Showing posts with label Jose Huizar. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Jose Huizar. Show all posts

Sunday, March 06, 2011

L.A. Clean Sweep endorses in L.A. City Elections on Tuesday- your vote is important. In CD-14, elect Rudy Martinez

LA CLEAN SWEEP IN THE MAIL -AND ON CABLE TV IN FINAL DAYS.

Election Day is Tuesday. Just a very quick message for voters living in the city and in an even numbered district-

The local organization I support, actually a city-wide local group, is the L.A. Clean Sweep movement. It was formed to bring us responsible government to City Council and end the corruption that you can find in the news every week. All this costs the taxypayers who live and work in Los Angeles in the form of reduced services for increased costs, while deals happen to help "friends" and special interests but not much to better the conditions.

As we have seen Los Angeles conuncil persons act in a continued manner that creates no improvement while their management and that of the Mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, heads us closer to a bankruptcy each day.

We want to sweep out the old and put in people who want to change the practices that have put us in this situation.

The candidates endorse by L.A. Clean Sweep reached after a detailed process including candidate interviews and finally a vote on the recommendations by the membership to produce this list.

Here is the complete LA Clean Sweep Candidate List:

District 2: No Endorsement

District 4: Stephen Box

District 6: Richard Goodman, David Barron, and Jamie Cordaro

District 8: Councilman Bernard Parks

District 10: Austin Dragon

District 12: Kelly Lord and Brad Smith

District 14: Rudy Martinez

================================


Rudy Martinez is challenging Jose Huizar in CD-14, a district that covers Eagle Rock, El Sereno, Boyle Heights and areas of Downtown.

I have followed the activities of city hall for a few years and the need for changes now is crucial if the city is going to change at all. We have seen examples of the city council use meeting after meeting to produce little action on its services and personnel. For approximately 9 months, they debated and maneuvered things to be more of an employment agency to put hundreds of people into the DWP, separately run (as you may have noticed from several news stories over the months).

The City created ERIPs early retirement that cut over 2400 people out of the general budget to lower the staffing. An entire accounting department was effectively stripped of its staff by the numbers taking the early retirement package. That was an expensive offering to entice retirement and the condition just mentioned was not seen until it was already done.

Another 300 people not paid from "general funds" used ERIP that did not help the budget since they were not paid from "general funds" but the expense only added to the costs of the program. As usual, lack of accountability runs rampant in city hall and needs to change.

This is just one example and there are many dozens more examples that show us that the highest paid council in the country ($15,000 per month salary) does not make for bettter performance.

You may have noticed that Council member Bernard Parks is an incumbent endorsed by L.A. Clean Sweep. Parks is probably the only one who has paid attention to the budget among all the CMs. He is not perfect but he does present the financial conditions to the council as it is, and many don't want to hear that. For month's they used to say "the 'B-word' in reference to "bankruptcy," very representative of the state of denial they pursued in the years since the budget crisis has worsened. Mr. Parks was often the bearer of bad news that was often not truly recognized by the other CMs.

============
IN CD-14
CM Jose Huizar has failed in his representation of CD-14. His ads say "He's a fighter." Really? He's not done much in his 5 plus years in City Council although he loves to claim credit for everything by attaching, "Jose Huizar Presents...." This past year was an all out effort to try to claim credit for anything as if it was money coming out of his own wallet. The real picture is that it comes from taxpayers in one way or another and much of what Jose claims credit for would have been done by anyone in the office as part of the job.

He does have favorites, putting around a milliong to "Bring Back Broadway" and working to put a street car in, a very expensive proposition but that's Jose. Being a friend of Mayor Villaraigosa and supported by many of the same supporters the Mayor should tell you a lot. CM Huizar was selected as the successor to CD-14's council member when the Mayor cut short his term to run for election as Mayor, even though he promised to serve out his full term as CM in CD-14.

There are very many CMs loyal to the Mayor and you do not hear any criticism from them of the many opportunities that have come where some better leadership did not happen.

In this campaign, the relationship that Huizar has with the Mayor is kept very quiet so as to keep peace with the Mayor and to avoid showing the tie with the failed Mayor, lest people see the link.

Rudy Martinze in CD-14 is the better choice. Putting most of the campaign money from his own pocket tells you he is not in any sense a "bought and paid for politician"-notice Huizar's funding comes from assorted factions and it's there with the expectation of "getting what they paid for," otherwise called "patronage politics."

Rudy Martinez has successful private sector business experience that you don't see among council members and this is what's been absent in the City Council for many years. Martinez should be able to bring a better perspective that could only improve what the City Council does. Huizar, like most in the current council, is a career politician, looking ot maximize his time in office and then move on to another. Maybe we can make that move happen sooner.

In CD-14, vote for Rudy Martinez. This will be a low-turnout election which means you can come out and have a bigger impact than you might have in the state-wide elections. Many people are registered and just don't bother to come out thinking everything is not going to change. Come out, make the changes happen. If you put the same people back for another four years, how can you expect that they will change their behavior after already working at least one full term?

Sunday, January 24, 2010

CD-14 CM Huizar Honoree at La Raza LSA , UCLA SOL Dinner; LHS Alum, Hon. Carlos Moreno a presenter.

UCLA LAW ALUMNI?- Just passing along the news as I see our CM Jose Huizar (CD-14) is one of the honored guests. I'll pass on this but, for anyone interested, it's produced as requested for others to partake.
LHS Alum, Hon. CARLOS MORENO, Justice of California Supreme Court is mentioned as a presenter here, too. I'll have to wait for another LHS Alumni event to see him again.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Dear Raza Alum,

Happy New Year! We hope you will attend our Annual Raza Alumni Dinner! You can register and purchase tickets at: https://www.law.ucla.edu/pay/laraza/

As many of you know, this is Raza's signature event for the year. We hope to bring together nearly 400 people for a night that recognizes Latino alumni and legal professionals who inspire and support Raza members.

Please help us spread the word by passing this invite along to your friends and fellow UCLAW Alums!

Mil Gracias,

Matthew Barragan & Cynthia Gonzalez "
-----------------------
UCLA LA RAZA LAW STUDENTS ASSOCIATION
PRESENTS

ANNUAL ALUMNI DINNER

Honoring:
The Honorable Cruz Reynoso
The Honorable Kim McLane Wardlaw ‘79
Councilman Jose Huizar ‘97

Special Presentations by: UCLA Chancellor Gene Block and The Honorable Carlos Moreno

Friday, February 5, 2010
Reception: 6:00 p.m.
Dinner: 7:00 p.m.
UCLA Covel Commons, Grand Horizon Room
330 De Neve Drive
Los Angeles, CA 90095

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

City Council Finally Approves the Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ordinance

An ordinance to try to get control of the hundreds of "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries" is finally approved. It did not get the 12 votes needed to begin effectiveness, and so will have to wait a week for another council vote but then will only need a majority of the vote to prevail.
"L.A. City Council gives preliminary approval to pot ordinance requiring 1,000-foot buffer zones" [Updated],
January 19, 2010 1:07 pm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/01/los-angeles-city-council-approves-pot-ordinance-requiring-1000-foot-buffer-zones.html


The story on this is still evolving and how the rest turns out will be probably another be effort to get the compliance needed that will mean shutting down hundreds of pot shops. CM Rosendahl opposed this since he did not agree with the 70 cap set for operating dispensaries. There is a real issue that no on spent much time on and that was the underlying basis for establishing the "medical conditions" that create the need for medical marijuana.

Since there are no standards it doesn't really matter, but if you were to count everyone who has a "recommendation" as state law references, you probably have a huge number. ("Prescriptions" are not issued for this drug and issuance would be against the law.) You have recommendations that really are issued on a pay-to-play basis from cooperating doctors. This is what demeans the real need that exists for medically needy patients that the law was aimed at reaching. Who sorts this out? Apparently, no one. The "recreational" users easily can get in on this process and my guess is that this is the bulk of the users who CM Rosendahl considers to be underserved. "There will be lines around the block" was a prediction from him, if I recognized his voice correctly on the audio, but why would that be?

