Another report on waste of tax $$ on vanity- First Ridley-Thomas, then 10 DWP unknowns; And a word on Villaraigosa's speech.

The story a month or so back in the L.A. Times reported on how there's some pretty big chunks of money that wer not in the interest of the public. It included the $25,000.00 that L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas paid to be included in "Who's Who in Black Los Angeles." in a way that you would put an ad in the Yellow Pages. And this would be his own venture into narcissism and I or many others would not really care, as the public offices are peppered with knuckleheads when it comes to having problems maintaining any personal integrity or dignity.

But Steve Lopez wrote about that and more who have shelled out public money for this same personal luxury today in the LA. TIMES - "Who's Who with whose funds? - L.A. County Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas spent $25,000 for a spot in "Who's Who in Black Los Angeles." The DWP also put down ratepayer funds to spotlight 10 of its top leaders in the book." L.A. Times, April 21, 2010.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopezcolumn-20100421,0,7882706.column

There realy is no accountability by many politicians- dare I say "most polititcians" as well? Lopez makes this some interesting reading if it only it didn't hurt the tax payer. This is the kind of thing that is in line with campaigning for office and maybe even crosses the line of permissible use of public money and it shows that no one is watching the store. When confronted, you can bet there's some idiotic reason they can dream up (they have lots of practice at being idiotic). Another insult added to injury for us out in the public is that these people usually have a nice and secure payday and benefits, which is the case just by knowing that they work for the DWP.

More people should send some words of appreciation to these officials to tell them how we appreciate their generosity with "OPM" (other people's money) or more specifically, "TPM" (Tax Payer's Money). But there's lots more money that will roll in with all the rate hikes proposed by the DWP. I have to remind you that this is an agency out of control as the DWP commission works essentially hand in hand with the Mayor (Tony appoints them all), who himself is often the best friend when it came to union deals, and with all the expense of more added to the DWP payroll, they need to have more money. You know it would kill them to have to dip into the Billion Dollars of funds that they have built up.

Ok, just check the story and maybe I will get to the State of the City Address, 2010-style, that Villaraigosa read pretty well- dull but well. Too bad most of this was a combination of lies, reversals of blame and totally a CYA operation. But, as I seem to say too often here, "What else is new?" And Tony's blaming the economy downturn for where we are as a city is absolutely lame, (pun time), done by the "lame duck" mayor- still with a very long 3 years left on his second and last term.

Ok, I'll leave that for another time but keep checking www.ronkayela.com where you may get a laugh or too with all the bad news of our "leadership" at City Hall.

And check out the Lopez column and see what else he brings up or out.

City Council still trying to find the budget solution; Zuma Dogg's video is on target.

[Updated on Feb. 3, 2010]
The Monday meeting was an 11-hour long session and there still were only a few decisions made. Packing the council chambers were Neighborhood Council members from all over the city, employees, appointees and patrons of the departments that were slated for reduction or elimination, including Disability, Human Relations and Cultural/Arts.

One particular objection to cuts came from CM Bill Rosendahl who said the Calligraphers on staff were not to be cut. And this cost has been reported to be around $500,000 per year, but I have not seen it form myself, but it's still a lot I am told . Of course the CM's won't cut this out since it is a FREE (to them) service to keep them in office. How? You give out the awards in the form of these handmade certificates to people and an organization for whatever reason you choose and you have just bought some votes in the next election. Get these going out to community members often enough and you have a good base of voters. THIS should be the first item to dump but it's a purely selfish decision of Council Members that is paid for by the taxpayer, so it will stay.

There's a report with some important comments and facts on the Monday Budget and Finance Committee meeting in the L.A. Times, "Some L.A. Council members resist spending cuts, layoffs - A majority of the council's Budget and Finance Committee has refused to sign off on the plan to cut 1,000 jobs, a key component in the plan to plug a $208-million shortfall." By David Zahniser and Maeve Reston, February 3, 2010, http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-la-budget3-2010feb03,0,7778047.story


Tuesday's full Council meeting was not quite so long, but there was a much livelier debate. CM Richard Alarcon jumped all over the CAO Miguel Santana about not getting more jobs for the federal stimulus money instead of cutting jobs- but Santana is the administrator, not the guy with the decision making power- apparent even now since the Council is DECIDING what to do with the RECOMMENDATIONS/REPORT of Mr. Santana.

