Mayor's Anti-Gang Official in Fight with Cops, Arrested

Yes, as the L.A. Weekly story put it, Blanca Martinez-Navarro went gangsta on the cops at the Conga Room downtown. It all seems very bizarre and does nothing to promote any credibility for that program when you can chalk this up another case of employee bad conduct here.

The story about tells it all:
City News- "Blanca Martinez-Navarro, Gang Reduction Staffer For Mayor Villaragosa, Arrested At Conga Room For Allegedly Attacking LAPD Cop," By Dennis Romero, Mon., Jan. 24 2011 @ 7:00AM
http://blogs.laweekly.com/informer/2011/01/villaragosa_staff_arrest.php

Another interesting part of this is the comments added to the story. While I can't go for the "spic" reference, there's something to the idea of reverting to apply some parts of early life experience, if she did actually come from an environment of gang activity. Worse, it may be a current method of dispute resolution that slipped out in a moment of stress.

Either way, it's completely unacceptable but Mayor Villaraigosa has 2 very obvious choices to make: Upon verification of the facts (if the reports are correct) he will discharge her for her bad conduct and that will be that, which I would choose.

The other choice is to keep her, provide some counseling and blame her stressful life issues, with a need to protect her husband from the perceived harm from the police. Of course the husband and the wife were in or approaching a "domestic violence" condition but these things turnaround on responding cops all the time. Her perception of the situation that she might think supports defending her husband appears to be affected by a large quantity of alcoholic beverages. My opinion as created by reports but it's hard to spin this in a good way.

Antonio would try to keep her employed to downplay the embarrassment it's brought to the unit and to the mayor for choosing such persons.

Agan, to mention the comments, some are too supportive of so many things "wrong with this picture." Read them and compare. He's just too forgiving and I do not see why. I wonder what WOULD have to happen to make him change his view. I think she like many needs to actually claim RESPONSIBILITY for her own conduct. That's a big part of what's missing in the lives of so many people these days.

City Council commenter raises complaint, gets Cardenas' attention.

CM Tony Cardenas replied to a public commenter's complaint today about CMs getting raises in January while others in the city are facing layoffs and furloughs. That comment was something that provoked Tony to get up to be defensive again. He stated, "We did not get raises in January. That comment was in error." Cardenas went on to impress that fact of the erroneous nature of the charge upon the council meeting's audience present and, as always, including those viewing on city channel 35 the internet, and listening in on the councilphone telephone lines. He made it clear that the woman complaining already spoke with his aide to see that no raises occurred in January.

Cardenas did not give the complete picture, in my view, and how could you blame him? It's not a subject they like to hear. The fact of the council members being the highest salaried in the U.S. while also receiving automatic pay raises in a time of economic hardship doesn't sit well with most in the public. By the way, it's really not the issue whether they received a raise in January or not, but the fact that they receive the raises without any regard for either merit or the financial health of the city.

How L.A. City Council Got Those Huge $178,789 Salaries
By Patrick Range McDonald, Thursday, Feb 26 2009 L.A. WEEKLY, with additional reporting by Jill Stewart. http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-26/news/how-l-a-city-council-got-those-huge-178-789-salaries/

That story is already over a year old, but the same ills maintained by the events described in the story remain and continue to affect us as city residents, unfortunately for us.

The result of two unrelated actions — the clinging by politicians to gigantic council districts, and a naive “reform” that feeds ever-spiraling raises — are both gifts that keep on giving to the City Council. Their unusually large districts create what scholars like Abu-Lughod call an “entrance fee” — meaning that it costs far too much money for a regular citizen to run a districtwide campaign to oust a sitting Los Angeles City Council member. Instead, their races are usually little more than coronations. After 12 years, America’s highest paid council members are ousted — by term limits.

The story should be read carefully by anyone who has to hear a council member's excuses, as it is very short article. It is packed with some very eventful facts and useful descriptions to show us very clearly how things became so cushy for CMs and how it was all again a voter decision that maybe not all voting then even understood. Add some unexpected changes over time, like the merging of the Municipal Courts with the Superior Courts and a pay change, and you see how easily even more changes can occur.
For a comparison to current pay, take a look at how salary levels for Council members were just about 11 years ago, in July 1999,
"City Council Members Receive More Money, More Flak."
POLITICAL BRIEFING July 15, 1999 PATRICK MCGREEVY and MIGUEL BUSTILLO, TIMES STAFF WRITERS.
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/jul/15/local/me-56137

And that pay level was getting people's anger up back then, too. It describes changes since the Proposition H change in 1990 that created this pay raise autopilot condition where council members don't have to dirty their hands in setting any raises- they don't have to and this operation of the changed law gives them the ability, and they use it loudly, that "We don't control our pay levels or raises." But then they do nothing to CHANGE it, either, which would make them accountable in that action. It's too easy to sit back and let it all happen without taking responsibility for the good fortune, or the blame for their apparent avarice.

