the city's slow but continuing slide to insolvency is a real smokescreen for more personal failings. I can say this, that these men and women of the city council and the other guy in the Mayor's office have all done a poor job of representing the people of the city. On the other hand, that would be something of a disappointment if you EXPECTED them to do the right thing.

Other than working on keeping their jobs as professional politicians - here on the Council at the rate of $15, 000.00 a month salary- there's not much else that they put all their energy on that happens to coincide with doing a responsible job, the job that they were supposed to be doing because of their election to the office.

A big concern now is that "bankruptcy" is not a word you hear them say now. It's the "B-word" that it's called, like if you don't say it, it won't happen. That's a pretty mature way to handle the situation.

But let me assure you that these folks do not want to be known for being the political counterpart to the Titanic's captain. They will not sit still to let the city go into a bankruptcy filing and, no, it's not because they are in any way noble people. On the contrary, they are totally into selling off every asset that the city has to get some quick cash to bail themselves out of this mess. This is the way burglars operate- They steal property and sell it at an amount that is all profit to them since they never paid for any of it to begin with. So for City Council members, they don't see it as a loss- but the larceny is in the transferring of property for the any amount that is LESS than the proper and full value. Council does this when they "gift" a city asset as recently done with a fire engine given as "surplus property" for $1.00 to a firefighter's organization for "training purposes." This is not the time to "give" away any assets that could be used to reduce ANY of the deficit. But they do it anyway.

This movement has none other than the Mayor with the bright ideas that shine only upon his own personal interests and those of his pals, but leaves the rest of us in the dark, in some ways, nearly literally so whenever a DWP transaction is involved.

There are city parking facilities planned in the budget that are not yet sold, but counted anyway. The mayor wants these 99-year leases on parking meters like Chicago did to get a lump sum of cash for the city. Nice move, Tony. First, it's not approved as far as I see it. Next, that would be bad since that asset category GENERATES money, money that will come no longer if this change happens. But for now, and "now" is all they care about- when they leave office, it's all history to them and they will wash their hands of it- but they will leave the city short on some cash-generating ability.

The sidewalk repair idea would not be happening if they did not screw up things so badly over the years. Council President ERIC GARCETTI, I want to add, is very much a part of this movement to jack you up on fees and taxes. He said, about 3 months ago, in a reply to city workers seeking an alternative to losing jobs, that he believed that L.A. "has long been tax-starved." What's that meaning? Very clearly that more taxes would be in order. That's the way Eric thinks. He's got no real grip on what people have to deal with, although he constantly likes to put himself into the picture as a regular guy who is just trying to help you.

Cutting expenses is only happening now, and done extensively- aside from NOT reducing personnel which might be useful. (The "early retirement incentive program"was an expensive program, was done without much oversight that let in 400 retirements that were NOT paid out of the "general fund" category, therefore, it added the COST to the city for the premium retirement-ERIP- and those DID NOT CUT DOWN the salary expenses for the "general fund" that was the whole reason for the program. Second part of the problem was that the ERIP nearly wiped out the experienced people in many departments, so there was a need to cover those jobs and do some backfilling that again weakened the impact of the retiree's exit from the city workforce. Too tough for anyone to figure out in advance, I suppose, and plan so these things would NOT happen.

Creating more costs by funding non-profits that don't always have a clear or proven effectiveness is what they do best. Then they continue to do it and with more money usually requested for each renewal. And non-profits will not be subject to any part of any layoff plans, either, no matter what the city does. Stopping the spending and checking on waste, fraud and abuse are simply beyond the capacity of the Council. Wendy Greuel was part of the CM body until last July. What did SHE do as a CM for the problems? ("Nothing" might be a good choice here). Now she's another Mayor candidate and some good PR is very important to her now. I said "good PR" and not "Good achievements," two separate things.