Eric Garcetti, Council President, was quick to take up the theme, "We are a family." Well, maybe instead of a family, if it was treated as a business it wouldn't be so fouled up. Trying to look good to all sides is what the council people try to do. Appeasing the work force and the tax payers at the same time is tough to do and maybe not possible, but "votes" is the precious commodity they constantly strive to amass. That motivates them to spend more and more and say "No" to program funding less and less. The Mayor started the ball rolling down the path to disaster by approving all the DWP's inflated pay scale salaries and raises when he took office after defeating Jim Hahn in Antonio's second run for the Mayor's job.

The difference in pay for DWP jobs is about 20 to 40 percent above comparable positions in the city's other departments. The union, the IBEW (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers) more or less runs the show there at DWP, and they were just given raises in the past few months while other city employees were being furloughed. (See: L.A. Times, "L.A. council unanimously approves raises for DWP employees," December 11, 2009, -- David Zahniser at L.A. City Hall , http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/12/la-council-unanimously-approves-raise-for-dwp-employees.html

The city's Engineers and Architects took a hard hit for not getting on the bandwagon with the Mayor and were and will be punished for causing trouble, with furloughs applying to them in a very generous share.

The Coalition of Unions, another group that got a really good no-layoff deal for making some concessions is now digging in its heels against the city's plan to re-negotiate the terms and implement layoffs of their members. A strong letter that states the city is in breach of their agreement went out last week and it looks like the city is in for a big fight. The only significant change here is will come just about when it's bankruptcy time and all the deals and agreements are thrown out and everything is restructured under a bankruptcy court judge's supervision.


All a sad outlook for a lot of people, and especially the people of the city.


I saw Zuma Dogg's stickcam video that recapped Monday's budget hearing- "Zuma Dogg Recaps Budget Hearing (IT'S OVER!)" - 02/02/2010 - http://www.stickam.com/viewMedia.do?mId=187472900 and it's something to listen to even though I am in the game for supporting Neighborhood Councils and DONE (Dept. of Neighborhood Councils), especially since that's about volunteers, not a paid workforce as contrasted with other objectors to the funding cuts.

The video is 18 minutes and gets off to a quick start and keeps up the pace so that time moves quickly. Even just hearing a part of it will tell you that the city management is not looking up to the task that it has. It is pretty insightful as Zuma Dogg usually is, but if you have a sensitivity to profanity, you are forewarned. Nevertheless, it is loaded with very specific criticisms and comments as well as coming down to the seriousness of the case.

A point I want to bring out is that Zuma Dogg HAS been saying all this stuff for years that the Council has just come to realize. He told of these dangers to THEM, the CMs at council meetings for so many times over the years. Even the Mayor's April speech on "The State of the City" incorporated projections and actions (all later ignored by Tony himself).

The ZD video is very candid and vivid. You might not like it but even with that viewpoint, the whole city situation is addressed in the blunt, often tactless style used by ZD- but that is so refreshing and colorful while getting to so many points and mini-evaluatons of the actions in the city. Entertaining, but I think it's also got a lot of correct assessments all through it.

And now to Wednesday and another try for City Council to make cuts. By the way, the share of the budget the departments and such that are included in the recommendations is 30% and the part that fire and safety (Police and Fire Department) have is 70%, so, as was stated at the Monday hearings, "all is on the table," that is, all except for then nearly or above 200-person workforce Tony Villaraigosa hired as his staff that originally was in the 70's. And STILL it doesn't help get him on any thing close to the right course for being a real mayor and getting a job done. See Steve Lopez' column in this weekend's L.A. Times, ("A Fresh Start" at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez31-2010jan31,0,5864779.column ), the mayor, after all, is personally at a "good place" or whatever he says on personal self-assessment, to bypass any handling of the reality of the city problems with any tenacity.

UTLA, Contracts, Layoffs and Best Teachers- Steve Lopez writes.

Steve Lopez of the L.A. Times gets to the topic of the UTLA union contract and the teacher layoffs with a prominent factor that neither item addresses, comparative excellence in any teachers.
"Seniority, not quality, counts most at United Teachers Los Angeles," Steve Lopez, L.A. Times, March 25, 2009 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez25-2009mar25,0,4942695.column

The story compares UTLA's contract (347 pages) with Green Dot Public Schools contract (33 pages). Some of the same things I have seen before and mentioned in the postings are also pointed out in his article as important considerations, and that main one is that the layoffs are going by seniority that is a provison agreed to by the union. One teacher, Robert Rubisa, a third-grade teacher whose wife, a less senior teacher of 4th grade, is being laid off, had talked about his experience with the union positon,

Rubisa said he went to his union rep and suggested that teachers give back
some of their sick days to help balance the budget and avoid some layoffs.