I don't know how fast any personal user will go through each dispensed amount, and so far, I haven't heard of any limits on obtaining weed at each visit. There are no "sales" as the council considers this since "sales" are illegal under State law.

In any event, the Council, after spending numerous hearing days on this, finally has voted on an ordinance. Do not doubt that when there is a final vote to approve it, there will be a parade of Council Members praising each other for their work. The truth is that they let this fester without any serious attention until the proliferation of dispensaries began grow, causing concerns of residents. Without prodding from neighborhood councils and individuals, this would have continued to be neglected The land rush boost in the filing of applicatons for MMDs under the "exemption" happened when CM Huizar announced he would be introducing a motion to end the exemption that was being used to promote more businesses being established.

The last-minute rush to file using the "hardship exemption" was what happened to effect at least a tripling of MMDs over what was already several hundred places. So here we are, and don't take all that coming self-congratulation that CMs will spurt over this since THEY HELPED CREATE THE PROBLEM by not doing their jobs, especially in the "Planning and Land Use Management" committee, chaired by Ed Reyes. The "moratorium" created was not followed and no one in the city ever tried to seriously do much to get enforcement and end the new shops popping up.

As CM Wesson urged. To paraphrase his concerns, "We need to start somewhere and get an ordinance that can be changed to fit conditions as we see the needs arise."

Meanwhile all the other ills in the city continue.

Tuesday, June 09, 2009

MMDs on the Tuesday Council Agenda; Proliferation In Los Angeles, Blogs Comment

The Tuesday Agenda Item (18) will present the opportunity for the Council to amend it's current ordinance, the "ICO" ("Interim Control Ordinance"). That ordinance imposed a moratorium in 2007 on the opening of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries ("MMDs") in the City. The amendment will be the elimination of the existing "hardship exemption" that was included in the language of the ICO, and by which MMDs use as a justification to begin business operations in violation of the ICO.

The violations are not being prosecuted by the City Attorney's office, although I think the language is there to allow it. The City Attorney's office has been waiting for the the City Council to rule on the existing applications "hardship exemptions" before it will act. There are over 500 MMD's in Los Angeles and it's growing, with more rushing to get in under the wire and beat the impending elimination of the "exemption."

ALL of the hardship exemptions filed before an elimination of the provision will not be affected, as it only will be effective for applications filed after it takes effect. The notion of "no ex post facto laws" bars retroactive application.

"RON KAYE L.A.," a blog on city issues http://www.ronkayela.com/ has presented views on this in the June 6, 2009 posting, "What Do Pot and Cell Towers Have in Common? You Can Help Stop Their Proliferation," by Ron Kaye, http://ronkayela.com/2009/06/what-do-pot-and-cell-towers-ha.html where he discussed two types of problems for local communities, left unattended by the city through the inaction of the City Council,
Public nuisances like cell phone towers and medical marijuana cooperatives seem to pop up everywhere around us on a daily basis

In both cases, the problem is caused by the failure to do its basic job of providing rational standards for regulation and control. In both cases, you can actually do something about the problems in coming days.

The blog has a lot of other posts, usually at least one new one a day on the ongoing topics in the Ctiy. (Look at the comment on CM JACK WEISS's exit and another example of favoring developers over residents in "Gateway to Hell: Jack Weiss' Goodbye Present to Developers," http://ronkayela.com/2009/06/gateway-to-hell.html .) And when you talk about development, you usually have to include the idea of, "What in the world is the Ed Reyes' Committee on "Planning and Land Use Managment" ('PLUM') doing?" Jack Weiss and Jose Huizar are the other two committee members, all staunch supporters of Villaraigosa and his policies. That might give you a clue on why things are as they are.

My other favorite blogger and activist, Zuma Dogg, posts today on his "L.A. Daily Blog," about "The Future of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries On City Council Agenda for Tuesday," http://ladailyblog.blogspot.com/2009/06/future-of-medical-marijuana.html .

It's a fairly detailed look at what's happened and what the Council will probably do. There's quite a bit of commentary here on the way the system is handling the issue.

A second and more recent posting Monday on ZD's blog is Do you have ANY idea how HUGE The Medical Marijuana Business Is In Los Angeles...It's THE BOOM Industry!!! by Zuma Dogg, June 8, 2009. The commentary is about the present picture we have in L.A. in particular and the idea that the City has mishandled the conditions so badly that they won't be able to change it. The suggested idea of taxing the sales to generate revenue is one that has been brought up in the past often and that has been discussed by many over the years in the support of legalizing marijuana. The overview of the situation seems pretty dismal, but it's the message, not the messenger that should be processed here.

We have a problem in the sheer numbers of facilities that have begun business operations as MMDs after filing for hardship exemptions, with that going into high gear after the announcement of Jose Huizar's proposed motion to end that exemption, exacerbated by the admitted inability of the city to act under it's the provisions of own ordinance. That condition is beyond belief. So this is what Council produces in light of the fact that they are the highest-paid Council members in the country? Obviously it has absolutely no relation to the quality of service provided. What a poor return on all that money that's paid out is all I can say about that.

MMDs really should be allowed for the purpose of what conditions they were supposed to address, medical needs of patients, but the whole picture has become so compromised that it makes a joke of the system. The function now of MMDs is being converted to address, simply put, the needs of marijuana users under the guise of a medical need. The list of conditions by which physicians make recommendations for the patient to present in order to get his or her marijuana is huge.

The City has handled this matter as poorly as it could have been done, it seems. If you compare what is opening in other cities in the state, you see this is where all the openings happen, a direct result of the idea that the City Council has painted themselves into a corner and are unable to cope with what they should have done earlier.

The suspicion and general idea on MMDs by many is that the "patients" are just people who find this a convenient way to get their supply of the weed without really having a medical condition that is affected by or relieved by it. Some people have bought enough weed to the point where they are able to resell it. This shows one example of the corruption of the purpose of MMDs and the real-life usage of MMDs is, plain and simple, a substitute for the overall legalization of marijuana. When you look at the ads placed in the "L.A. Weekly's" print edition, you can see a battle of marketing which might be related to all the money that can be made. Whatever happened to the concept of "co-ops" providing low-cost products for the co-op members, with the profit margin being a secondary concern? That's all too 60's-type thinking. Welcome to the 21st century.

The city has not charged any fees for the business of MMDs as Oakland and San Francisco have. Missing a big opportunity to at least recover expenses for the time that is needed to handle the processing of the applications is a major foul up by the CMs, especially when you consider how badly and eagerly they gouge the public at the parking meters. So here they simple give away city services, a completely unreasonable outcome, when they process MMDs, a business entity that should be subject to some sizeable fees. The other business that gets super low fees imposed upon it is the billboard industry. And in both cases, the Buiding and Safety Department's Inspectors that are suppposed to check up on the business are under-manned and can't do the job like it needs to be done. Thus, even where the law can theoretically be enforced, you have a tiny group to do a big job. So collecting NO money to offset the expenses that can be expected to be incurred by the City for the tasks is unreasonable or just stupid. But you wil find that a lot in what happens in City Hall.

City Council is always behind the times on thses things and when they do act, that act AGAINST the public's best interest unless, of course, it happens to match what special interests want, or it gets a CM some political mileage.

Well, we will see what's next, and that will probably include a whole bunch of delays while the proliferation of even more MMDs will continues. I really have little faith in the work of the city council as it is composed now. They have too much time spent on the wrong things and this is one of the consequences of many that are apparent; you can only imagine what's happening with what's less apparent in the City affairs.


Wednesday, June 03, 2009

MMD-Medical Marijuana Dispensaries flourish- and City Council gets itself bogged down in the weeds.