I just wanted to bring that topic up as I get tired of the CMs doing what Cardenas today trying to evade the big picture for any complaint brought up about their pay. They don't and should not be given any slack on this. It's too much compared to other cities- and the idea that a couple of them say, "We represent a population of [xx thousands] and should be paid as we are." or using that population angle to say, "We represent districts larger than many cities" and so on. They don't get paid on a per-person rate and it's all excuses that just make them sound more greedy. They have come a long way in 11 years. No wonder so many politicians want to come back to L.A. and run for city council.

LAUSD plays politics again, Public School Choice recommendation of Cortines ignored.

"Insiders Versus Charters at LAUSD-
Strings were pulled, and Ramon Cortines was stopped by his own Board of Education," By Beth Barrett, Thursday, Mar 11 2010. L.A. WEEKLY
http://www.laweekly.com/2010-03-11/news/insiders-versus-charters-at-lausd/2

This is a good article to show the politics that are involved to replace the real concern for the children's educational opportunities in the recent LAUSD process to select operators for 30 schools, 12 new and 18 lowest performers. This happens to include Lincoln High among them. The big issue here is that Superintendent Ramon Cortines made recommendations following the voting done at each of the school locations from several factions including the parents. This was the Public School Choice voting, a purely advisory operation, but one that was to be seriously considered by Supt. Cortines.

Well, there were some preliminary reports released after the voting and the Superintendent made recommendations for which schools should be operated by which group. The groups making the proposals were groups led by the principal, as in Lincoln's case, teacher-led proponents, also done at Lincoln, and other groups including the Mayor's Partnership and some charter schools. Lincoln had only the two competing interests that I commented on in an earlier posting after the elections. I thought that since both groups were from esentially the same roots, the LAUSD, I think that there is a strong influence there that will really not be much of any real change.

Other schools, like the Esteban Torres Learning Center, had lots more applicants so there was quite a lot of potential for change. What resulted in the outcome that was finally decided by the LAUSD Board, led by Board President, Monica Garcia, to ignore the recommendations of Cortines and to exclude charter school applicants in almost every case.

There had been concerns before that the charters had cherry picked students and so they could expect better results when compared to the LAUSD. In this situation, requirements for accepting under policies of inclusion were to be followed. That would mean that students would not be screened out as often done before, so more of a cross section would then compose the student body and the educational needs of underserved students would be addressed. That was not to be seen in the case, as mentioned in the L.A. Times editiorial referenced below. I don't regularly agree with the editorials in the Times, but I think that this was one very correctly stated.

"Editorial-
A lesson for charter school operators - After lobbying for a plan to let outside groups run some L.A. Unified schools, the charter operators were almost shut out. Now what do they do? "
March 02, 2010
http://articles.latimes.com/2010/mar/02/opinion/la-ed-charter3-2010mar03

One main point of the L.A. WEEKLY story was that Board member, Yolie Flores, the one who proposed the idea of voting for the operators, was in the lead here as a reformer to try to make a major change happen with the district. I really did not like the way Yolie Flores handled the Eagle Rock High dispute with the football coach, the principal and others in the faculty and administration a few years back. Nothing was settled there until Supt. Cortines personally became involved and settled the matter, although less than satisfactorily, in my view. That issue with the "consultant" employment with Gloria Romero was not a good sign, either, as far as I was concerned.

Well, now Flores seems to be doing her job and thinking about the education of the students. The others still appear to be bound by overriding concerns for political affiliations. Remember that Monica Garcia was working under current city council member Jose Huizar when he was president of the Board. Both he and Garcia had a lot owed to Mayor Villaraigosa as he really got them elected to their respective posts. In the last election, the Board majority is now weighted in favor of Villaraigosa, and the deference to the Mayor's Partnerships applications shows.

You can read the story to see how you have special interests- and that includes unions- exert influence to sway the outcomes of events. It is not quite illegal, but you see that somethings get seriously affected by the entry of such forces. When you see the name of Maria Elena Durazo mentioned, you know that there is some intense interest by the union here. She is probably the single most influential leader in labor since the death of her husband Miguel Contreras several years ago. He preceeded her in the union leadership, and you can see that influence in the area was enough that he had a learning center named after him.

Well, this story does a good job of showing reasons why things happen the way that they do, and that's not what the general public is widely aware of. There is a comment section after the story that is filled with comments longer than the story where the author, a 2007 magnet school retiree just can't criticize enough. Briefly, I don't think his criticism is well-placed as much of the target really isn't part of the focus of the story. I won't get into that much more than to say that most of what's stated can be distinguished and refuted although there is some validity to many of the observations made, but they don't really go to this story but to education on a broader level, and specific application to the LAUSD. (You can read that, too, and there's a lot, and form your own opinions. )

It was good to see that Flores appeared to be on the right track as far as what a Board member should be doing. I hope that she continues in that path and that this experience deters her from doing what is right. Garcia, on the other hand, is too entangled in politics, as she should be since she has no demonstrated performance of any real benefit to students, so far, and she needs political friends to keep getting her elected.