"The union rep said we should not balance the budget on teachers' backs," Rubisa
said.

The tentative contract announced yesterday highlights that furloughs will not happen this year. I wondered when I read that whether more teacher jobs could be saved by using that to some extent, spreading around some of the loss instead of complete elimination of teacher's jobs. The response stated above is what I had heard before as furloughs had been discussed and apparently that's out as well as a partial measure to save jobs.

Lopez, as usual, brings out some views with his positioning of comments, facts and scenarios. A lot of what I have observed matches the view of Lopez not because we are both so smart but because the identifcation of the issues is so obvious an inescapable. Lopez goes further with comparing the younger operation by Green Dot, the charter school organization, and the way they seem to use more pragmatic approaches to the job. UTLA is shown to be burdened by its contract with an accumulation of assorted boilerplate provisions to the extent that it becomes undecipherable to him in seeking answers to actual situations. The UTLA is undeniably an organization with a particular interest and sometimes it does not operate for the best outcomes of everyone, even though it serves good purposes in other situations.

Highland Park violence- Steve Lopez visits "combat zone"; More teen deaths.

Columnist Steve Lopez writes in the weekend edition of the L.A. TIMES (3-22-09) about the Highland Park area becoming a scene for more shootings that endanger Monte Vista Elementary School students, faculty and parents, “Surge in Highland Park violence terrifies students; Reading, writing, and diving to the floor when gunshots are heard are all part of the routine for second-graders.” http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez22-2009mar22,0,2583393.column

Lopez spoke with Monte Vista’s principal Jose Posada who described a recent incident of a daylight shooting that happened last Monday as parents and children were on their way to school. Six to eight shot were fired, and shootings have happened in the area between gangs too regularly.

The survival drill follwed by students on the command, “Pancake,” was demonstrated for Lopez. It is similar to the old “Drop Drill” but you have to lay flat on the ground instead of huddled under a desk in order to reduce your chance of being hit by bullets.

The urgency of the safety issue has pushed the students to write to elected representatives, Ed Reyes, Council member and Antonio Villaraigosa, the Mayor, for assistance. In my view, these two persons have been and continue to be ineffective in addressing these issues. The mayor has long dragged his feet on this, although he talks a good game. The style that he seems to favor is entirely weighted towards intervention, and what appears to be his pet project, midnight basketball. Ed Reyes is one of the Villaraigosa disciples so you can’t expect much from him that is not Villaraigosa-approved.

Most on the City Council have treated crime issues, principally gang crime, as matters to be kept on the "back burner." You continue to see more attention paid to such things as awards and festivities at the Friday City Council meetings and numerous hours spent at Council meetings on non-crime matters, like the Zoo elephant’s housing, than you ever have spent concerning the violent crime conditions complained of in Lopez’s column.

Ed Reyes is more interested in development and re-election, although I did not hear anything of him putting out an effort for vote-getting. by giving presentations of a public forum nature at any time before the March 3rd elections. Reyes assumed an attitude of entitlement when it came to his campaign for re-election. Reyes’ opponent, Jesus Rosas, gathered about 25% of the vote in Council District 1 with a very passive campaign, still being an "unknown" to most voters. That hints at the voter dissatisfaction with Reyes’ after two terms in office. Reyes’ contribution, as I recall, to the recreation area on the old train yard off San Fernando Road in Glassell Park was to add “berms” to the landscape next to the street. “Berms” are mounds of earth that are raised to provide a physical barrier to gunfire. To me, that only signals capitulation to the problem instead of being a solution, leaving things otherwise unchanged.

The shooting deaths of two teens last week at York Blvd. and Figueroa St. in Highland Park is another example of recent deadly violence that continues to jeopardize the local community. My wife has a cousin who is a teacher at Luther Burbank Middle School, located a few blocks north of the shooting scene and those victims were his former students. See LAPD Blog, March 16, "Two Teens Killed in Highland Park," http://lapdblog.typepad.com/lapd_blog/2009/03/two-teens-killed-in-highland-park-.html (Note: the address in the posting is wrong, "1600 Figueroa St." which is downtown- the correct location was probably supposed to be "6100 Figueroa St." where the Gold Line tracks cross Figueroa, by the Recreation Center.