The City Council's 2007 decision to put a moratorium on openings of new Medical Marijuana Dispensaries has come back to haunt them. The Council is trying to deal with the rush of "hardship exemption" filings as included in the Moratorium called the"ICO," the "Interim Control Ordinance." There is a link to the ICO-related "Frequently Asked Questions" attached (a .PDF file). http://la.curbed.com/uploads/marijuana.pdf The item also includes a proposed ordinance yet-to-be-approved to handle the situation. Note that the dates on all of these papers is either March 2009 and February 2009- this year, not 2007 or 2008. Looks like they just got around to dealing with this.

That information came from the blog, "Curbed L.A." [this blog earlier was misidentified as "L.A. Observed." Ed.] with their posting today, "Illegal Pot Dispensaries Are the New Billboard," by Dakota, http://la.curbed.com/archives/2009/05/you_may_not_be_able.php The posting mention there that the Building & Safety inspectors are on the job now but you still have a condition that going to remain a problem until all the needed versions of the law are approved, still a ways down the road. The Building & Safety inspectors were supposed to be on their job, citing illegal billboards and especially important since the moratorium on new ones last year. That remains out of control with B&S overwhelmed with that task late last year with just identifying which city billboards were authorized and legal and which were illegal and should not be up.

The L.A. Times has another story today that addresses the City Council's dilemma, "L.A.'s medical pot dispensary moratorium led to a boom instead; A ban meant to prevent new dispensaries from opening included a loophole that entrepreneurs have exploited. Where four years ago there were only a handful, now there may be 600 dispensaries," By John Hoeffel, June 3, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-medical-marijuana3-2009jun03,0,6866563,full.story Since CM Huizar announced his motion to eliminate the "Hardship Exemption" there has been a river, if not a flood, of applications made. That was not a result that was anticipated and surely not desired by CM Huizar and the PLUM committee or City Council.

The PLUM committee, "Plannning and Land Use Management," chaired by Ed Reyes (CD-1), is composed of Council members Jack Weiss (CD-5), and Jose Huizar (CD-14)- the mixture of membership I'd say was enough to mishandle this condition by that fact alone. The Times' story has Ed Reyes saying that they will be handling the processing of Hardship Exemptions, but a report of the meeting with PLUM committee members related that the "Committee" rejected CM Huizar's request to begin handling the processing with some intensity to reduce the backlog. Publicity might be what changed Reyes' tune, but the CM, a seasoned politician, will no doubt rationalize-out any inconcistencies in his statements with self-serving clarifications. They all do that.

The L.A. Times' story also noted that Reyes earlier considered hearings would be unnecessary because the exemptions would become moot upon enactment of the permanent ordinance. I would like to hear his analysis of the situation to cause him to arrive at that conclusion, but it's not apparent to me that an outcome like that would happen. There were zero exemptions heard up to this date since 2007 by the PLUM committee. Don't expect Jack Weiss to put in much time now. Since Jack lost the election to Trutanich for City Attorney (a Just and Proper result for the City's benefit), he's not likely to want to start anything he didn't start on this in the last year and a half. Jack will be out of office as CM on July 1, when a new CD-5 CM Paul Koretz takes office.

This topic also made the blod, "the LAist" http://laist.com/ as a posting, "Loophole in Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ban Nearing Closure," http://laist.com/2009/06/02/loophole_in_medical_marijuana_dispe.php that has the text of the motion introduced by CM Jose Huizar (the frame may or may not display readily- click around to display the text). After the ordinance takes effect, there's still all those filings to go through. The change only stops NEW filings of exemption applications, and the old ones continue under the law as it was.

SEE THE VIDEO ON KCET: - http://kcet.org/socal/2009/05/marijuana-clinics-up-in-smoke.html- as referenced in my earlier posting on this blog recently at http://lincolnquicknotes.blogspot.com/2009/05/kcet-on-mmds-medical-marijuana.html if you haven't already viewed it.

The video may open your eyes to a couple of things: how the MMDs have taken off as a commercial, for-profit enterprise (but aren't "co-ops", or "cooperatives" supposed to be "not profit making activities" to benefit co-op members?); and, how the City Council handles things so poorly as it can be handled- and waiting only until strong complaints from a neighborhood council were ultimately made about the numbers of MMDs setting up in the area. The city process didn't even charge for applying to open an MMD. Nor did it charge for any licensing fee to actually operate an MMD. See the information in the video that's just over 11 minutes long and packed with information.

Friday, May 29, 2009

KCET on MMDs- Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Sprout In L.A. As Quickly As Their Products

"The Highest Paid City Council in the Nation" (and probably the planet) has let the Prop. 215 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries flourish in this city without any orderly regulation- that condition is something that is featured in "SoCal Connected," a KCET-TV production that is available online at http://kcet.org/socal/2009/05/marijuana-clinics-up-in-smoke.html. It's a very informative production that tells you about the numerous MMDs opening, but also a little bit of the in-fighting that's gone on at City Hall to let it get that way.

This video is nicely done as to be highly engaging (and entertaining but disturbing). It moves quickly so watch for the mentions of the fact that the Council was to have a moratorium for a year on the MMDs opening so that they would not grow in number. The moratorium was also to allow ample time for the Council to create a strict and appropriate regulation scheme, developed to prevent what we now have, I can only assume. They did nothing, according to the video.

Well, keep watching because there's lots of shifting of blame here. The law - the moratorium- has an "exemption" for 'hardship" and that's very ambiguous. What is that all about? No one seems to be able to pin it down exactly. The dysfunctional relations between the City Attorney, Rocky Delgadillo, and anybody else he should be working with in City government have had an impact- More MMDs opening in L.A. than anywhere else in the state. The idea of an "exemption" is odd since there has to be some hearing when that provision is inserted into laws, but that has to happen BEFORE the business can open up. Here in L.A., the "exemption" is used as a "foot in the door" to ENABLE OPENING which the city allows- and from there, things get worse.

"PLUM"- not a fruit, but the City Council committee on Planning and Land Use Management- is the one to decide the hardship exemptions. They should have called them simply "applications" to be more functional in how the forms should be handled, since the mere mention of exemption seems to give everyone the notion that it's a done deal and business can begin upon filing the forms.

The video program shows that PLUM has not heard a single application - part of the problem; now there is a growing backlog. And what happens when the burden of demonstrating facts to support the "hardship" cannot be met by the applicant? Fold up your tent and leave? I doubt that all will take that decision as the final outcome, so expect LITIGATION since that might bog down the city further,and the MMDs could continue operation pending a final decision. All this is about money now. Servicing the people that Prop. 215 had in mind is no longer the focus.

Council Members Huizar (CD-14), Ed Reyes (CD-1) and Jack Weiss (CD-5) are the committee members, with Ed Reyes as the chair to run the committee, and not "into the ground," as he seems to have done on this issue, another avoidance device of government, but with major consequences here. All of these guys don't need more negative history on their Council job performance. But don't expect their pay to be affected- and that topic comes up later- keep reading.

According to "SoCal Connected's" presentation, only CM Huizar and CM Zine would appear on camera. Where's the accountability and transparency in government now? I can see that Reyes has nothing to gain from this, so keeping himself scarce is a good move for now.

In the meanwhile, CM Huizar introduced a motion at a Council meeting early May to abolish the exemption. This done after hearing detailed complaints from the Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council of the problem of increasing MMDs in Eagle Rock. "SoCal Connected" noted that the "unintended consequence" of announcing his motion was to have a flurry of filings of the applieations for hardship exemptions. I think this could have been avoided if there was some strict application of a restrictive interpretation of what they have NOW for regulations. I think the new City Attorney, Carmen "Nuch" Trutanich, will probably more functional for the City as he replaces Franklin High alum, Rocky Delgadillo, on July 1. This could have been another matter of orderly business. Now, they strugle to get this under control- but Huizar's motion to end the "hardship exemption" still has to be approved by council and signed by the Mayor before it becomes effective.