And the additional danger to the city that I want to bring up is that Garcetti is one of many on the Council seeking a shot at the Mayor's job when Tony leaves office. For my two cents, the ones on the Council now who have plans for sitting in the Mayor's office in 3 more years would mean just a different person than Tony who will be creating a new disaster for the city.

Let's see how the Council continues to justify putting more on the backs of property owners and city residents. And if you think they have no choice, you need to give the whole picture another look. And there's more of this kind of "bail out" thinking that you will be seeing coming as a budget has to be settled upon by the end of June. You just saw last week how the dog owners were viewed as a source of some really quick cash by the CMs.

Fri. City Council meeting shortchanges 200 because of Herb Wesson

That was some meeting Friday- There's a rent control ordinance, RSO, the Rent Stabilization Ordinance that applies to rentals up to 1978 contruction that allows limited rent increases each year.

This year Richard Alarcon wants a one year moratorium because of the economy- and there's the beggining of a problem. So 200 people put in cards to talk at Friday's meeting, 100 for and 100 against a motion that's been changed to have a study on the impact and to exempt owners of 5 or less units from the restrictions on raises that the RSO would allow.

But Wesson has his grand kid maybe 2 years old there, and I wondered what's the deal as I popped the meeting up on the computer then. He says he wants this to be approved to go to the study and have all the debate put off for that return of the study. He says "I just came to vote and I want to go see my new granddaughter." He said she was born in the last couple of hours.

OK, Herb, but to accommodate you, you have 200 people being shut down on their moment to vent for probably the 1 minute now, as the 2-minute period gets cut to 1 when there's so many to speak.

Maybe some of them should have been allowed to speak on THAT question, of putting off the coment period for another day for them, another day to skip work or whatever they might do, another day to find parking and to pay the not-so-cheap-rates that Council Members have absolutely no appreciation for since they park their selected CITY paid cars in the City Hall parking lot for free.

Well, to make it short this time, the Council voted as Wesson wanted, to put the real matter off and deflect public comment today. Talk about the self-serving nature of the beast. CMs really don't care about the effort that the members of the public make to get to City Hall for a meager 2 minutes maximum time to speak on an agenda item. And you know, it's only a one-way speaking experience- no one answers you or has to answer you- sometimes they really aren't even paying attention to you or are not present in the Council Chambers. "Council members are able to view the proceedings in their offices, so they ARE aware of what you are saying," is the usual line Council President Eric Garcetti uses to quell complaints made by public commenters about absent seats or CMs talking, apparently oblivious to the words being spoken by the person at the podium.

So much arrogance and then they wonder why anyone should even challenge their decisions. Well, for one big reason that might just bypass the idea of what they THINK- it's often that they don't even READ THE TEXT OR BACKGROUND of any motion- and some carries much baggage if you click the agendas to see the history.

In spite of that explicit personal non-reading of the motions, they are not inhibited one iota to keep from making their opinions heard on any of it. They rely on committee reports, the assurances of other CMs who TELL them what it means, often the authors of motions, and so you have no real knowledge of what's being voted on, so why even listen to the public? You see, it's too much to expect of them and maybe at the best, they have an aide TELL THEM what THE AIDE'S interpretation is, so you have them acting on a 2nd hand level.

It's just another day at the Council Chambers and maybe it's not on the up and up, but you might expect some courtesy and consideration for the public who is, after all, not getting a paycheck for coming to city hall that day.

If the Council was going to move something off the agenda or some other action was planned whereby the people would not be getting the opportunity to speak, maybe it could be announced IN ADVANCE IN SOME COMMONLY UNDERSTOOD MANNER so the trip downtown could be avoided and not be a waste when you find you aren't going to be heard.

This is just my complaint on seeing a little of what happens very simply and commonly by the actions of Council Members. And I still don't know if the automatic "Yes" vote on the Council members' devices has been stopped so the device will only work manually to show a "Yes" or "No" vote. All that phantom voting was happening without you really knowing if the CMs were even in the building. Wesson's been seen to grab a smoke outside and that's surely an abuse if you break a quorum by his absence. Others have had meetings in their offices during that time. But they have a zillion excuses and on top of everything else, they don't care about you. Oh, what? "You say you are a union member?" Or, "Is it THAT group of campaign contributors you are part of? Well, that's different." Don't you just love it all?

