More Deception in City Council Chambers- "Yes" votes whether present or not, Times' report shows.

This story clears up a lot of suspicions on what really goes on in and behind Council Chambers. The fact is that the Council members rarely remain in their seats during the entire meeting, and usually can be found with their attention turned to conversations they are having with others at or around their seats. Sometimes they are missing and whenever that absence is remarked upon by a constituent from the podium, Eric Garcetti is quick to reply that they do have their audio outside of the chambers to keep CMs apprised of the comments. Now we see the bigger picture on that situation.

"Automatic 'yes' votes allow time for back-room dealing at City Hall - Thanks to voting software, City Council members can hold meetings, give interviews, even grab a smoke while deciding the day's issues."
By David Zahniser and Maeve Reston, L.A. Times, March 8, 2010 5:37 p.m.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-backroom9-2010mar09,0,194476,full.story

You have to wonder why this charade is tolerated when you have this body so full of itself that they constructed their own "rules of decorum" for speakers in the Council meetings last year, with the penalty of banishment from speaking again at the podium for a specified number of days. This was a thinly veiled action that was mainly directed at Zuma Dogg who has continually pointed out their shortcomings and has been often indelicate in making these comments. However, the free speech issues are at issue and he's presented a case in federal court to challenge the practices.

Jan Perry, presiding over the Council meeting a couple of weeks ago. She's often needing cues from assistants with the procedures during the meetings, but had no trouble cutting Zuma Dogg's time short quickly one day because his voice was "too loud." Perry cut off his microphone, telling him, "You're done," as he did not comply with her complaint. Then she had him banned from 30 meetings- "meetings," not "days"- for a profanity uttered after he was cut off. I have heard others with louder presentations over the last few months that have not received any such "warning" and see that this enforcement of these "decorum" rules is all subjectively applied when they get irritated with a speaker, and usually but not always, it's Zuma Dogg. CM Perry that day was totally off in her count of "minutes remaining" for public comment, and on another day during a special meeting, she was calling for "general public comment" when there is no "public comment" allowed if it's a "special meeting"- and theh she reached the end of a short agenda, almost caught by surprise judging from her reaction to that news.

Well, on the behind-the-scenes level of Council chicanery, you now have an "auto pilot" permanently set on the electronic voting mechanism to produce a "Yes" vote for any phantom council member. Reading the story shows just how detached the CMs have become from their expected job of being attentive to what's going on AND to STAY there while this is all going on. I usually see Alarcon and Cardenas as the ones who appear above the rules by their comments and the way they handle discussions and questioning of department personnel. A lot of arrogance with not too much purpose other than trying to look like they know what they are doing. Really, they are aware that they are on t.v. and they play all this up for the cameras so the uninitiated can believe these guys are sharp, which they are not, at least not sharp enough to have good solutions.

The real potential for procedural disaster would be to be with too few CMs present to constitute a quorum, thus no action of legal effect could be conducted by the Council. If quorum is lost and a vote is taken, that result should be void- but with the very loose application of everything they should be doing, who is going to make that deterimination? There is not "traffic cop" in the council chambers to keep track of these things. We see in the story that "listening" would be a few steps above what's really happening, since audio is not present in many of the examples for any comprehension by a CM of what's transpiring before a vote. They are often not even aware that a vote is happening when they leave if the are conducting a backroom meeting.

One other item that is mentioned gives us an example of another imbalance of access to these CMs who are supposed to represent us. The meetings and conversations are often with "lobbyists" as noted in calendars of the CMs. Consider WHO is getting the most attention by CMs during or outside the meetings: A "lobbyist" who is paid by a client is the agent with the job of getting the client's desired outcome agreed to by a CM. Like the pharmacy reps that visit the doctors offices to get their brand of medicines prescribed. What about the private citizen, the regular man or woman who wants to have Council members hear and fairly evaluate their 2-minute comment - sometimes only 1-minute is allowed if there are very many seeking to speak?

Let's see now. A lobbyist in the office of a CM to make their pitch on something for their clients that is a one-on-one encounter of a conversational style vs. the public commenter at the podium who gets no feedback or direct exchange with any CMS, while the CMs go about the regular business? They may or may not be listening at all. Who's the one that you would expect gets their point or points across for the CMs to consider?