L.A. Weekly has a good "all-about" story on City and MMDs; The City Council Medical Marijuana Ordinance draft due today.

Last week, the L.A. Weekly put out a really detailed story on the long path taken for the city to get to a long-awaited ordinance on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries. If you want to see what's really happened in the course of events in how City Council members dropped the ball in so many ways, read this story and you may be surprised. All that dubious "leadership" that the CMs reflexively mention ( especially during those Friday awards days) in congratulating each other really seems to be completely absent when checking how the MMD problem developed.

THE L.A. WEEKLY'S WORK ON "THE REST OF THE STORY"-
The L.A. Weekly's story: "L.A.'s Medical-Weed Wars
How the potheads outwitted Antonio Villaraigosa and the L.A. City Council,"
By PATRICK RANGE MCDONALD AND CHRISTINE PELISEK. (Published on November 23, 2009 at 11:49pm) is a story about this one topic, Medical Marijuana, and what happened over the years that brought us to nearly 1,000 hardship exemptions filed as more "Medical Marijuana Dispensaries" have opened up in the city. See http://www.laweekly.com/2009-11-26/news/l-a-39-s-medical-weed-wars/

Ed Reyes of CD-1 (that includes Lincoln Heights and Highland Park) was not quite the mover and shaker on this matter that some people might believe he is. As Chair of the PLUM, "Planning and Land Use Management" committee, he was responsible for the committee assigned to make decisions on the very ambiguous "hardship exemptions" for applications to conduct these business. CM Reyes did nothing on these from the end of Summer 2007 when the "moratorium" ordinance and its hardship exemption were enacted, until Spring of this year when community pressure to address the increasing numbers of MMDs that were popping up in the city. CM Jose Huizar's move was to end the "hardship exemption" this year, prompting hundreds more applications to be filed before any change became effective. There's always something that sounded good on paper but didn't quite work out in application.

Well, read the story and see the others involved over the roles that they played over the years. There's a lot that you'd expect should have been done that didn't happen, but that often happens with the way the City Council works. The big public comment day a couple of weeks ago had CM Dennis Zine appearing frustrated with the snail's pace progress that was being made and urged the PLUM Committee to adopt the West Hollywood law as a model and then make adjustments to it later. (Now why didn't that come up BEFORE by anyone? TOO logical? Well, "better late than never" applies here.)


CITY COUNCIL TO HAVE A DRAFT ORDINANCE ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA TODAY.

Council President Eric Garcetti announced today that there would be a draft ordinance online for review later this afternoon. The ordinance that was to be drafted to the specifications that the Council agreed upon in the rounds of hearings will be ready to view by going to the city's website. It will be coming up for more discussion

Tomorrow's AGENDA item no. 8, Council File: 08-0923 will bring up the matter again . This will go on for a while but you need to remember that the City Attorney Carmen Trutanich and the District Attorney Steve Cooley had been saying for some time that the state law, "The Compassionate Use Act," does not allow "sales" to be part of the operations. The Council really did all it could to ignore that advice for a long time and then Jerry Brown, the Attorney General for California, said "sales" are not permittied. SO the council apparently started to believe that part and plan in that feature. But not all were happy, and really, if they could allow sales legally and collect taxes, they would as any money source gets their attention these days.

Check the city's web site or just make a google search later for the draft ordinance. And there's more to come. No matter what you hear from these council members praising each other at even the slightest incremental advance on this issue, no one is a "hero" or real "leader" in this area. (I think it's simply politics at a base level where their constant praise of each other will gradually imprint on the members of the public who are either uninformed or easily impressed.) They should have figured this out earlier, like 2007 and they really needed to shut down the businesses around that time, too, when there were few. Doing nothing just encouraged all the others to open in the City. No heroes here in this batch of CMs.

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.]

Another City Council Extravagant Spending Item In a Budget Crisis

"Pen Pushers Break Bank: Cash-Strapped L.A. City Hall Spends $1 Million on Calligraphy; Despite fiscal free fall, Villaraigosa and City Council spend public money on scrolls," By Daniel Heimpel, Published on April 08, 2009 at 4:12pm, http://www.laweekly.com/2009-04-09/news/pen-pushers-break-bank-cash-strapped-l-a-city-hall-spends-1-million-on-calligraphy/

The L.A. Weekly has a revealing story about the City Council's questionable expensive spending choice, another one, that's been going on for years. It's all about the costs that City Council runs up each year, and continues doing that for something costing $1 million a year. This is from the city's "Creative Services" that employs calligraphers to make the fancy certificates that get handed out at the Friday awards presentations before the actual business part of the council meeetings begins. (See a sample shown with the L.A. Weekly's on-line story linked above) The Mayor Sam blog http://mayorsam.blogspot.com/ mentions in the "Mayor Sam's Hotsheet for Friday," that this came to light last year, brought out by Walter Moore, the strongest challenger that Mayor Villaraigosa faced in the March 3 city election. Moore was a source of a lot of information that revealed more examples of waste in the city government, much directly attributed to the Mayor.