Even if and when the hardship exemption provision of the law is ended, all currently filed applications still have a right to be decided. And unfortunately, the businesses are not being prevented from opening during the waiting process, but instead, they just open for business while waiting for their hardship exemption application to be processed. The law probably could be interpreted like common sense would have it- first apply, then if you are approved, you can open. Until approval is received, you can't open. Not in L.A.

"SoCal Connected" shows the actual statute involved on camera, and contradicts what some CMs say about what it's about and what it contains- and also, THEY wrote it. Actually, somebody was assigned to put it together and these CMs sign off on it and most don't know anything beyond what they get as a summary, not bothering to read all that they approve. With the pay they get (almost $15,000.00 a month each) and the staff of 20 authorized to each CM, you'd think they might get around to being responsible for each matter brought up. Too many? Then maybe there's too much unnecessary production of laws in the first place.
Like I said before the council is the highest paid in the nation- AND it's not just in cash salary since there's another $100,000.00 you can count in. I forgot that the L.A. Weekly has some revealing information on the pay for city council and how it stands compared to other cities. One of the latest articles is:

"L.A. City Council Clings to Stunning Perks and Pay;
They can't bear to give up those record-high $178,898 salaries,"
by
Paul Teetor, May 20, 2009. http://www.laweekly.com/2009-05-21/news/l-a-city-council-clings-to-stunning-perks-and-pay/

You really are not getting your money's worth here when you look at the MMDs getting out of control. The city council for all it's tax and fee gouging of residents, clearly missed a golden opportunity to charge some hefty fees for all the prospective work the MMDs would create- but it didn't. The fees for L.A. for MMDs? ZERO dollars. That's got to have the CMs kicking themselves for letting that slip through. Maybe they were too busy thinking of parking meter hikes they quadrupled, or the extended hours of restrictions, the "Districts" that they could create to bring in more money, and maybe their attention was taken up with thoughts of other fees to tack onto the DWP bill besides the trash collection fees that they tripled.

But look at this L.A. Weekly article- and there's more of these articles besides that one- to show you we are not getting A-1 performance from the premium pay they pull down. At the Council meeting this past Wednesday, Eric Garcetti replied to a speaker's criticism on their pay and performance during public comment segment on a matter. Council President Garcetti seems to be very defensive lately and spewed a Wikipedia's page-worth of "facts" that he must have had ready for such an occassion to defend their pay and performance. He sure can't claim poverty. Past items in the L.A. WEEKLY have examined this topic, too. See the especially revealing one that came out a week before the March 3rd city election,
"Los Angeles on $300,000 a year; Why next week's City Council "coronation" will cost you far more than money," By Patrick Range McDonald, Published on February 25, 2009, L.A. Weekly. http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-26/news/los-angeles-on-300-000-a-year/


Garcetti is wasting his breath and like all of the CMs, is not honest about the situation.
Indeed, I'd say, since THE PAY is what lures them to "PUBLIC SERVICE" in City Hall. (If you lower the pay to about $90,000.00 to $95,000 and trim some CM benefits to realistic proportions, I am sure that alone would still be a healthy paycheck and would filter out a quite a few who claim they are "dedicated" to public service.

Garcetti's defense Wednesday was all very hollow (and annoying) since the AMOUNT of pay- scandalous in its own right- was laid off by Garcetti to be the fault of a 1990 City Charter amendment that sets pay. That City Charter amendment itself was a cleverly decptive device. The state court judges' pay is used as the control CMs pay rate- and when judges get raises, which is normally annually, then the Council gets raises. The part that Eric left out was that it was a charter amendment that was generated by City Council. City Council was responsible for the creation And it was purposely created JUST TO HAVE AN EXCUSE, the one Eric used here, "It's not within our control." It might have been done by THIS cast of Council members, but THESE ones there now could have fixed it. Sure, they could have put in an initiative to change the pay back to local control and be ACCOUNTABLE- they haven't been shy to create initiatives for the ballot before, but then why should they? They don't want a change and everyone falls for "We can't control it" story without challenging the basis.

Jose Huizar was going to have a press conference this morning at 9 a.m., set for "Friday morning to urge City leaders to quickly adopt a Control Ordinance to regulate and monitor Medical Marijuana facilities in the City of Los Angeles." That was cancelled at the last minute but then it was arranged at the last minute, too. Huizar has to follow through on trying to be responsive and fix this and he needs to have Ed Reyes, the Chair of the PLUM committee pull his own weight, too. Who else can Reyes blame for not hearing a single Exemption application since they were created? This is unique to government. Private sector would have replaced non-performers with others to get the job done. If they operated this like a private sector business, there might be some improvement, but I still believe the system can be twisted by these folks to still foul it all up. Meanwhile, they will make out well, financially speaking, of course.

See the video, at 11 minutes, it's packed with some things to think about- one might be "How can I open up my own MMD?" There's a company featured in the video that has classes on how to do that. Everybody's making money here it seems.

Stay tuned for more developments in the City Council on this topic. [And if you are interested in finding a MMD, the L.A. WEEKLY print edition is the place. The paper is available for free all over the city in stores, book stores, public libraries, and other public places.]

Thursday, May 28, 2009

Huizar in CD-14 fee waivers his way up for good P.R., then sends more funds out of CD-14 for a negative.

Jose Huizar CM for CD-14 is a topic today in "Mayor Sam's" blog, "Huizar and Hahn in Middle of Youth Center Funding Imbroglio " , https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8826939&postID=4714385781653050683,
He's shifting funds out of CD-14 and the "Boyle Heights Youth & Technology Center" to San Pedro for CM Janice Hahn to have apply for a Boys and Girls Club expense there.

Some very relevant language from the Agenda ITEM NO. (43) 09-1207 (Hahn'smotion #09-1207,) http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2009/09-1207_mot_5-20-09.pdf -

In order to expedite funding for the community center, the Community Development Department (CDD) is requesting authority to transfer $23,000 in UDAG savings from the Boyle Heights Youth & Technology Center in CD14 to support the establishment of the Cheryl Green Community Center in the Harbor Gateway. The proposed funding will be used to fund afterschool youth programs in the Harbor Gateway.
Jose's judgment and motivation is questioned by the shift of funds, $23,000.00, but maybe there's an good explanation, and then again, this IS politics.

Jose's own motion #09-1217 http://clkrep.lacity.org/onlinedocs/2009/09-1217_mot_5-22-09.pdf relative to the "Boyle Heights Technology Center" is for the fee waiver estimated to be $13,322.00 for an "Awards Gala," and the word "Gala" is sure the right label for a price tag attached to it, at least for the City's part, and that's over $13,000.00 shelled out by the City. The relevant descriptive language in the motion as follows -

Council District Fourteen has received a request that the City provide certain services and declare this function a Special Event. Approval of this request will mean that an estimated $13,322 in fees and salary costs will be absorbed by the City, Event Coordinator: Jasmine Alvarado - 323/526-0146),

I THEREFORE MOVE that the "3rd Annual Boyle Heights Technology Center Community Awards Gala" be declared a Special Event, and City departments be requested to waive all fees and costs, except insurance and application requirements.
Yes, it's Jose's signature on the motion, so there's no mistake. The Technology Center is a named entity in the two motions, losing funding from one, and getting a benefit from the other.

The way these decisions come up in council meetings is not in any order and the "batch" votes that they use work to have a lot of decisions made right before your eyes and you may not even be aware that a particular agenda number represented a certain set of actions, but nearly always you have "approval.' and rarely a "no" vote winning. The worst that most things have to face is a delay to another date for ultimate approval.

The comments about CM Huizar on Mayor Sam's blog are varied in intensity, but most are negative. You always have blogger comments who post lots of hate style comments that don't help address the issues, just getting attention without putting forward any constructive thought to the criticism.