The local culture-oriented blog, “L.A. Eastside,” comments on the shooting deaths, "Memorial in Highland Park," noting the memorial on the site where two young boys, Alejandro Garcia, 16 and Carlos Hernandez, 15 were gunned down on their walk home from Franklin High School," and criticizes the major print media icon, the Los Angeles Times, that barely mentioned the crime. http://laeastside.com/2009/03/memorial-in-highland-park/

The usual handling of problems by the Council and the Mayor is to solicit applications from organizations, usually “non-profits,” who submit proposals and, upon approval, receive allotments of funds to run the programs. There is a cottage industry in such activities where much more than a tidy sum can be gained. The city's process is examined in the L.A. Weekly. They discuss the mysterious method that the Mayor created to evaluate applicant programs. “Secrecy Rules in L.A.'s $24 Million Gang Program; Carr and Villaraigosa use 50 anonymous people to decide who gets the money,”
By Daniel Heimpel, published on December 17, 2008, http://www.laweekly.com/2008-12-18/news/secrecy-rules-in-l-a-39-s-24-million-gang-program/ describes the process that is anything but the “transparency” in government that was promised by the Mayor as he took office.

There was a follow-up story in the L.A. Weekly, “Why Do Secret Citizens Control the Gang Contracting?; Villaraigosa says they have to be anonymous. A dead city attorney told him so,” By Daniel Heimpel, published on January 07, 2009, http://www.laweekly.com/2009-01-08/news/why-do-secret-citizens-control-the-gang-contracting/

This story further examined “Villaraigosa’s unprecedented decision to create a committee of about 50 anonymous private citizens — whose own backgrounds and conflicts are unknown — to decide where to award $24 million in taxpayer funds.”

From that story: ”[Editor's Note: The mayor released the names of the 50 anonymous citizens cited below on Tuesday evening after L.A. Weekly went to press. On January 8, LA Daily blog will publish the list]”

As usual, the L.A. Weekly does more than simply scratch the surface with their stories compared to what is so often the case with the L.A. Times, and more now, with the Daily News, as they provide more details gained from better investigaton and reporting.

Many of the programs have little or no real method of demonstrating their effectiveness at activity other than running a program that can be guaranteed to use up whatever taxpayer funds it can acquire. There is more hope than results involved in such programs, in my opinion. Pointing to these programs as the “solutions” is not and should not be considered to be all that the City Council has to do to fulfill it's responsibility to the public.

Until there is a serious attempt to address the crime problem, it will continue. LAPD Chief Bratton said that "we can’t arrest our way out of the problem,” but there’snever been a showing that such action has really been attempted. Looking at this conditon on a fairness basis, something has to be done to make this picture right. The facts are that residents have to remain fearful of becoming a homicide crime victim statistics in their own neighborhoods, while the actual perpetrators have virtually unlimited freedom to do what they do best, conduct criminal acts, including shootings.

The Steve Lopez article added that Principal Posadas was a Marine and veteran of the Gulf War and he did not see as much action as what has been happening around the school’s neighborhood.

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

FOR ADDITONAL REFERENCE on the Gang Program Selection:

See: http://www.fulldisclosure.net/Blogs/65.php
The gang program's selection procedures and the justifications are discussed in an 11 minute video, “WHO DECIDES WHICH GANG ORGANIZATION GETS THE MONEY?; Mayor’s Plan Includes Anonymous Selection Committee,” released January 4, 2009, from “Full Disclosure,” a public channel program, interviews people involved on the gang program, including Reverend Carr, the city's "gang czar," describing the programs, and the L.A. Weekly reporter, Daniel Heimpel. The program notes said, “approximately $24 million taxpayer dollars will be doled out to groups that have both gang members and former gang members on their staffs.”

Steve Lopez: Mayor's win not a victory? and IBEW and the Mayor deal Measure B

Steve Lopez, L.A. Times columnist comments in this morning's edition on the poor showing of the Mayor, a surprise to both him and to the mayor, as well. There are a number of things that are pointed out in the column to show some interesting conclusions taken from the election on Tuesday, including the fact that over 9,000 voters in the city elections did not cast a vote for ANYONE for mayor. "Villaraigosa's win might not be a victory," Steve Lopez, March 4, 2009. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopezweb-2009mar05,0,3425143.column?track=rss

According to the news reports in the Times, there are about 4,000 absentee ballots that remain to be counted. Measure B, to Solar Energy proposal that had no certain price tag established, lost by a few hundred votes, and this was needed by the Mayor to be able to take credit for it.