I was already aware that the city was spending a lot on this but the figure that I had was $500,000, but the LA. Weekly has it at over twice that amount. The story includes a recap of the salary figures for council members and for the Mayor that have been mentioned before. But the idea that the Council still continues to spend money on the awards while deep in the midst of a budget disaster just goes to show you how much they worry more about themeselves than the condition of the city. That is what I have been saying all along, but that's something anyone can figure out from observation. The L.A. Weekly puts it all out front nicely:

"Yet the council and Villaraigosa recently cut back on such basics as city
paramedic captains and library books, even as they continued to burn through a
cool $1 million a year by ordering up a mountain of scrolls — 27,978 of them in
the 2007-08 fiscal year alone. They are on track to repeat that feat this year.
The elaborate scrolls often depict a glowing image of City Hall set among
garlands and highlighted with gold inking of the sort associated with
illuminated manuscripts."

I was just at the local branch library and noticed a lot of display changes and asked what happened. A librarian told me that they re-arranged things now with more space being available because there were a lot of cuts in funding for magazines orders and they didn't need so much space anymore. That was one effect of budget cuts. But the fancy awards continue as a public relations item to get the council members some goodwill, and the cost is paid by taxpayers.

One paragraph shows that the Mayor actually did some relevant work on city business to try to save some expenses, and the blame for the continuation of the extravagant spending lies squarely with the Council, and it's not something they can claim was some accident they were not told about:

"During the fiscal year so far, the mayor’s office ordered 4,215 of these
“certificates.” Last year, Villaraigosa sought to trim seven employees from the
Creative Services Division to save $600,000 annually, according to his office.
He was rebuffed by the nation’s highest-paid City Council, who rallied like a
court of stunned Rose Parade princesses facing the loss of their matching
gowns."

Check this story for more details and you will see why this council, each the highest paid in the country for work at a city level, and their pay exceeds or nearly matches many federal officials including federal judges and congress persons. They plainly get paid too much money to keep them honest. Who could ever walk away from this job? Reducing the pay to make it more in line with being a "public servant." Being a Council Member should be a task done for the simple reason that it is for the city's benefit, and not to enrich them personally. The function of the job is to get good things done, not to make them financially comfy and work their position to get more power for further personal benefit. But that's what they do. Reduce that pay and you will get a complaining response, "If you don't pay well, then you won't get the same quality of people to do the job." But I am talking about being paid lavishly when it comes to public service pay scales. If we did not get the same "quality" running for office, it just might be an improvement over the ones currently occupying the seats. You can see what's done now and fluffing up the pay just allows their arrogance to become more deeply entrenched- making them even believe that they actually "deserve" all of what their paid.

Read the story on this little bit of that big picture that takes a big bite of the taxpayers dollars for simple vanity to be catered to and manipulated by Council members. If you believe this should be continued as something of value, I might agree if you see that the value goes to the Council members and not to the city. That's all the more reason that they should chip in to cover all of it- it's a campaign device in disguise that taxpayers are paying for. Another example of some very expensive stroking going on that is completely worthy of immediate elimination as a City-paid expense.

==========================
See also, more from another L.A. Weekly story, just before the March 3 elections were held; it's about what Council Members get as the true value BEYOND their paychecks:
"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 - http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-26/news/los-angeles-on-300-000-a-year

President Obama speaks at Miguel Contreras Learning Center- and everyone is riding on his coat tails.

President Obama had a stop at the LAUSD's "Miguel Contreras Learning Center" located mere blocks from the LAUSD's Beaudry headquarters. If you have seen the City Council bend over backwards to congratulate each other then you get an idea of how this started off. Mayor Villaraigosa and Govenor Schwarzenegger were there first, congratulating each other and thanking politicians who were there and even the ones who were not there. The pompousity was in generous supply. The President was spared some but not all of this as he arrived a little later.

Typically, the tired phrase you also hear in City Council meetings, "congratulations on your great leadership," also was used here to introduce the Mayor, but used by the Governor this time. It's almost a phrase delivered in reflex fashion by the city hall dwellers, particularly annoying on "awards day" with another coming on Friday. It's always a headshaker when they use that phrase with the oft-absent Mayor. He's currently awaiting confirmation that the final vote count in the city election gives him the "majority" of votes for the win. 54% of the voters chosing him is far from a landslide.