Council seeks boosted fee (tax), the "bite," on barking dogs

Of course, in the search for money to fill in the budget gaps, this idea came up to sidestep the exiting process and make it an immediately due charge like a parking ticket, and the "what ifs" are thinking about $100 for barking dogs and a few other things.

"L.A. wants to put the bite on owners of law-breaking dogs -
The City Council seeks an ordinance that creates immediate fines for violations of the city's leash law and noise regulations." By Carla Hall, Los Angeles Times, May 6, 2010 2:54 p.m. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0506-barking-fines-20100506,0,1959121.story

This really seems to me to be just another excuse to collect some money from residents with the the "guilty until proven innocent" approach undeniably the best feature to get that cash rolling in. I don't think any of that "safety" of the public and quality of life consideration really takes the forefront here and, though I didn't see or hear the discussion in the Council meeeting, I have seen them go off the deep end with the projections for collecting money as if the public were the enemy or some sort of target that's loaded with money to be extracted as deftly as possible.

The well being of the public, only one part of this, probably doesn't really come up on their radar when the money-grubbing mode if fired up. They might think about the impact of the process on the city RESIDENTS. Dogs barking? Well, you know that's one of the things dogs do. They do it as a way to communicate different messages- often that there's something that's got their attention. Some, of course, becomes irritating to people on a variable level, according to one's particular sensitivity and incessant barking does need to be addressed. It's a lot of behavior issues of the dog that you have that come with the territory and the owner should handle it.

I am concerned that the newly found money source will have the animal regulation officers quick to write up violations and there's probably more people than not for whom a $100 hit will cause severe impact, maybe not hardship, but it will need some budget moves to cover.

There's also a chance and I don't know how big it might be, that there's going to be some dog owners who will resort to some immediate and severe corporal punishment as the response when this thing comes into effect, as I do think the Council will not change their collective and narrow minds on this topic.

Another side effect: You will have some pet owners turning in their dogs to the animal shelter and certain death attaches to that choice. These are the ones who probably shouldn't have a pet to begin with if they do that. I think that when you have a pet you have a commitment to do some working on the problems and not dump the animal like an old toaster. The existing rules as set up, deal with a lot of the errors and remedies, and have some element of fairness to be found.

This change to an "administrative fee"eliminates that, and there's an uphill battle to challenge it if you compare that to getting a parking ticket that arises due to confusing or missing signs, actual hours cited and so on. And then, even if you have a good case, you have to have the time to jump through the hoops and attend a hearing, assuming also that you did not exceed the time within which to request one.

All in all, the purpose of the City Council is to run the city and serve the public. The have done the running part very well. They have run the city right into the ground with so many examples, including continual waste and lack of oversight when they fund projects and non-profits (and non profits aren't subject to the city layoffs once they are funded- but then you might say city workers aren't subject to city layoffs, either, if you look at the actual actions so far).

They will, however, have to have someone show them how their actions are doing anything even remotely resembling "serving the public." Being "in charge" has the benefit of allowing them to call the shots, but it's got the responsibility, too, of doing things CORRECTLY. They call shots, spend money and many spending choices are poorly made, overly generous and, plainly, serving to funnel money to associates, special interest, and, quite easily seen, union interests that, in the end, don't do much other than give a lot of people a paychecks from tax dollars.

I really think most of the CMs are out of touch and that opinion comes from hearing them for so many years and seeing the position changes that they make on issues for reason that lack a logical basis other than being influenced from outside sources, usually monied ones. 15 grand a month I think is just too much money for them to walk away from and they will do all they can to stay on this job, at the voter's expense, the dog owner's expense or the rental property owners's expense. A pay cut here might make this job attractive to the truly dedicated people instead of the ones there now. Cut the pay in half and see the howling come out of all the politicians- but it still would not affect them by law for any current terms of office, anyway, and they know that. But a future crop of CMs would be under such a change. Nobody MAKES you run for council.