Measure B still has a chance of passing but if we are lucky, it will not. A proper ballot measure can and should be presented before something of such huge financial impact is considered. The measure still had lots of information on costs ranging between a million to 3 million dollars, and we weres supposed to trust them while giving, essentially what amounts to a "blank check" for the costs, and making this a change to the City Charter. This was not done that way, and simply done so because it was a product of deceit and backroom deals. The mayor's interview on this is very revealing on the topic.

Measure B's Smoking Gun: Antonio Confesses Measure B Is a Payoff to the IBEW
"You say, 'We cut a deal with them.' Yeah, we did. We built a partnership with them...they didn't see any jobs." -- Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa in an interview with the LA Business Journal published Monday March 2, 2009."
By Ron Kaye on March 2, 2009
http://ronkayela.com/2009/03/measure-bs-smoking-gun-antonio.html

Kaye starts of with, "That's what Charles Crumpley, the editor of the Business Journal, reports under the headline *Mayor and Business a Poor Union.* "

The IBEW involvement was genuinely responsible for adding in the DWP jobs training program and the provision to prohibit any others but the IBEW local from doing the installations. This was all what the mayor gave up in trying to get the union to give in on the Solar proposal. They had been against this for about 9 years according to other critics, and suddently "Measure B" pops up by the deadline to go on the ballot, and the union does a complete change in position, and is in full support now.

All these deals are too often the norm for political representatives, and they say something else- which is what fits the regular definition of a "lie." Not a complicated analysis at all.

But why the URGENCY to put in on March 3's ballot? (1.) so it can win in the traditionally low turnout election when most people are not aware of an election and even less aware of what it's for, and (2.) So Tony could add it as HIS baby, that HE got it passed in what he likes to say as a slogan, "L.A.'s the greenest large city in the country," taking the credit himself first and then tossing crumbs to a few others while he assembles a resume to run for Governor in 2010. At least that was the plan. He's gets the goods and we get the bills. He may be sticking around now for the entire term, but not by his choice.

Lopez gives his view of what Villaraigosa's actions mean and some opinion on what the Mayor could do.

Steve Lopez in the L.A. Times- Should Mayor enter debate? What's to hide?

Steve Lopez: "Mayoral race is worth a debate"- Vote on that decision on same page as the story. Mayor ducks from the challengers. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lopez28-2009jan28,0,5532518.column

Election time will be here in just over one month. Compared to the presidential elections there’s not been much of any widespread news about the race for Mayor of the City of Los Angeles. That was the case until today when Steve Lopez, columnist for the L.A. TIMES wrote in his column about the fact that the mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, has refused to participate in any debates with challengers for the office.

Lopez’ column is the first real commentary on Walter Moore, the candidate for mayor who, of all challengers, has raised the most money for campaign funding, over $200,000.00, but no one really knows ABOUT him or any of the other candidates where the general public is concerned. (Moore's website: http://web.mac.com/waltermoore/WalterMooreForMayor/Home.html )

Lopez mentions only Moore and not any of the others, including Zuma Dogg, a friend who I think has learned a lot from attending city council meetings for well over 2 years. ZD has had better attendance at the 3 meetings per week than some council members, many of whom wind up missing important matters, and many just missing a lot of meetings, like Jack Weiss, a council member running for City Attorney.

My opinion has always been that if you want the vote of the public, then you should earn it and not just expect it. Antonio Villaraigosa has become so smug in his job as mayor, a job he has done very poorly, that is, when he decides to stay in the city instead of campaign for Hillary Clinton for President, and then shift to Obama when Hillary ended her attempt. Also part of the road trip was Antonio’s need to travel around the country to raise campaign funds for this election. It’s kind of funny that he’s collecting money to be reelected as mayor of a city that these donors don’t even live in.

Antonio’s focus on getting as much money as he can to pay for ads to convince people he’s great and he’s working for you all the time, things that are completely unsupported by any facts and that would actually or “should” actually cause an uprising of voters against him.

In Los Angeles, you don’t have a very informed body of voters. Campaign propaganda gets to be a very effective tool when reach people who do not bother to look beyond the advertising. When you get your news from television as your main source, it’s like getting the TMZ version of life, more than any real news. Listening to radio will do more to inform but even radio news is not evenly available.