One interesting sound clip was of a young student telling the President that there were problems at that school, that 25 teachers were fired and got pink slips. I really resent sending in kids to deliver messages that they don't really understand to squeeze out some emotion from the audience to come over to their side. The young fellow's statement was wrong, but what do you expect with a young child as a messenger? - the firings or "layoffs," to use a euphemism, have yet to occur, and the pink slips do not mean "you are dead, job-wise," only that your number might come up. But if you DIDN'T get a pink slip, you won't be laid off. Of course, you can be fired for other things, but not solely from being on the bottom of the seniority totem pole. Sending out the kids to tug at your emotions is a slimy practice, but it's not the first time and we'll see this more as the "pink slips" get closer to becoming "layoffs."

Most of the answers that President Obama gave were more along the lines of examples of political rhetoric, delivered with as much verbosity as used by any politician this side of Joe Biden. The access to the event was very limited and the audience might have been "stacked" in support of Obama, I'd say, with many yelling "We Love You," even before he got there. I didn't hear any "hecklers" of any type. I am not sure about what actually was the purpose in having these town hall meetings but it got a lot of people excited. I think it was just to be able to piggy-back some political meetings during the visits.

I am still puzzled about facts surrounding the sudden death in 2005 of the namesake of the center, Miguel Contreras, a major figure as a labor leader and friend of the Mayor and others and how a school is named after him. The process is principally a politically controlled one, I am convinced.

Naming schools was an easy job years ago when all you had to do was pick a U.S. president for the high schools, and that stopped at "Kennedy"- probably as matter of not having anymore new schools in LAUSD to name for many years. Lesser names, but still major American historical figures, were abundant for Jr. Highs. I knew "Florence Nightingale" but sometimes I do mix her up with "Clara Barton," organizer of the American Red Cross. I knew about "Luther Burbank," the American botanist of amazing accomplishment. The elementary schools were almost self-evident, with names plucked off the street signs from the corner on which the school was situated.

L.A. WEEKLY had a story, a controversial one, on the Contreras death in the October 6, 2006 edition, The Final Hours of Miguel Contreras, http://www.laweekly.com/2006-10-26/news/the-final-hours-of-miguel-contreras/ by David Zahniser. It was truly an intriguing article and just gives you more of a perspective on some of the powerful people in politics, and the influence that may be exerted. It was not a piece that was praised by all, but I thought it was a great bit of work, much better than a lot of things that skimp on facts or accuracy or both.

A story by Ric Orlov of the Daily News in 2006, comments on the situation and what it was about, "REPORT QUERIES LACK OF AUTOPSY ON LABOR LEADER NEWSPAPER: CONTRERAS' HEART ATTACK WAS AT SITE FREQUENTED BY PROSTITUTES," http://www.thefreelibrary.com/REPORT+QUERIES+LACK+OF+AUTOPSY+ON+LABOR+LEADER+NEWSPAPER:+CONTRERAS
For a bit more on reporter David Zahniser, see an item appearing on the blog, From the Desert to the Sea, "On the LA Weekly, David Zahniser and the Progressive Movement," http://johnstodderinexile.wordpress.com/2006/10/27/on-the-la-weekly-david-zahniser-and-the-progressive-movement/ that discusses the story and the views on how reporting is and is not done in Los Angeles.

A lot of other stories were generated by the L.A. Weekly story, and you can search online yourself for more that each have a particular point of view, as you can judge for yourself.

The namesake of the school, the speaking site chosen for today's meeting with the President, has that engaging tale that Obama probably could not even imagine, although a few of the politicians there today might know more from their own personal experience, being among those in this growing fishbowl of local and state politics.

My "Summing it up" views on City Election Day

I was thinking about what to put into my next blog entry, with nearly all things being about the election locally in Los Angeles and not too much else. Well, I decided what might be useful to share with you reading this on Election Day for Los Angeles, maybe repeating some things presented in the past, today, worth another look for some decision to be made.

I sent an email late yesterday to a friend of many years who worked with me for a time back 30 years ago- how time flies- and we have teneded to let months, sometimes years, pass between calls. We both knew just about the same group of people from that time and the origins of so many Latinos in political and legal circles. Even before then, she's not lived in the City of L.A. so is spared from a lot of the impact our "leaders" have inflicted upon the residents and businesses in the name of "public service." We surely are not.

She, like many or most people, is a busy person and spends time on other things, so the comings and goings of city hall don't get much notice at all except for the Villaraigosa-style photo-op press conferences and publicity stunts that- much to TONY'S delight- get spread across the television broadcasts that pass for "News" these days. So I wanted to let her know another view of things just as a matter of completeness of the picture, and maybe to vent a little.