There's going to be a lot of people making complaints to the city who want dogs to be quiet instantly. As it is, the staffing of Animal Services is in jeopardy. Tony Villaraigosa talked big about having no-kill shelters as a goal, but it's stated in the story that there will likely be closures of two shelters. Just owning a dog will be risky financially, I expect. Herb Wesson, the CM with the dog adoptions might have to figure out another sales pitch on Fridays when he does that pet adoption part of the Council meeing on Fridays.

Nice job of city management, council members and mayor. When it comes time to put bandages on the system where years of ignoring financial warnings were ignored, who has to foot the bill? Us. And, like choosing which Electric Company and Water Company we will use, there is no choice. Lucky us. Thei biggest utility company in the nation and one that pays it's employess premium pay AND one that's taken hundreds of city "general fund" refugees" to give them new life, nice raises, and a real "NO LAYOFF" job, with generous benefits, on top of all that. Nothing to say against the workers, but the managers' "plans" don't seem to really save the RESIDENTS much like they benefit the CITY WORKERS. But on "City Hall Math" I have to confess I don't follow it at all.

There's always so much to counter to whatever nonsense that the Council does. It's a real effort sometimes just to tolerate hearing what goes on there. The continue to call the comments "testimony" and I continue to say, "Who is sworn in to tell the truth?" It would be simple to do that if they were serious on "taking testimony" but you could come in and lie up and down and nothing of consequence will happen. But sometimes I see that the council ignores the comments as they hastily call for the vote and, other than when the Chambers are packed with people, the votes are UNANIMOUS and it's FOR whatever the motion happens to be.

REMINDER- The L.A. TIMES reported the story of the automatic "Yes" votes on the Council's voting machine- you don't even have to be there as many aren't. The "Yes" vote happens every time UNLESS you are there to push "No."

See this report in the L.A. Times that shows the lack of real attention to business during council meetings where CMs and their usual arrogant style is seen to be exercised. The result, it's just something of convenience that gives lip service to any "hearing" and deciding that should be happening- with my favorite jr. lawyer, Tony Cardenas right up there.:
"Automatic 'yes' votes allow time for back-room dealing at City Hall
Thanks to voting software, City Council members can hold meetings, give interviews, even grab a smoke while deciding the day's issues." March 08, 2010 By David Zahniser and Maeve Reston, http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/08/local/la-me-backroom9-2010mar09

I don't see there's going to be a good outcome for the pets or the owner, but that, as usual, matters not where there's a buck to be collected by this group, so desperate to get any money in at all costs to integrity, just to be sure they head off any bancruptcy filing for the city. It's very close to happening but expect more money grab and on the other end, the cutting of expense, watch out there. Already the lowly and pretty defenseless library is cut back a lot and more is to come. But it's all stops out in this cover-your-ass term of office- nobody wants to be stuck in this musical chairs situation of being the guy (or woman) in office when the bankruptcy filing was made. I think they call such things "career killers" and you know the CMs will have none of that. To a person, they are "Career Politicians."

More to come- Tomorrow they vote on a Rent Control one year moratorium- and what does that do? Hurt the mom-and-pop landlords, increase maintenance penny pinching and in the end make the owner try to do something with the real estate other than renting the property - That will cut housing even more in the long run, at least the closest that we now have to affordable housing. But CMs like Ed Reyes who complains about that won't figure that out any time soon. Who want's to have even the small raises in rents that rent control allows in the first place? And then you can't pass all the increases in costs while water and power rates climb (thanks to the CMs and ultra complicit Mayor). Not a good time to be a landlord in L.A., especially if you are under rent control.