And to close on this topic for now, what about the NEW members of the Council, Paul Koretz and Paul Krekorian who had to learn about this system and DID NOT REVEAL it or challenge it? It seems that when you come into the Council you are with 'em or again' 'em, so the compliance with theses secrets seems to be more important to them both, than to bring it out for the public's knowledge and reaction to this practice. But they did NOT say anything of the sort and were not the ones responsible for exposing the practice. Good job for David Zahniser and Maeve Reston, L.A. Times reporters. Koretz and Krekorian get some demerits for lack of action that should have been taken on their parts.

It comes down to the CMs guilty of more failings that a CM should be handling properly. Other cities noted in the story do not allow a vote to count for their members who have left the floor. So in L.A. we only give lip service to things that the City Council considers not to be too important- like voting on motions. And that just doesn't sit well with me, at least. Next March we will be voting for all the even numbered districts' CMs. A lot of changes should be made and the more you examine with city council, the more reasons you see for change.

Mayor wants your money for DWP again- Beware.

"L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa considers a carbon surcharge for DWP customers - The extra revenue would be used to move the utility from coal to wind, solar and geothermal sources of energy. The mayor wants 20% of the agency's power to come from renewables by December." By David Zahniser, L.A. Times, February 28, 2010. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-dwp-rates1-2010mar01,0,4539226.story Again, the Mayor is creating the result as he pleases to punish L.A. residents for his own sins.

Unless the DWP secures the extra revenue, Villaraigosa will not meet his goal of having 20% of the utility's electricity come from renewable sources by Dec. 31, said former Deputy Mayor Sean Clegg, a political consultant who worked on a voter survey dealing with the issue.

"Without a carbon surcharge . . . the DWP is going to start going backwards on the renewable portfolio," he said.

Clegg said the mayor had not settled on the size of a proposed surcharge, which could be higher or lower than the $2.50 proposal included in a voter survey commissioned by the mayor. That poll, commissioned by Villaraigosa's Committee for Government Excellence and Accountability, concluded that 64% of respondents would support a $2.50 surcharge.

The results were obtained, in part, to influence the city's "opinion makers" -- including the City Council, which will probably vote on a new DWP surcharge in coming weeks.

This is, to put it mildly, more crap from the Mayor's office- and I say his "office" since I don't completely believe he does much work on his own, but has all this staff he's hired doing work that Villaraigosa himself might do if he ever decided to stick around L.A. for other than photo opps and parties. It is another plan to perform that surgery that separates money from the person, and trying to do it at a $2.50 a month clip, so as to be "painless." Don't believe that this rate is where it will end.

The other part of this story is that the "survey" that is used as a basis for forming the conclusion that their a majority in support of that charge is the survey is FROM A SMALL SAMPLE. They like to tell you all about the statistics but don't tell you about the data source so you can see how the responses were elicited. Shaping the results of a poll is one possibilty when you don't see how the questions were asked. Without more of the numbers upon which they make these claims, I can't believe anyone wants more taxes, and that's what it is, a tax and not a fee.

There is something novel that I saw from the story- Council member Jan Perry making a statement that actually is a reaonable assessment of the situation and makes some sense, a true rarity, and here it is:

Councilwoman Jan Perry said it would be "hard to explain" why the city is scaling back on services, including road repairs and libraries, while asking DWP customers to absorb more expensive bills.

"I think this is a tough time to ask people about any increase, unless you've made a very strong case to show that you have reduced operating costs as much as possible," she said.

And she might have gathered this little bit of pure wisdom from the City Council's action in December 2009, again with DWP, approving the contract that gave raises when Jan Perry herself mentioned last week in a heated exchange with Krekorian about the need for 4,000 layoffs being discussed in December 2008, a year before the approval of the DWP contracts. From the December 11, 2009 L.A. Times story:

Council members agreed to give a 3.25% increase this year and four consecutive
raises ranging from 2% to 4%, depending on inflation.

The agreement was negotiated in a year that police will receive no raises and other civilian workers are experiencing pay cuts between December and June.