He's just about all the message, minus the personal asides that messages have, with some highlights and with clarification and spelling in brackets, added here by me:

"Dear [my friend],

I suppose you aren't registered in L.A.and don't have much interest in the elections- lucky you.

Antonio is still plundering his way forward to hit that election nomination for Governor in the 2010 election. That means a year ahead of time to work on his campaign and getting bribes- oh, I mean "campaign contributions"- for the campaign. AND why no debate? Because anything revealed will send him stuttering and lying and his millions will be the smokescreen for his mal-performance.

THERE'S LOTS on Tony and his council who spend hours on Billy the elephant's story, turning it into a circus, so the elephant's already built-in. But they rush Solar Energy Measure B to a vote with very little discussion and really no available facts to fool the voters- Eric Garcettii, the culprit, doing what Antonio needs him to do. AND IT ALWAYS LIKE THAT.

ABOUT THE MAYOR PERSONALLY
That means more travel and more B.S like the 11% mayor story in the LA WEEKLY http://www.laweekly.com/2008-09-11/news/the-all-about-me-mayor/

A FOLLOW-UP ON THE STORY and he's pissed:
or see "The 11 Percent Mayor Villaraigosa Lashes Back. Blasting LA Weekly, he says we relied on bad facts. Aides say he misspoke. By Patrick Range McDonald. .1-7-09.." http://www.laweekly.com/2009-01-08/news/the-11-percent-mayor-villaraigosa-lashes-back

and MORE DOLLARS BURNED BY COUNCIL
Los Angeles on $300,000 a year http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-26/news/los-angeles-on-300-000-a-year/
"Why next week's City Council 'coronation' will cost you far more than money."

Well I will vote for Zuma Dogg and not for Tony or wendy greuel for Controller or JACK WEISS.
* * *
[UCLA alumni news] sent me an alumni newsletter and fluff page on JACK WEISS as the right guy to run for city attorney.

I sent back my own composition listing all the sh** he's done and thanked them for not including their own opinions on others who already know better about the candidate- especially irritating how he held up JAMIELS LAW, the Dennis Zine motiion, in Public Safety Committee from April to October, and WEISS could have sent it to the council floor and should have within a month.-

So HE's the easiest one to decide "REJECT HIM." ANYONE BUT Weiss will do. See Council member Dennis Zine tell it like it is,
http://lincolnquicknotes.blogspot.com/2009/02/zuma-dogg-finds-cm-dennis-zine-rejects.html on my page with a YouTube window for the clip, 2m27s.

and MONICA GARCIA is part of the Villaraigosa machine, totally the wrong person in the office; she [is] into all the old Mechista ideas and not into what will get the students properly educated. Too much personal baggage and hang-up[s] brought with her from Chicano Studies at Berkeley. I think that is where she met Council Member JOSE HUIZAR, my slug for a cm. She was his aide and then moved to the BOARD with TONY'S help. TONY helped Huizar to take TONY'S vacated spot in cd-14 when TONY bailed out to run for Mayor the second time, winning this time.

So, [my friend], sometimes it's better to not know all the things going on- and I could rattle off another page of ills and bad dollar deals that LAUSD made recently and in the past; all bad moves and very expensive to the taxpayer.

QUESTION- if LAUSD student avg. performance sucks (and the Asians keep scores from gong totally in the toilet) [for Lincoln], why do neighboring cities, especially Alhambra NOT have a poor record. I passed by Alh. H.S while entering the new library last week and a big banner is on the front of the building, and it says they have exceeded State testing requirements for the last 3 years. I don't think it's the Asian element- could be, but there has to be more.

Ok. need to go- tell your friends who are LA registered voters to vote- UNLESS they are Villaraigosa people, then skip it. Tony's already mobilized the uninformed to get their votes tomorrow. "


And that, by E-mail, is my "summing-it-up" opinion to let you see that WE can change things and NEED TO do that.

Art Walk band "Killsonic" gets L.A. Weekly coverage

Being informed by alumus Mike Ibarra that his son and band, Killsonic, featured in the L.A. TIMES a few weeks back in the downtown L.A. "Art Walk" monthly event, are getting more publicity, I am compelled to relay the following information to you.

So, as I do when the rare occasion arises, I will pass along such news and features contributions as presented to me by members of Lincoln's alumni. Here again, it's that band that is anything but gentle, and the place to see the story, "Killsonic: A 24-Piece L.A. Big Band's 'Cloud of Noise'," is the L.A. Weekly in print, February 18, 2009, or online, http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-19/music/killsonic-a-24-piece-l-a-big-band-39-s-quot-cloud-of-noise-quot/2

It is really the right band to describe as having a "unique" sound, and maybe even "loud."

The "Bungled Solar Plan"- Another view of Tony, Brian and David giving it to you, and NOT in a nice way.