There is just a lot not very clear and if all these actions were sorted out more clearly, we might have a different picture, but it just looks like there's a lot of things that are being disguised and done but not very openly.
====================================================
LATEST ITEMS ON SPECIAL EVENT/FEE WAIVERS
The Agenda item 37 from Wednesday, 5-27-09 Council Meeting shows where fee waivers are going, sponsor, and amount. The apparent need to tighten up the belt on city spending really looks like it hasn't reached this part of city spending. I still think some independent fundraising and trimming down expenses or changing events altogether need to happen if we are really suppposed to "share" any financial pain that the Council and Mayor are preaching. A big part of the funds go to "festivals," "fiestas" and "celebrations" or other matters of a celebratory nature- All are essential to city operation, correct?

Occasionally you do see "the event sponsor shall reimburse the City for all fees and costs associated with this event," but I WOULD like to see VERIFICATION that reimbursement for the FULL amount was ACTUALLY collected by the city. I am only doubting because of some monumental expense funds that the City "forgot" to collect- like it's share of parking tickets from the private firm collecting fines, and numerous cell phone charges for private usage of city purchased phones, as well as completely missing phones. So some verification of collection should be figured in so it's not "forgotten."

"ITEM NO. (37)

08-1564-S1
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:

08-1564-S1
CD 12
a. MOTION (SMITH - ROSENDAHL) relative to declaring the Our Savior’s First Lutheran Church and School Carnival on June 19-21, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $7,123).

09-1201
CD 15
b. MOTION (HAHN - LABONGE) relative to declaring the Essence K. Coprich Library Grand Opening on May 29, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $2,226).

08-2739-S1
CD 15
c. MOTION (HAHN - LABONGE) relative to declaring the Ascension Catholic Church Fiesta on May 29-31, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $2,226).

09-1202
CD 13
d. MOTION (PERRY for GARCETTI - LABONGE) relative to declaring the 97.1 Amp Launch on May 20, 2009 a Special Event (the event sponsor shall reimburse the City for all fees and costs associated with this event).

09-1203
CD 13
e. MOTION (PERRY for GARCETTI - LABONGE) relative to declaring the School Spring Festival on May 29-31, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $4,641).

09-1204
CD 9
f. MOTION (PERRY - PARKS) relative to declaring the E3 on June 2, 2009 a Special Event (the event sponsor shall reimburse the City for all fees and costs associated with this event).

09-1205
CD 9
g. MOTION (PERRY - PARKS) relative to declaring the Nintendo Event on May 30 - June 2, 2009 a Special Event (the event sponsor shall reimburse the City for all fees and costs associated with this event).

07-1637-S1
CD 11
h. MOTION (ROSENDAHL - SMITH) relative to declaring the Venice Japanese American Community Festival on June 20-21, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $5,444).
08-1359-S1
CD 11
i. MOTION (ROSENDAHL - SMITH) relative to declaring the West Los Angeles District Bureau of Sanitation Open House on June 27, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $2,472).

09-1206
CD 11
j. MOTION (ROSENDAHL - CARDENAS) relative to declaring the 33rd Annual Brentwood 5K & 10K Run and Kiddie K on June 7, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $5,580).

08-1363-S1
CD 11
k. MOTION (ROSENDAHL - CARDENAS) relative to declaring the St. Gerard Majella Family Festival on June 26-28, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $5,905).

07-1771-S1
CD 11
l. MOTION (ROSENDAHL - PARKS) relative to declaring the Boise Avenue Block Party on June 14, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $1,857).

08-1384-S1
CD 11
m. MOTION (ROSENDAHL - HAHN) relative to declaring the Carneval! Venice Beach on June 6, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $2,472).

09-1192
CD 11
n. MOTION (ROSENDAHL - HAHN) relative to declaring the Mar Vista Neighborhood Association Block Party on June 13, 2009 a Special Event (fees and costs absorbed by the City = $1,857)."
================================================

Sunday, May 24, 2009

Rail Cars and Streetcars for Downtown?

After seeing the activity going on about more money to build rail cars in L.A. , I saw an item on Jose Huizar, my CM for CD-14 on a project for rebuilding downtown. I don't think I ever gave much attention to the idea as downtown has changed enourmously since the 60's that I remember it from and even still holding on in the 70's. The development of local shopping malls was what I think started the trend to take away retail business from downtown that began the slide downward. Well, CM Huizar's plan is not totally created in a vacuum, since there's that thing that when tax dollars are at work, SOMEBODY is making money- or will be- other than the intented purposes of a project.


Downtown looks like some parking and theatre issues are mixing to put Huizar in a position of acting for the benefit of the special interests. I read Zuma Dogg's Blog - whether you like him or not, he's constantly coming up with issues that have a ring of truth in them- this item was about some dissatisfied members of the public and a recall-Huizar orientation: the posting from Saturday, May 23, 2009: "A Letter About LA City's Broadway Trolley Project From "RECALL JOSE HUIZAR" Campaign: (Not to be confused with Recall Monica Garcia Campaign),"
http://ladailyblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/letter-about-la-citys-broadway-trolley.html
The idea is that Huizar is doing work to benefit a single interest that is out of line with the real desire and intent of the areas businesses. He appears to be planning a large parking structure to be built downtown that will mainly help one special interest. His work overall in the downtown project will work to squeeze out the current assortment of merchants that populate the storefronts of more notable predessor tenants who sold shoes, shirts, suits, and all the things that made people come to downtown for their shopping in days of old.

The new shopkeepers are usually small scale and often immigrants from Latina American countries, mainly Mexico. These folks will be left out of the big picture and whether it's good or bad for them or the overall public is a separate questions.

The other item that I finally am getting to is the Downtown Trolley. I first thought this was the bus dressed up like a trolley that is no big deal to do, but it looks like it's a full scale installation with rails and the whole to-do. That's not cheap and that's another pipe dream in my opinion if CM Huizar thinks this will be the key to revival of Downtown. Maybe it's San Diego that he's using a model, but you can't really use any city for a model since things never quite match here in Los Angeles, no matter how hard you try to press the puzzle piece in to fit.

Here's some history that I will have to come back to, but it's old in origing- back in 2008 in the L.A. Times in the Bottleneck blog focusing on traffic issues, where some comments are attached. Streetcar may get some funding in L.A.
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/bottleneck/2008/09/looks-like-the.html
It's $5 Million and there's more- it's the CRA involved. All bad signs.

I will get back to this later, but this is just a start on what's going downhill for L.A. and who is doing it.

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.

Wednesday, April 08, 2009

City Council meeting comments on Green movements

Among the comments on Agenda Item 10 (shown below) that passed unanimously:

By Jose Huizar, CD-14:

"We are preparing the workforce for the jobs of the future"

"We want to show the rest of the county that we are on the cutting edge."


By Ed Reyes, CD-1:

"We are creating industrial zones right next to residential zones"

and that we want " …. to find way to create these jobs so they are near to our homes….. " will alleviate some traffic.
==========================================

The comments like those above that come up before the votes on matters of course are mostly rhetorical and not subject to any questioning, but I just get tired of all the gratuitous comments that ignore things that were done before by the same persons or groups, or that are illogical considering what's been going on.

For Huizar, the workforce preparation was interesting since you usually consider the local schools to be doing some of that. In our case in L.A., LAUSD is doing an unsuccessful job in addressing that, hitting near 50% dropout rates in some schools.

What jobs are they being prepared for with that level of education?

There was a report a few years back that reported that a good many of LAUSD grads would not be suited for hiring for jobs available locally. I don't think that was given too much notice since we are years past that and it looks like the same condition may exist.

(Also relating it all for Huizar's case: CM Huizar was formerly the LAUSD Board President for years immediately prior to election in CD-14- he should know best what is happening and what has happened in the LAUSD area, and it's not been good.

For Ed Reyes' comment,
I just want to remind him of the continued changes that ELIMINATED industrial and manufacturing areas and there is still a little left on the eastside of downtown where there once were huge areas. Times change but there was widespread elimination for what I think could be called "redevelopment" and converting to residential areas.