The agreement drew fire from Jack Humphreville, a DWP critic who said it was unfair for the utility’s employees to get raises when others civilian workers face such sacrifices.

It was all a sweetheart deal that the council approved unanimously- as they approve most things in unison with each other. That was something that challenged simple logic and generated more spin to cover the outcome as not being total lunacy, but as far as I could figure it out, it was absolutely irreconcilable with any notions of rational and prudent behavior on the part of the City Council. Perry probably was trying to avoid a repeat performance after that December bending over for the IBEW union that represents the DWP workers.

Representatives of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18, which represents 8,648 DWP employees, have argued that the DWP already helps the city budget by providing more than $200 million each year to the general fund, which pays for police, firefighters and other services. Meanwhile, Council President Eric Garcetti said that city civilian employees would see a raise of nearly 6% in 2011.

All these quotes were from the story in the L.A. Times at http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/la-council-unanimously-approves-raise-for-dwp-employees.html?cid=6a00d8341c630a53ef01287648a0c9970c

You have something shown in this story that is up front as something very important and you have to question this just a little bit. Its the Union's acknowledgement of a passing over to the city general fund of a sum of $200 million dollars yearly. And Garcetti has the shortsightedness in budget terms to state the city workers' raise of almost 6% in 2011 ( do you think that's still happening?). $200 million a year? And this goes to the city like some Godfather coming in to collect his cut? The idea to me seems that the DWP should have any of the excess money over the expenses either refunded to customers or, (and importantly, neglected) re-invested into the infrastructure to replace or perform maintenance on worn or failing equipment. We see bursting water mains regularly now and a firefighter was killed in an explosion just over a year ago when an electrical vault exploded. That death was attributed to faulty equipment within the DWP's responsibility.

It's an agency run just like a slumlord who takes out money from the tenants and does not put any back to maintain the premises, his lawful obligation to do. And the money collected appears to be "profit" based on the neglect of the duties to provide proper facilities for the tenant's payment of rent. It's like that with the DWP but the City Council only looked into it when problems are put in their faces. DWP should not have all this "money to spare" that it has. Maybe that's something to consider before they try these plans to raise their rates.

One more thing- these surveys really are bogus operations. They put things online to placate critics so as to create a feeling of "making a difference" when you take the survey. Except that everything is slanted to get your answers to fit in neat pigeon-holes that the survey-takers use to support their claims of approval by the public. That's what is happening here when they say approvals are shown. Not everyone even knows about the surveys and then others see online solicitations by the mayor and have no interest in aiding their attempt to validate a survey crafted to show a pre-planned result.

They don't use actual numbers, just "percentages"- do we have all 4 million residents or maybe just 4000 persons in the city participating? I have to look upon this with a lot of doubt and suspicion since distortion and misrepresentation have been used very freely in Los Angeles politics.

So when I see Jan Perry's statement on the current surcharge matter, I have to be surprised from seeing a recognition by her of the problem and more significantly, that she actually learned something from her nonsensical vote last December for these DWP raises.

City actions and "How does this help US?" questions

First, I want to lay off the mayor today- and I don't mean "employment-wise" even though, now that I think of it, it doesn't sound like a bad idea. No, I mean I won't put in my criticism of his activities in today's posting- and there's been a few in the last couple of days that I will leave that for others to present, and that crowd is an ever growing one. Instead, I will point out a few of the actions in city council by our CMs that might cause you wonder, "Why the big push over such things?"

LACTATION ROOMS IN CITY BUILDINGS
First, CM Tony Cardenas was into creating "Lactation Rooms" in city buildings- and I supposed either rented OR owned- where there are at least 250 occupants. I still don't know if this is about breast feeding babies by city employees at work, which I doubt. Or, is this for the public's benefit? And the idea seems to be to promote pumping of breast milk for later use for infants.

I mentioned this here in this blog when it came up in November and it was a bad itdea then when the city wasn't so heaving into treading water for financial survival. http://lincolnquicknotes.blogspot.com/search/label/tony%20cardenas It's now a worse idea.

On the agenda:

"ITEM NO. (18) - Motion Required - Two Reports on One File
09-1950

CONTINUED CONSIDERATION OF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS and ARTS, PARKS, HEALTH AND AGING COMMITTEES’ REPORTS relative to the feasibility of creating lactation rooms for mothers with newborns in City facilities with 250 or more occupants."