Here's more on, yes, Solar Measure B, the ballot initiative that comes up for a voter decision in Los Angeles on March 3rd- Tuesday, all the elections fall on Tuesdays by some rule that is only important to know that day, Tuesday. The story "LOS ANGELES' BUNGLED SOLAR PLAN; How D'Arcy and Villaraigosa turned clean energy into a dirty dispute," February 10, 2009, ( http://www.laweekly.com/2009-02-12/news/los-angeles-39-bungled-solar-plan/ ) is a pretty concise, to-the-point and very revealing article as the Los Angeles Weekly continues to produce about L.A politics. There is so much bad that is happening in government that books could be written on all the political people and their conniving.

This story, by reporter Beth Barrett, puts it down very clearly and it tells a very direct tale of how our Mayor Tony is involved in this mess, as it turns out, again for his own career advancement.

"Career Advancement," all for Tony, and it's the reason for most of what Tony does. Notice it's not doing "what is good for the city," because that doesn't happen here. A lot in the story is the same information as what I posted earlier today, but I did not copy that from this story. Lots of the same things show up because both just report the same facts that are seen as the whole series of events have unfolded. You know, it's like two play-by-play announcers describing the same game, one is broadcasting for the home team and the other is sending the story back home to the visiting team. Tony and friends try to hide things and sometimes they do get away with it since they are career politicians who manipulate things while they make a living at it.

"David" in the title here is David Nahai, a lawyer Tony appointed to be the DWP general manager and is loyal to TONY- you know that, too: "When he says 'jump', you say 'How high?'" Expect nothing EVER from David that goes against the Mayor's decisions. And that's how it is here in this story.

Read the story, it's much shorter than my version and she's the one paid for writing anyway.

You still come up with the bottom line, we in L.A. are being asked to sign off on a bad deal that benefits the UNION- oh, I forgot- the "Brian" part in my title is for "Brian D'Arcy" who runs the IBEW in the DWP operations, the union big wig. Brian is the one who put together lots of the terms. Remember there's a part written into this Measure that requires the IBEW workers only to handle installation. Gee, that's one part that Brian can claim credit for. Can you tell? And the idea of Unions is that the benefit of any deal the Union makes is going to .... the Union, not the DWP, not the Consumers or the City, but the UNION. That's always the way the game is played. No surprises here.

The idea that this is a locked in deal means it is going to be costing us more just on the basis that there is no competition for the work and THAT means "not an ecomical deal." IBEW: 1, Consumers:0. And on it goes.

Tony gets the credit for this, as the story tells you. I knew that part just from knowing Tony and keeping track of his antics. I used to support him but somewhere after losing the first election for Mayor, he turned bad and not just bad as a person, but bad in hurting people financially for one part and by dragging L.A,. into more wasteful things that are not honest. His personal family life is important as well, and you already know that part, so you won't expect to see the same family photos in campaign brochures this time around. But I don't need discussion on that aspect to decide against a second term for Tony.

There's a Mayoral Candidate Forum in Eagle Rock "Center for Arts" this Thursday night at 7:00 pm for all candidates to talk, and it's not even a debate, just a "tell us about yourself and why you should be mayor" kind of thing and a sort of brief mixer afterward. Well, Tony is not coming because of a "schedule conflict," according to his aide. I will tell you right now that the conflict is that his schedule rules out any appearances with any of the challengers. That way Tony doesn't goof up and lose votes- or even worse, by allowing some words of truth to come out - maybe even about "Solar Measure B."

Imagine that. Mayor Tony can't explain it to us, doesn't have the exact cost, and still wants us to give him complete authority to run up expenses and to approve later changes without any other supervision or vote. (and the story shows there LOTS of information still MISSING- the EXACT COSTS is just one of the things that should sink this deal on that basis alone. "You want to charge me and you still don't know how much it's going to cost us?" And he will be long gone when the entire impact of this will be realized, another nice deal for him.

Please check the story and don't rely on me only when you form your own opinion. Tony, David and Brian are on the same side- and it's not yours.

Elections all done? Still a chance in March to change the City.

The Presidential election is over but the city elections are almost here. Locally, voters in Lincoln Heights will be deciding on who will represent it in Council District 1 ("CD-1"). Ed Reyes has been the Council Member ("CM") since winning the CD-1 seat on the Council in 2001, just barely avoiding a runoff election. The current term would have been the last term for Reyes, except that the City-created "Measure R" passed in November 2006 added a third term. That part of "Measure R" was played down so as not to draw attention away from the "ethics reform" half of the combined ballot measure, one prime example of the self-serving nature of CMs when fairness takes a back seat to personal interest.

Grab a copy today of the free L.A. WEEKLY at libraries, stores, restaurants and news stands before the new edition comes out tomorrow so you can see their big story on how public access t.v. has been cut out so that you will no longer have community access channels to see what the local politicians are up to as Channel 35 presents on cable t.v. now.