L.A. Weekly on Billionaire Eli Broad's $1-a-year rent and the Comments

Eli Broad got a mention in a one-page item in the L.A. Weekly's edition a week ago- that I just got around to reading yesterday. Not a surprising outcome if you follow the local administration's courting of private interests to make themselves look good- something that is the trademark of Mayor Villaraigosa.
"$1 Rent for Billionaire Broad- So much for Villaraigosa's new era of transparency and shared sacrifice," By Tibby Rothman, Thursday, Apr 29 2010.
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-04-29/news/1-rent-for-billionaire-broad/

It's sure another shady deal when you see- or really, as the complaint is here, you don't "see" the dealings. There's this deal happening but no one heard of it until it happened. I mentioned the Eric Garcetti move to skip putting the DWP rate hike action on the agenda- yeah, those things get in the way, and you just can't be creative or spontaneous with those kinds of step put into the process. Besides, that just gives troublemakers a chance to complain and slow down the process, maybe even bring it to a stop.

You can't blame Eric, after all, as he's for anything to get "green" and it's often the green in your wallet that's the target. The DWP really has to stop complaining and saying, "We supply power for rates that are below other utility companies."

In a few more of the planned rate hike steps, they can scratch that complaint and maybe move to the top of that category instead of that "too cheap" level that is somehow intolerable. Well, don't shed too many tears for these folks. You might feel for the guys caught in the Channel 2 investigative report, though. They are the example of people just too cozy in their jobs to really follow the rules like most employees. In a real world condition, they would be fired without much fanfare, but here, they will probably have the union (the IBEW, the real force in the DWP) work out a deal. After all, they do make around $90,000 a year base with some overtime when they aren't taking a brewsky break and cruising in the DWP trucks.

But back to the DWP management and their money worries. Are they too pinched for money? Maybe if they didn't fluff up the benefits and roll over during contract negotiations to benefit the CONSUMER for a change, it could be more reasonable. But for now, it's a condition that's not so poor that it doesn't keep them from passing along a "surplus" every year of a sum as was for this year of $220,000,000.00 (Two Hundred and Twenty MILLION dollars)- and let's not forget that they have that Billion dollars stashed in reserve that no one mentions.

But the whole city operation is bad, and this Eli Broad deal is part of what rich involved people manage to extract from the system. They didn't get rich by being nice guys all the time, and this is one of the ways, by getting breaks here and there to save some money so you can use that money elsewere.

Read the comments that aren't much but still representative of different views.
"One-Buck Eli" Comments By L.A. Weekly readers Thursday, May 6 2010
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-05-06/news/one-buck-eli/

It's Cinco de Mayo- Do you know where the DUI checkpoints are located?

Yes, today is a day that has more significance for all the partying that it generates in the U.S. than any battle for any cause that it originally was noted for.



The big question now is who will be driving home and not make it as a result of a DUI. To bring everyone up to date, DUI's aren't very well tolerated like in days of old, and with the level to earn a violation for a regular DUI at only a .08 percent blood alcohol level, it's even easier to do that than before.



Did you know that the blood alcohol level used to be up around .14 not that many years ago? The penalties were not that heavy compared to today, but it's still not enough to keep many from spending $20 or $30 dollars on a taxi to go home safely after partying.



Look at Miguel Santana who was stopped driving a city car on his way home from some benefit dinner. The CAO for the city got a DUI and thereafter fell on his sword, getting into rehab after heavily apologizing to everyone for it. I think it was overdone, but who knows how much into drinking Miguel was into? Too bad.



Even with the DUI, Santana probably was more of a worthy role model than most of those on the city council for owning up to the errors of his ways. And his math was definitely miles ahead of whatever the Mayor figured into the budget presentation currently. Jeez, even Mike Hernandez was caught cold as a Council Member scoring and using drugs and then some. AND STILL he refused to resign. Worse yet, NO ONE on the Council even tried to have Mike quit. But of course, he was "a victim" and not any offender. I still am not sure how he was the victime. I think we, the public, were taken for jackasses to allow him to stay at that job.