Many residential developers did not see nearby manufacturing/industrial areas as "selling points" for their projects. Thus, eliminating those and converting the areas to compatible or enhancing uses to the projects would serve to BOOST the value of the properties of the developers. I see that's what's happened.

There's not a lot of the same type of manufacturing and industry in the future as was the case for the original site occupants practiced. Yet the area's zoning should have been preserved for ideas of return to be able to fit in with a new era of industrial use. Things like that don't get reversed, so losing that industrial zoning means loses that area forever. All residential and no "industry" to be the employer? But the change also is in the PRICING OF THE NEW HOUSING- that's UPSCALE, and geared mostly for financially well-off when a redevelopment occurs. Different populations now are there as residents.

The idea that Reyes speak about in making jobs for people living locally with a side benefit of limited need to travel. Nice concept but it assumes too much that is hard to imagine. What would the jobs be? Service industry? Professions such as law, medicine and other areas where graduate school is usually required? Would the people want to live IN the city as it is now?

=======================
Just another comment on the proposal today on RAISING RATES as part of DWP Water Conservation -

WHY does Council speak of the need to conserve and then they continue to DEVELOP areas for the "DENSIFICATION" or packing more people in to the smaller areas that were LESS populated before?

It is only logical to see that more people will NEED more water, even with conservation. Is the conservatioin REALLY to ENABLE more "Densification" and to make the NEED to conserve a man-made (council-made) matter of urgency?

THIS GOES FOR POLICE SERVICE, TOO- "We need more police" is what most agree would help living conditiions. Then why does the Mayor and Council continue to PUSH to add more people to come to the city? It puts more pressure on all resources. Is that a hard concept to get a hold of? Really, it's money that they are trying to pull in and meanwhile the living conditions continue to slide downhill in the city.

Until the infrastructure is under control or even closer to control, WHY work in the opposite direction? There is just so much contrary action all through what is done in city government. The right hand does not know what the left hand is doing just is not the right description- it doesn't go far enough. And that's assuming that the flaws in operation are accidental or unintended, but the real picture cannot be that hidden from the lawmakers, so "intentional" acts are what we see.

It's like trying to set up campfires in the middle of a high-risk fire season- You are ASKING for trouble. Council should stop "lighting the fires" until the risks have been handled. The continued practices just show the Council deceit in its motives and goals.

=========

"ITEM NO. (10) -Motion Required

06-1963
COMMUNICATION FROM THE CITY ATTORNEY and ORDINANCE FIRST CONSIDERATION relative to establishing the Green Retrofit and Workforce Program, including creation of a Green Retrofit Development Interdepartmental Task Force and a Green Retrofit Development Advisory Council.

(Housing, Community and Economic Development Committee report to be submitted in Council. If public hearing is not held in Committee, an opportunity for public comments will be provided.)

(For background reports and materials related to this matter, contact the Legislative Assistant for the Housing, Community, and Economic Development Committee at 213-978-1080.)

(Information Technology and General Services Committee waived consideration of the above matter.)"

Sunday, March 22, 2009

Then and Now, Predictions- L.A. high schools and L.A. life-

Checking the L.A. Times, with the “Then and Now” feature for Sunday that has a pretty interesting picture attached of Charlton Heston from the movie, “Earthquake,” that is representative the story topic, A world of end-of-the-world predictions; End-of-the-world predictions and tales of catastrophe have long been part of the Southland's culture,” by Steve Harvey, March 22, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-then22-2009mar22,0,909297.story The local predictions from the past are brought out in the story and showing us some effects that they had on the people of the times. The 1953 movie, “War of the Worlds,” used Los Angeles as the scene of the alien attack, and I remember it well from the “Noon Movie” presentation at Lincoln, (3 days at 10 cents a segment) or it could have been at Nightingale, for that matter (5 days at 5 cents each). I remember the H.G. Wells’ “The Time Machine,” too, as a noon movie favorite, but that’s another topic for another day.

The look to the past brought little known details out, as usual with Steve Harvey (the columnist, not the comedian and radio host), and I found something that many younger people today might have been puzzled by at the end of the article. Harvey writes about the experience of one guy, “East L.A.-born Val Rodriguez, then a Roosevelt High School student. Rodriguez ditched school the day before the world was to end.”

It was not his excuse that I found as the surprise in the story, but the simple mention of his punishment barely avoided-
“The attendance counselor called the boys' VP, who in turn called the principal
to hear my excuse. They bought it! No swats.”
“No swats?” Do you remember those days in high school? Well, not from the 40’s- then you really have some years on we of the 60’s generation- but “swats” in high school when it was commonplace. I hadn’t thought of swats in school for awhile, although when I was teaching, it was a topic of retro-days at Lincoln High School that had the students amazed at such a thing happening. The thought of having that practice revived ocassionally crossed my mind with some of the student behavior that I encountered. Then the recollection of the turmoil caused by the teacher who put duct tape on talkative student’s mouth a few years back was the next thing that usually came to mind and that was that, more that enough for the fleeting thought to exit consideration immediately.

Occasionally, as I think of the old reasons for the "Walkouts" of 1968, I wonder whether swats were a part of the school assortment of disciplinary measures used district-wide, or did we have more of that applied more generously on "our side" of town? I don't recall comparing notes with others at college who attended "non-Eastside" high schools in L.A., or even bringing it up later. I'm just now thinking that there was a difference based on geography, which meant "school population," but at that time there were lots of differences for that reason anyway. The "Walkouts" were supposed to be about such things being handled "differently" at Eastside schools.

I don't want to be like Tony Cardenas, an L.A. Council Member who regularly slips in his digs at "us" and "them" and is such an example of a divisive element in local government. Example: One day last year in a Council Meeting, Cardenas said, in connection with LAPD officers acting as something of mentors or volunteers in recreational activities at local parks, "Police should not have any contact with our youth unless there is an official reason," and I paraphrase that, and continue with his take on the situaton, "Parents on the West Side would not tolerate that."

I see some history of "Police v. Tony Cardenas and bad experience" in the crystal ball for that one. The dichotomy of attitudes shown by Cardenas when it comes to police is undeniable. You see that when topics of crime fighting and working with the community are raised, and when congratulations are presented to police officers. Cardenas is right there with the routine praise- Kind of like Jose Huizar's actions when there was a shooting, a fatal one, of a suspected gang memember by an LAPD officer following a foot chase in Ramona Gardens last year.

Jose gets called to the scene at night and is prodded by local residents so he says, "I will be demanding an independent investigation tomorrow." There was an earlier incident, I don't recall which it was, but Jose wanted to be on the "community's" side, and in so doing, effectively said, "LAPD, I don't trust your organization to be honest. I don't trust the D.A.'s office to do a fair investigation of the "Officer-Involved shooting." The smoke barely had cleared on the location, and Huizar's making these accusatory statements when the LAPD had not even finished a preliminary sorting of what happened, yet to Huizar's already putting the blame them by calling for the "independent" investigation.

It was very revealing of the attitudes held by Huizar towards the operation of the police department and the critical view he must have held about the processes that are put into place for investigating shooting situations. A little premature to challenge anyone's veracity in the investigation process, I thought at the time, but Huizar's continual dilemma is choosing what to say and when to say it. Often it's poorly done by Jose, usually a risk when entering discussions on topics during Council meetings. Regardless of the intent, what it sounds like is not very well thought out. Think of the President on Leno's show last Thursday night for another example of choosing to speak at the wrong time on the wrong thing.

But getting to the immediate story again, just a little of the past is brought back to us in a few lines in a story. For another thought of the days past, do you remember when a call from anyone at school was something to be avoided at all costs? Nowadays, many home numbers for students on the speed dial of their teachers’ cell phones. There's more need now to call but there's not much changed after the call for many of the cases. Times change.