The L.A. WEEKLY gives loads of details to show how "special interests" can get lawmakers to change laws if they get to the right people to take their side. Fabian Nunez, ex-Assembly Speaker, was a prime mover on the state's change in the law. Could he have been motivated by the heavy campaign funds headed his way, as well as his favored charity getting sizeable donations from the telephone industry, including AT&T?

The CMs in LA really did nothing to resist cutting this out and voted approval. That means that there will be no more cable access channel, beginning next month. [The online version of the L.A. WEEKLY is still available at http://www.laweekly.com/ , but the hard copy versions can be carried around to read without having to be near a computer.]

And if you still believe that L.A. City politicians really care about the common people of the city, see "L.A. Slams Residents With Stiff Fees and Taxes" by David Heimpel in the same L.A. WEEKLY edition, also available onlline at http://www.laweekly.com/2008-12-11/news/l-a-slams-residents-with-stiff-fees-and-taxes/ . The continuing mismangement of the city by the council under Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's so-called and ego-driven leadership means that when more money is needed they come to the regular people to carry the burden.

Ed Reyes, along with most of the other CM's, has continued to support these measures, being a strong supporter of Villaraigosa, even if that means that his constituents suffer as a result. Any examples to show you? Yes, and one big one is described in the "L.A. Slams Residents..." article, with a little sample shown here:

In May 2006, the City Council announced a trash-collection fee that
Villaraigosa sold to residents by publicly promising it would go to hiring 1,000
new cops. In concert with that, the City Council has boosted the trash fee 330
percent, from $11 to $36.32.

The fee hike goes far beyond the actual cost of collecting and dumping trash. By this fall, it had generated a $137 million mountain of cash. But Villaraigosa’s vow that the excess funds would go to hiring cops proved untrue. An audit by city Controller Laura Chick has shown that Villaraigosa and Police Chief William Bratton spent only $47.2 million hiring new officers. Much of the rest went to raises and perks for the powerful police union.

This is an eye-opening article for those of you who just quietly assumed that city lawmakers had your best interests at heart and that things were all fine and well at City Hall. Well, that's not the way it is. If you do not do anything about politicians taking advantage of their power, they will continue to pick your wallet and leave you worse off, while they empower their own circle of friends with lucrative contracts and appointments to positions. These actions are there for you to see if you examine beyond what they present to you.

Ed Reyes as the CD-1 incumbent in the March election has the advantage in money for advertising and other campaign tools over his opponent, Jesus Rosas, the only challenger for Reyes to face. Despite the disparity in the power base shown in this Council race, you should really give serious thought for change, if only for the sake of change. A good showing at the polls will let politicians know that the voters' support is not to be taken for granted.

As another example of representation of the people and not the existing political machines of the incumbents, Mayor Villaraigosa is facing a long list of challengers for his second term. The most interesting challenger on that list is Zuma Dogg, a city activist, beginning over two years ago in that role with a dispute for his own matter with the city and learning the ropes of what goes on in city hall since then, much to the chagrin of the Council.

Zuma Dogg has probably attended more meetings than many of the Council Members over the last six months where he did not miss a single meeting. The CMs do not like that they have to explain anything to anyone, but he finds and reveals a lot of the problems that make the city worse, AND it's not just negativity. Among the discussions during limited "public comment" time that the Council provides, Zuma Dogg gives some pointed and highly spirited presentations that the CMs try to ignore, often only to find out that what he says IS true.

Ed Reyes' representation of CD-1 should be examined, as well as his ties to the policies and instructions he received from Mayor Antonio. As a certainty, the Mayor needs to be ousted for the benefit of the city- Villaraigosa is the "All-AboutMe 11-% Mayor" who cares about his own publicity first, over the city's well-being, over his duties, and even over family. (See the September L.A. WEEKLY article that reveals "Hours of travel, fund-raising and PR leave little time for his job. ... " http://www.laweekly.com/2008-09-11/news/the-all-about-me-mayor/ )

Any vote for Reyes should be carefully considered- unless you work for him and then you just want to keep your well-paid job and might even make anonymous blog comments against the challengers to keep your guy in office. For the rest of use, some dedication to the constituents and not to the paycheck would be nice to see. Reyes, makes the standard council salary of OVER $186,000.00 a year, an amount that is the highest in the entire United States, and there's MORE benefits, too, you know. That's comes to a tidy sum of $15, 500 a MONTH, a salary figure that's really WAY, too high for elected "public servants." But just try to get them to take a pay cut and these "servants" just about revolt.

There should not be automatic votes for whoever is in office, raising your bills, wasting your money, and expecting you to be grateful for any attention you get from them. THEY should be thanking YOU for the support that put them into office, and, that support can and should be REMOVED when they fail to represent you. More later.