And with today's raised salaries in City Council, you'd need dynamite to separate any of them from their council seat. (That's another reason for cutting down that exorbitant salary- no one wants to leave that office- it's higher than any other political office holders managing a U.S. city).


City Council members will probably be hitting the party circuits around town. They do enought damage with their regular accpetance of the Mayor's "deals" that I don't see are made in public. There's parking lease money that Tony counts in the budget math, but I don't recall when that shady deal came into effect. Maybe they thought the rest of us were off drinking and wouldn't notice.

You have to give the city council some credit as far as shadiness goes. Start with creating the deceptions that Prop S and Prop R embodied to fool voters to install a 9% phone tax when Zero tax would have happened there if the Council didn't practice to deceive. That was so clearly evil. And as if that was not enough to do to pull the wool over the common voter, the "Ethics Reform" that worked to add another term to each CM's limit was a real "bait and switch."

And lately, it was equalled if not topped by our Council President's last minute "touchdown" for the DWP. It was the work of Eric Garcetti "Badges? What badges? I don't have to show you no stinking badges" move in circumventing that pesky "Brown Act" to get the "emergency" hearing on the DWP rate hike instantly approved on April 15th. It takes effect on July 1 so the emergency was in Eric's imagination, no matter what he claims- but 9 others on the council approve that conclusion and 8 voted "FOR" the rate hike.



Party up y'all. And then guide yourselves accordingly. I do believe there's quite a few items submitted to the D.A.'s "Public Integrity" section based on all the fast and loose spending and maneuvering of council and county board of supervisors actions. If anyone gets stuck from that, I would be very surprised, and probably so would they.

Neighborhood Council Election Results for Region G- East and Northeast L.A.

Here are SOME LINKS to the City Clerk's postings ON THE RESULTS FOR THE ELECTION in "Region G" that was just held on Thursday.

There are links to all the Regions and to the many items posted by City Clerk's Office regarding the assorted topics concerning the election process.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NC ELECTION RESULTS for all regions- scroll down to the "Region" and select which NC you want to see:
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/election/ncdocs/2010%20NC%20REGIONAL%20ELECTION%20DAY%20OFFICIAL%20AND%20UNOFFICIAL%20RESULTS.pdf

The MAIN PAGE for all the City Clerk election related links is
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/election/ncdocs/website.pdf

City of L.A.- From the "All is not as the City has told you" Dept.

[Some of what I write goes to other destinations and so this blog gets nothing to show for it, so I decided to post more of the other things that I send along to others to share the information generally that I think would be useful to shed more light on current issues. (Photo, right: City Council hears from city workers on layoffs)

The following is from an email I sent out yesterday, Sunday, to an NC group, slightly edited from that copy, and with a better proof-reading, too. There's just too much that our politician's do that is wrong as in "evil" or "dishonest intent." At other times, it's just that they are complete Bozos who haven't got a clue on what they are doing and rely on special interests and the things they think will get them to look good to the voters.

The Council Members and the "Emperor Has No Clothes" Mayor bank on the fact that most voters don't have the time, the interest, or the understanding of city hall code words, euphemisms and political-speak to uncover the real story under the B.S. and so they take things "as advertised."]
---------------------------------------------------------
Some Sunday reading to consider.

Since you may not have the time or opportunity to view all that's going on within and surrounding local government these days, here are a few links that may give you another perspective that may not be readily encountered in the television news and so on.
==========================================================
But to give credit to a television source:

There is a DWP expose of sorts, however, 2 months in the making, by David Goldstein at KCBS Channel 2, about what some (not all) DWP workers, mostly all linemen, do in the course of their workday.

[THE VIDEO: http://www.dailynews.com/politics/ci_14991360 (it plays more like an episode of "Cheaters" when the offenders are confronted).

THE STORY: http://cbs2.com/goldstein/DWP.Workers.Drinking.2.1665634.html with some transcribed portions of the video, and it's ignited a lot of comment, much tinged with anger and collateral concerns.]