There's more in print but this is the core of it.

No matter what, THIS is a bad time to even study it, which is what City Council approved during Wednesday's meeting. "Study the feasiblity of creation of lactation rooms" What is this? It can't happen without money and Cardenas voiced his idea that maybe a corporate sponsor would come forward for this. That's doubtful as well, since they would look as out of place with putting their money on this accessorizing the Titanic as it's going down. No, looking for contributions for flotation gear would be more appropriate if we are going anywhere with the metaphors.

You know there's less city employees by way of the Early Retirement Incentive Program. 2400 have chosen that as their manner of exiting city service. So the work remaining for all areas has to be covered by what or whoever is left. I need to ask, is this assignment of a study REALLY necessary? Does anyone think it ranks above, say, keeping library functions open, or police on the job? Why intentionally divert city "man-hours"- or as a gender-neutral observation, city "person hours"- to this task? What is the study going to tell us that would be really ABSOLUTELY USABLE NOW and worth whatever charges will be created for the task?

I say, CM Cardena, stop trying to gear up for the next Mayor's race with such thkngs when you see the city ready to be sold off, piece by piece to cover management mistakes.

NEXT- NO SMOKING IN RESTAURANTS AT ALL

The council on Wednesday banned smoking in the outdoor areas where it was the last place smokers could go publicly to puff on the tobacco goods. Does the city have to spend time on this kind of thing? A CM mentioned that this was the kind of law adopted by an adjacent city and that it was then predicted to cause a loss of business for restaurants, and it did.

You have now the city controlling pot, and none too well from the history as proof, and you have Jan Perry's ban on more fast food franchises in South L.A. (formerly "South-Central L.A." but what's in a name anyway) because those residents are not mature or educated enough to make proper decision on food to affect their health. So Jan Perry steps in to fix it. No new franchises opening? A business-friendly city, indeed, Mr. Council President Eric Garcetti. Garcetti last month chastised a critic - "Don't lecture me about being business friendly" and then cited what he deemed cleared him. And why do this when the people will just travel to whatever place has their desired fast food, making this kind of regulation very ineffective in the end and penalizing businesses that already have to deal with a bad economy, too? Does that kind of consideration ever cross paths with the thought processes of the Council Members? It surely seems not to happen all too regularly, much to the detriment of the quality of life in L.A.

"L.A. council extends smoking ban to outdoor cafes - Starting next year, restaurant patrons will be barred from lighting up within 10 feet of outdoor dining areas and within 40 feet of mobile food trucks. Violators faces fines of up to $250." By Maeve Reston, January 21, 2010 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-smoking21-2010jan21,0,6071802.story

All this is an excursion in to Nanny Statehood where the public is too stupid to live life by their own choices so that the City is the new Nanny to take care of the care-needy folks. Tell us what to eat, and tell us now about running restaurants and smoking. If a restaurant is annoyingly smokey to patrons, they will not be eager to eat there, business dwindles and changes in the market place will occur. But now, regardless of the DEGREE of intrusion if any into passersby or patrons, the city says, "Can't smoke there anymore- bad for us passing by." CM Greig Smith from what I heard of the meeting was a real complainer and I really wonder how much scientific basis for any of his claims exists. OF COURSE, you know if smoke is annoying, but will you just fall over and die if you walk past any of these areas or do you have to stay for a certain time to be irrevocably harmed? Too many unchallenged assumptions with this, as with every item of city motions to affect free choice.

And if the FIXED areas were enough of an intrusion, THE TACO TRUCKS aka "MOBILE FOOD KITCHENS" will have a buffer zone of smoking-prohibited for a 40-foot radius. So if you are out in the street and light up, look around to see if there's a mobile food truck that's pulled up to withing 40 feet of you. If so, you are in violation. All city council continues to do is put the real problems on the back burner. There are some books that have as the theme, "Don't Sweat the Small Stuff" that talks about what's important to worry about and what's not so important. Such lack of prioritizing has been the curse of City Council for years and continues to be the ongoing practice. (Incidentally, the author of those books died a few years ago but I imagine he did not create his own demons out of nothing while he lived and maybe helped some people to live a better life by seeing a bigger picture).