Friday, January 30, 2009

Lincoln High featured in Debate team article in L.A. Times

Did you know that Lincoln has been organizing student participation in a different kind of high school activity than we regularly find in a high school: “Debate.” The L.A. TIMES published an article last week on this topic, featuring LHS as one of the high schools where this is happening, "No argument: High school debate is popular once again," http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-debate20-2009jan20,0,1406037.story It’s good to see that amid the trend of reduced activities in LAUSD schools over the years due to decreased interest and funds, that is worsening now even more with tight budgets all around, that there is something that can be both helpful academically to an individual student, and operate to represent a school’s program.

You can read the article for some insight into the high school setting that some of you might recall, and if you have been out of school for a number of years, then don’t really bother to recall since those times are very different from what’s happening in the high school experience today. If you compare your experiences to those of current students, there’s a lot that doesn’t match. That might be because of changes that happen due to technology and social views, as well as the management of school funding.

WHAT WAS YOUR SCHOOL EXPERIENCE?
The different experience brought out in this story is a vivid example of how we former students at Lincoln had limited and lesser ranges of experience in our school life as a general condition
. Having less exposure to what’s out there in the world doesn't help the learning process nor does it get the students prepared in the best way for handling future situations. Some other high schools were able to provide students a wider scope of experiences that helped them to be better students. A lot of this happens, too, because of what is done by parents who work on doing more for their children's education, since you can’t expect the school to be any substitute for what parents can do. It just shows how important it is for parents to work with educating their children, and not to expect everything is a teacher’s job to do. Reasons for this can be varied, but for education to happen, it has to be done consciously, not accidentally, for the best effect.

DEBATE- A TIME FOR A CHANGE, A GOOD CHANGE.
But this topic, “Debate,” is really one developed in the school setting that is different
from most sports by the simple reason that most equipment for needed, besides the teachers and students, is already there to start.

By now, you might still wonder, “What is debate about anyway? What does it do for students or anyone?” I pulled out some selections from Wikipedia, presenting a few interpretations on what I see can be a very broad area.

Here is how it’s defined: “Debate (American English) or debating (British English) is a formal method of interactive and position representational argument. Debate is a broader form of argument than logical argument, which only examine the consistency from axiom, and factual argument, which only examine what is or isn't the case or rhetoric which is technique of persuasion.”

And the special skill that this brings out is “argument” and they don’t mean the kind you might expect when two people become angry. What happens is what we in a school setting prefer, discussion, and it happens in a special way.

Continuing with another very brief part taken from that Wikipedia section, the part that we have in the high school program is the competitive aspect of applying the learned skills so that we have something to judge:

“A rule-based competitive debate is often encouraged in high schools and
colleges. Often, it takes the form of a contest with explicit rules. It may be
presided over by one or more judges. Each side seeks to win, by
following the rules, and even by using some rules to break other rules, within
limits. Each side is either in favor ("for, 'Affirmative' "), or opposed to
("against, 'Negative' "), a statement (proposition or Resolution)
which if adopted would change something with the exception of some high school
and college debate where moots may hold no outcome, i.e., the moot "ignorance is
bliss".” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate
As I mentioned before, among the memories as a student in high school, having any debate competiton or real training about that in class was not part of the picture. I don’t remember calculators, computers or cell phones in school either, but here we are. I am glad for the changes, generally, and this is one where “better late than never” applies in seeing it at Lincoln.

WHAT DOES THIS BRING OUT IN STUDENT PERFORMANCE?
While I am glad to see that change here now, the ones who can participate really are fortunate
they are equipped to do so, both in terms of their own hard work and study, their own natural ability, and the assistance along the way from parents, friends and teachers. In the bigger picture, we still don’t have enough progress by so many other students to be able to expect participation from that greater group.

IS SCHOOL ATTENTION BEING MISDIRECTED OR NEGLECTFUL AS TO SOME STUDENTS?
That’s just the way it is. Briefly, you can look to the Magnet Program at LHS involving the Science department and you will have something roughly, by my estimate, about a fifth of the school population of around 2700 or 2800, qualified for participation. That means that the Magnet Program has an actual pool of about 500-plus who can benefit from participation in the program. The majority of the school is excluded as a result. You wouldn't think that was the case, as my recollection of all the P.A. daily announcements of the "Magnet Programs" plans, meetings or other activities came across very loud, but not clear, over the school P.A. system installed during or before the "modernization" a few years back.

P.A. volume levels at Lincoln seemed to be well over the OSHA safety limits for preservation of our sense of hearing but complaints literally were made on deaf ears. We had no control over the volume in our rooms, and it must have had a setting in the main office as "FULL BLAST', so a lot was garbled when people spoke too loud. If you were a community neighbor to Lincoln, you had a better knowledge of what's going on than the students in school who covered their ears or talked over the intrusive announcements. When you happened to be walking out in the campus during the "bulletin" announcements, it sounded more like echoes across a prison yard- I could never ignore that impression every time it happened. That's a complete aside and something that goes into the "I don't miss that part" bin. I do think that this daily delivery to the small target audience made the rest of the students suffe in more than just the aural overload sense, and needlessly so.

The daily bombardment of irrelevant items was not a positive event for the students or the other teachers with decibel-resistant speakers. All it ever did was to get a lot of students either more resentful of, or more oblivious to, that program itself, as well as to all the other announcements coming across the P.A. system that should have been submitted for the printed daily bulleting, which instruction to teachers and administrators was perpetually ingnored during the few years I was at LHS, leaving that handout with virtually no changing news to break up the boilerplates paragraphs inserted throughout.

Of course, the Magnet program is not able to handle that many students at one time and all those students are being kept out by their own choice since a big part may have little or no interest in becoming involved. Reasons for students lacking interest in further achievement is something that deserves it’s own discussion, and that will be left for another time.

But what seems to happen in many school settings, Lincoln included, is that the “good” students or “high performers” will be what carries the rest of the school in any given assessment category, and a result, will get the better attention and benefits while in school, perhaps being considered as “favored treatment.” This turned out to be one of those "unintended consequences" when it came to state tests and dealing with NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND standards of the API ratings, while very low average scores were avoided by the good results of many "high" performing students. Leaving the consideration of fairness aside, you will often, if not always, find that the students who are performing well will turn out to be the ones that will succeed under any set of circumstances, even without any extra training or programs. Was that Darwinism at work? I don't know, it just works out like that.

The real problem in high schools are at the other end of the spectrum, those that don’t get good report cards, and those that don’t have a good handle on English skills or math, who become moody, withdrawn, passive, boistrous, inattentive or defiant and who have to be unhappy with the high school experience when it comes to successfully accomplishing any studying or testing.

THE WAY THAT THINGS WORK OUT LEAVE WEAK PERFORMERS LESS SUPPORTED.
And that job of preparing these underperforming students to handle work at their grade level with some proficiency is what remains the daunting task for LH
S and other LAUSD schools from K through 12. Everyone wants to teach the high performers since, among other things, they allow a teacher to move through planned lessons at a consistent pace and you see home work coming in from everyone, with pretty good level of classroom behavior, too. The also serve to make the teacher look good as a teacher. There’s always a few students who will cause assorted conflict, but not consistently or characteristically so, I’d say.

We get back to he other students who are more challenged, more rebellious, more distracted, and who are less prepared and less supported by family, friends and teachers in getting the most from attending school will be the real concerns of the educational system. Here is where you might find that part of any school’s problem that still has no solutions for improvement.

It is nothing new, and the results don’t really change from year to year, but we continue to have more dropouts, those being the ones who don’t get to graduate either “on time” or ever. Some will manage later to earn a GED, but others will not and won’t care to. This is where I see we are now. Solutions come and solutions go, but unless you have students WANTING to get through school WITH some achievement, it’s going to be a losing proposition.