On this, DWP officials declined Goldstein's offer to look at more tape for more evidence of discovered drinking, driving DWP vehicles while drinking/open container, visiting strip clubs on rainy days, picnicking with a collection of DWP workers in a Boyle Heights park, and a lot of things that don't fit within the expected acceptable behavior for employees.

DWP officials said they were investigating the matter with a lengthy press release issued.
Question: How would they investigate when they reject the very material that displays the behavior?
Consider that for yourselves, but that's a sampling of what CM Zine called two weeks ago in a Council meeting, "an agency that's out of control," and added that "We are going to get it under control," a yet-to-be-seen goal.

Council President Garcetti thought that an investigation would be more proper if done outside the DWP. Garcetti was the one who enabled the rate hike measure to come in without being agendized (Dep. City Atty. O'Connell, assigned to the Council, gave his opinion that it was not an urgent matter and should be handled by other regular procedures, but that advice was ignored by all) and subject to hearing or public comment on April 15th, appearing to be in contravention of "The Brown Act," that you can read about in several sources. So even Garcetti- who is a supporter of rate hikes and any green issue, here has a different opinion on the investigation's handling.

==========================================
GETTING TO MORE ISSUES AND SOURCES
===========================================
Saturday's posting by Ron Kaye,
"Poking Holes in Antonio's Clean Energy and Rate Hike Story"
By Ron Kaye on May 1, 2010 11:37 AM
http://ronkayela.com/2010/05/poking-holes-in-antonios-clean.html
----------------------------------------
[And for the benefit of newcomer's to this "RonKayeLA" blog, Ron Kaye is the former editor of the L.A. Daily News, and nearly all of his posts provide more insight into a lot of city government action that happens in a in a surreptitious manner, but many cases involve that which is before your eyes but sliding by under the radar.] http://www.ronkayela.com/ ]

============================================
"Villaraigosa’s Chinese Car Deal: A Potemkin Village For The 21st Century"
Thursday, April 29, 2010
http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/WalterMooreSays.com/Blog/Blog.html
This blog source, http://www.waltermooresays.com/ is a source of detailed items that usually contradict, with authority cited, the press release content of most local government. It's often depressing and distressing to consider our outcomes.

=============================================
On pension items there's Jack Humphreville's story from Friday on www.ourla.org,
"Jack Humphreville: City Hall’s Fuzzy Math"-
Written by Jack Humphreville, on City Watch
http://ourla.org/city-wide/2029-jack-humphreville-city-halls-fuzzy-math

------------------------------------------
City Watch is another blog that can show more City operations a little more critically:
http://citywatchla.com/index.php
=======================================

And from the L.A. Weekly [ www.laweekly.com ]- probably the most regular of the irregular press category- and the longtime leader of investigative reporting in Los Angeles, had this short revelation on Wednesday as many CMs expressed concern over the permanence of the rate hike that was expected to have a 90-day life after the July 1 effective date- all generating from the April 15 introduction as an emergency by Garcetti, and passage of a motion on that Wednesday, last minute action of the council. (What a tangled web we weave...)

"Villaraigosa Knew L.A. Electricity Rate Increase Was Permanent" By Dennis Romero, Monday, Apr. 26 2010 @ 6:03AM
http://blogs.laweekly.com/ladaily/city-news/villaraigosa-knew-dwp-hike/
This matter did not collect the 10 (2/3 of Council) votes for the city to take jusrisdiction pursuant to a Sec. 245 motion- CM Parks arrived a minute or two after the vote and Garcetti would not reopen matter for the Parks' vote to be considered (known to be a "Yes" on this issue).

As usual, there's more on everything but this should be a good sampling that you are free to reject, among all of the actions that can be done. It is, however, a lot of information that, as some say, "connects the dots" and explains some of the oddities of recent governmental action. The County is another body, along with the LAUSD, that has to wait for another time to mention in this edition of news.