Nanny State- or Nanny City- as the case may be. We don't need it. It's representative of a government that disregards the choices of its populace and their right to make their own mistakes or successes. As for businesses, all the rules are burying business. Yesterday's L.A. Times had a story about auto repair shops in Glassell Park and Cypress Park and the desire of some to cull the herd of some of them to spruce up the area. Whether this is a move toward gentrification, I don't know, but it does seem that uses that were there for a long time and that provide a livelihood are being rejected more easily in these days where you want to at least not eliminate jobs since the city is very bad at creating jobs in the private sector. The city IS GOOD however with public jobs, creating a lot that they now have to cut due to "no money."

Any way you look at it, the Council is out of touch with things and what is important to a coucil member is what gets the attention, regardless of the real utility, cost or need. Business as usual.

Replacements will be needed when the next elections come around. Think about changing the status quo. And one thing to consider, a lot of this candidates for any office are just the aides and staff chiefs who move up to "take over the family business" so to speak. It's constantly the product for L.A. that you can see by tracing the paths in most council districts. We need DIFFERENT people, not "family members."

What makes Jan Perry more than just annoying? Arrogance on Ethics Issues

"Jan Perry's Grand Avenue Conflict; An L.A. politician votes for public subsidies that boost her home's value,"
By Tibby Rothman, Published on April 15, 2009 at 10:36pm, http://www.laweekly.com/2009-04-16/news/jan-perry-39-s-grand-avenue-conflict

L.A. Weekly. Here's a good example of what's wrong with City Council members. Council Member Jan Perry, CD-9, is one often shows an arrogant attutude in actions taken more so than in the words spoken. Perry has been firmly opposed to any suggestions that her votes in the Council and committees relating to the area where she owns a condo property downtown should cause her to recuse herself. The idea of recusal from discussions and voting is to keep from having personal bias influencing a particular outcome that affects the official, especially financially. A possible effect on land values affecting one's personal real property in the affected area is such a reason.

A selection from the story last week gives you the idea of the power held and the amount of tax dollars re-directed to the Project that Perry considers something "necessary" to the city.

But even in L.A.’s almost feudal system of development, Councilwoman Jan Perry
stands out.

Exhibit 1 is her relentless pursuit of Grand Avenue, a Frank Gehry–designed, bastion-of-luxury, $3.1 billion development on choice public land owned not by developers but by city and county residents. “The Grand” is a taxpayer subsidized, for-profit project including a park that could cost $83.1 million to blow past all previous park spending records. The proposed extravaganza is within a very short walk of Perry’s luxe, chandeliered, security-guarded condo.

The story goes on to compare what has been spent on the downtown money pit, compared to what amounts Van Nuys has received. The CRA, "Community Redevelopment Agency," is considered by many to be an agency specializing in wasting the public's money and coming away with not much to show for it. Not the kind of people you'd want handling your retirement funds investments.

Each step of the way, the Grand Avenue Authority, a joint agency composed of five politicians, including Jan Perry, has approved one pricey feature after another: The world-renowned, if expensive, Gehry. The five-star Mandarin Oriental Hotel. The most expensive public park ever built in park-poor L.A. The stunning $246,800 public salary for Grand Avenue Authority staffer Martha Welborne.

But let's get down to the idea of the story, that CM Perry is into "conflicts of interest" by being involved in the decision-making for something that would affect her financial interests, and maybe at the expense of the public's best interests. I'd say it's sort of a Conflict of Interest in the classic sense. Anyway, the idea is not simply a legal one: "Is it illegal or not?" but an ethical one, where you ask, "Is it right to do that?" Perry will have none of that discussion and you'd have to drag her away to keep her from being involved in the roles she plays in making decisions.

As a member of the City Council and the Grand Avenue Authority, Perry has not one, but two, votes on spending public subsidies on The Grand. She lives within 500 feet of the project — and stands to directly financially benefit if The Grand and the Civic Park are erected, dramatically enhancing the value of her own home.