DID BRINGING THE "ALL COLLEGE PREP" NO-CHOICE TRACK HURT STUDENTS?
Our vocational training is now almost all gone from the campus site, with Skills Centers off-site as the available-but-not-quite-equivalent alternative. We have an "A to G" track that is a college prep program for everyone in high school, as if everyone is going to go to college. It winds up just pushing more to drop out. Very talented students drop out, too, not just the the "troublemakers." Many are just bored with what they are presented with. Of course, a student may be bored by having missed lots of school or not doing the class work and home work assignments. Then besides just being bored, he or she is then mystified by the discussions and assignments, becoming more and more detached from the subject, left further and further behind. Leaving school under those circumstances begins to sound like a reasonable choice.

WHAT "LEADERS" DO DOES NOT REALLY APPEAR TO HELP
The dropout problem is addressed unrealistically by LAUSD leadership. The "A-G" track is still part of the council re-election campaign boast of FORMER LAUSD President JOSE HUIZAR (Now the Council Member for Council District-14), although it's not "a positive" change as I contend here, but a negative one, not even harmless enough to be a neutral value. HUIZAR'S place on the LAUSD Board was filled by his former aide, now the Board President, MONICA GARCIA. GARCIA is fooling no one with her absurd "100% graduation goal." She needs to start beating a different drum. Ms. GARCIA, who announced that it was not until she attended U.C. Berkeley that she really learned about the Chicano struggle and needs and the social injustice. In this case, maybe it was not "better late than never" in getting involved with social change. Trying to revive the 60's style of activism is long past and, Ms. GARCIA, sorry you missed it, but move on. I am glad that you made it to U.C. which was probably a big part of it's effect on her education and attitude.

What Ms. GARCIA needs is to sit in on some classes and see that we would be lucky if everyone would be able to write a simple declarative sentence or have an ability to read books, standard classics of a high school curriculum level. For the record, LAUSD has never had a "100% graduation rate." Even at the grad school level, not everyone who begins a program is able to finish it. All this unrealistic boasting does not do much for MS. GARCIA'S credibility nor her ability to assess the problem.

WHAT DOES "NO VOCATIONAL EDUCATION" DO FOR STUDENTS?
This part of the educational component now missing is that part where many students find they can flourish and apply their talents, developing their skills and satisfying their needs that in turn allows them to “tolerate” the academic side of school that is not so interesting to them. THAT is the part of the day that lets students have their time in vocational training that is comparable to the arts programs as being something special to each student and a time when they work to be able to enjoy the results of what they learn and put them to use.

If the powers that be would take a breath and look at what you have, it might help them find solutions or improvements. Let's look at this situation regarding the trend for "healthy living" that is becoming more popular, whether we want to hear it or not from our politicians. Aside from eating habits and choices, EXERCISE is important.

Many people have the benefit of working at jobs where a lot of physical energy is not needed
, but then, avoiding weight gains and keeping the circulatory and other body systems has been attended to, for many, by lunchtime walking. Other choices include joining groups for sports or outdoor activity for exercise needs and then theres's the gym membership and putting hours of time for that activity to burn calories. Lots of people wind up feeling and looking better from all this.

Exercise works for improving physical health and for our mental health, too. "Endorphins" produced during strenous exercise make us FEEL better, almost drug-like in their effect. So you see, to be healthy, it's not all sitting just still and working quietly, but mixing some activity to use up the rest of your body's parts so it stays in working order. Physically and mentally, there's a greater feeling of well-being.

"ONE SIZE" DOES NOT FIT ALL.
NOW, getting to my point, putting a student in only classes for math, English language (reading, writing and literature), science and very little else is done without much to differentiate the time and activity in any part of a school day from any other part. We don't even have P.E. to use for an outlet for physical activity, having been cut from a P.E. class as a requirement every semester, down to only two years out of four now, a 50% cut in that area. Taking out the vocational classes from a student's choices is what leaves students without their "reward", "highlight", "creative outlet", "physical break" or "favorite" time, or any other label attached to that different kind of needed activity is, simply stated, a functional mistake.

I nearly forgot about the female students' side of things as electives went. They had the "homemaking" style of vocational opportunies in education. "Cooking" "Sewing" "Typing" and so on, were what you found in the 500 building- and the sinks of old still are there, with the old wall mounted ironing boards to be found in some rooms before the "modernizaton" took the reminders of the "past" out of the school. Those classes permitted boys to enroll, but there weren't many. I was in a typing class with one or two other guys, and that turned out to be the most practical one I ever took at Lincoln, using the skills in college and later, almost a necessity for students today with computer work.

The variety for the mind and the physical interaction makes for a different and enhanced learning experience. We might not be able to continue in the vocational field in a career sense, but the experience helps in other ways and any practice in the learning process is of benefit in improving learning skills that can be applied for other subjects. A shortsighted LAUSD is what we have by their idea of clearing out all the shops since some, mainly Latinos exerting their influence, thought that if you eliminated vocational ed, everyone would HAVE TO GO TO COLLEGE (and I think this might be what justified such change for CM JOSE HUIZAR) and not, I suppose, be headed for a job as some lowly worker, as they saw it. They did not consider the "dropout" option taken so often by so many in response to these curriculum changes.

The school district needs to use better strategy and to look back to what was taught in the times when I and many others were able to stick it out, not drop out and learn a few things. My parents would have had a big part of that decision if I ever tried to consider it. These days, too many parents are isolated from the schools and, unfortunately, their children, so like the "Las Vegas" motto, they treat it all like, "What happens at school stays at school." Involved parents can be so helpful to their child's improvement or good performance without having to be college educated or even without having English language or math skill. Parents need to keep their children on the right path by showing they care. Single parent families and a high divorce rate don't help things, neither does having babies from teen mothers. "An uphill struggle" is what you have there from the beginning. But let's look again to the school district's side of action.

VOCATIONAL CLASSES WERE SUPPORTIVE OF A SUCCESSFUL EDUCATIONAL PROCESS
Dropouts decide at some time not to come back to school, and making the choice to remain in school is not helped when you take away those elements where students find they achieve success and satisfaction. I recall my own time at LHS with auto shop and drafting being among the best classes for my enjoyment in a different way than just doing well in the purely "academic" side. Some students were able to actually begin to head toward their career activity by our school's print, metal, wood, auto and other shop classes available. Low pay is certainly not the characteristic of most trades now, and a society without such skills will leave us to turn to what, China, for filling that need like it does for most manufacturing formerly done in the U.S.?

STUDENT ACTIVITY SHOULD BE AVAILABLE IN WIDER RANGES OF TOPICS AND AREAS.
The students who are able to participate in the debate program should be congratulated for applying themselves here. It may not be as glamous as catching a touchdown pass, putting the ball in the hoop with a 3-point shot, or hitting a bases-loaded home run, but it’s something worthwhile that gets into a style of thinking for continued benefit since you will always have to think while awake. Well, I suppose it's your choice there It’s exercise for your brain. And for more exercise, you still can try out for school sports to do those other things, too. At least as long as there is funding and as long as there are sponsors who can provide the time and energy to help, it's all there for you. Did you know that golf was another area for LHS student activity these days? It's a different LHS from before.

On the negative side, we don’t have a tennis team- or even tennis courts. Franklin High has lots of them, and nice ones, too. We have a conversion fom tennis to basketball courts there now. THAT is a sport that we DID have in my time, and I remember seeing Rudy and Steve Salas of the band, TIERRA, in the school yearbook as members of the varsity tennis team. And don’t forget about 10 years later that Rudy Moreno, comedian and actor, was a baseball team player for LHS. I remember Louis "Benny" Torres of Cl. of S'68, who was on the journalism path early when he worked on the "Railsplitter" school newspaper before we had an internet. He went on to win awards as a journalist while working for KNX-RADIO 1070-am. A variety of experience benefits students.

Let’s hope that our debate team members can be remembered in years to come for their work on the present debate team activity, and that we see more of these and other students in this activity given the recognition deserved while they are still students here. Getting due credit and support for such things is necesary to sustain movement in that positive direction.