If she were a judge, she'd be subject to a stricter requirment, ethically, at least, where even "the appearance of impropriety" is sufficient cause to find that an ethics violation has occurred. Politicians probably find those concepts very novel, even though many are attorneys and have seen such standards, even being tested in the state bar exam's "Professional Responsibility Exam"- aka "the ethics exam."

Well, read the story, another informative piece from the L.A. Weekly that continues to bring a lot of the operations of our politicians to light. You may say that everone has his or her opinion and freedom to choose what they do, so back off the polticians- maybe even thinking that they are a smart bunch. Smart, well maybe, but intellectually honest? Different story. When you pay them for a level of service in operating the government with TAX COLLECTED DOLLARS- either federal or state collected- then THEY HAVE to act a certain way, so that's why we examine these things.

From the turnout at the last election, many people don't make the connection to how life gets to be controlled by political decisions right under their noses, and then they wonder how it happened. There were lots of people who did not know that there was an election on March 3rd when the Council seats, the Mayor's office, and City Controller's job, among other things were decided by about a combined vote of 18% of all the registered voters in the City of L.A. Less than 20% of the non-voters (78% roughly) could have come out and changed every single result- at least where there were "challengers" running.

Some races for office were "unopposed" like the case with MONICA GARCIA, LAUSD Board President. She had no opponents really because she had the poltical support of Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa- and you can be sure that what she does is in line with what the Mayor wants to be done. GLORIA MOLINA's last race for re-election as Supervisor of the L.A. County Board of Supervisors was UNOPPOSED- and she had the absolutely silly idea that it was "because the people know what a good job I am doing." And she's got to be in need of serious theraphy if she believes that. It's all about CAMPAIGN MONEY to keep your name and ideas in the face of the public. You already see how uninformed people are who DO vote. Maybe it's good that NOT everyone votes.

And GLORIA has been socking away $1 million a year of discretionary funds, all of tax dollars assigned to Supervisors for their choice of expenditures. After many years, she chose to hand a huge chunk of money to the Mexican American Cultural Museum, or some such title. The point is that this is a cultural matter, and should be handled like anyone does with personal preferences, not making the public's money get funnelled to a special interest project. I think that the money could have been better applied for all the people when you have emergency rooms and hospitals closing and significant services being cut.

In the current cash poor times of woe for government's own handling of money- and the discretionary choice of Supervisor MOLINA is one example of the negative side, I'd say- you really have to think hard about spending choices. Excuse me, but a "cultural" museum is not anywhere close to being a pick. It's personal in nature, really, not a public item. Hebrew schools, Catholic schools, and others, including ethnic-based schools, should be a personal matters; if you want your culture taught, do it, but not at public expense. There's not enough money and that's not what it supposed to be used for. "Culture" is something done by the family and social groups. If you find it weak, talk to that segment to get it moving BY THEM, NOT THE PUBLIC.

Compare another aspect of life where HOME is supposed to create and promote values and behavior. In the LAUSD schoools where courtesy and manners were often a case of first impression for many students, the families have not carried the job forward, and teachers had to fill in the gap if you wanted to reduce a lot of the negatives in social skills for these students, especially needed for a classroom group to operate properly. To do otherwise is to cripple the students by not equipping them with more of "necessary" skills to survive in the real world. Too often that big picture is not seen, and that's a disservice to the students to allow things to continue uncorrected, and especially so for a teacher to be passive about it. These skills are not cultural but universal, yet the students were not all aware of what was needed; that made it our business. Cultural aspects are a private responsibility teach for their own culture, however.

JAN PERRY being well ensconced in her Council position needs some external influences to get her to consider any "Public" good for a change and act accordingly. Remember, she's the one who wanted the nanny-state action of banning fast food outlets in south Los Angeles since the residents were not able to decide for themselves and were getting obese from eating that food. That assumes a lot of things- you can make up your list, almost all being rebuttable. You would almost expect Perry to add to her motions, "Forgive them, Lord, for they know not what they do." Well, you may be getting the idea now.

The L.A. Weekly has much more on the Grand Avenue Project, being nearly the City's version of expensive waste to match LAUSD's choices in their own Beaudry St. high school and the "Arts High School" ("H.S. #9").