This all leaves the voter to rely heavily on what comes to him or her by the one-sided presentations typical of political ads. Tony Villaraigosa depends on this condition and the campaign funds he raised while traveling out of L.A. amount to over $3,000,000 (that’s right, THREE MILLION DOLLARS, to be spent to keep him in office. Like I said, don’t expect there to be anything objective in those ads. Honesty is not part of the political gain.

Tony wants to win and he is so sure of it that he will just skip any debates and FORGET ABOUT VOTERS as usual until he needs them.

VOTERS deserve some respect from a candidate- he’s asking US for our vote, we are asking HIM for his approval. THIS IS RIGHT WHERE IT’S ALL TURNED AROUND and there is complete and utter contempt the voters, especially regarding their needs in terms of honesty and some truth. With Mayor Tony, that’s asking too much. Debating ANYONE for him would show the flaws he has to hide. Someone doing a good job would gladly entertain challenges and be able to HANDLE QUESTIONS with some confidence, not trickery and playing out a strategy to cover up things.

The Mayor has become such a publicity whore that he finds his way to tragedies in the news. Anywhere there are cameras clicking or tape rolling is where you can expect to see the Mayor, even if he really has no legitimate function or business to make his presence necessary at the scene. Sometimes his presence entirely inappropriate, but Tony cares only about getting his face on camera and more publicity to try to cover up the true picture. Remember the recent train crash that happened in Chatsworth? There was Tony to give us the updates on what was happening as if he were the news reporter there.

The head safety official working on the scene normally handles this. In this case, the City Fire Chief was the man on that job, but Tony actually bumped him out to take over at the mike, while he also put on a fire fighter's yellow coat that might make you think he was doing some of the rescue work.

It’s all for appearances, like a magic act that tricks you into believing something that isn’t really happening like it first looked to you. That’s Tony’s entire administration of the past, coming up on 4 years. It was 4 years of planning for the next election and the next political moves, when you could see all the while that the city was being run on auto pilot, with the Council doing most of the decisions for the mayor to just come by and approve when he was in town.

And now, after the Presidential election is done and his own race is rapidly approaching, the mayor is staying around longer inside the city limits, but he still cannot stay in his city hall office. Tony has to find those camera lenses for his own performances. The family of 7 that was killed by the father in Wilmington was completely shocking and a horrible event, but Tony found that HE was NEEDED there on the scene. It wasn’t the police and counselors and other emergency responders on the scene who were important, only Tony. The EVENT, with the loss of the lives of an entire family ws not bad enough. It was NEWS, so that was enough for Tony to do this ghoulish appearance, saying NOTHING THAT WE DIDN’T ALREADY THINK AND SHOWING NO RESPECT for the sadness of the friends and family of the deceased. But Tony got his face in the cameras to show us HE’S important.

I forgot for a moment that the L.A. Weekly’s story has it right, “Antonio Villaraigosa, the All-About-Me Mayor” who works 11% of the time on real city business and spend 89% traveling, attending fundraisers and other personal matters, all documented in the story which based it’s calculations on the calendars that it was entitled to receive according to the law. http://www.laweekly.com/2008-09-11/news/the-all-about-me-mayor/

Well, as Steve Lopez’ column says, maybe Tony will win, but aren’t the citizens entitled to hearing him in a debate for the voters of Los Angeles to know what there is from each Moore and Villaraigosa to give to voters? Lopez thinks it’s pretty arrogant of Tony to refuse to present any kind of information to voters that he could give in a debate.

I say that Tony should debate Moore and include the other challengers, too. Most of them are only known to a few people and Zuma Dogg is one of the grass roots challengers who got way over the 500 valid petition signatures almost entirely by himself in order to qualify to be on the March 3 ballot. It worked well for him so that he could personally hear from people as to what they thought about matter's including the city's needs and conditions.

David Hernandez, another candidate, is an activist on the ballot as well, and was a plaintiff in a lawsuit that tried to have the winning city ballot measure overturned by the court to cancel the EXTENSION of the term limits to three terms from two, a measure that the City Council intentionally and dishonestly described as “limiting” as in shortening, not “extending the limits” like it actually did. It was all done by them to keep their jobs longer, and 5 of them benefited from this voter approval that I call a voter deception.

Hernandez recently returned to the appellate court to hear the decision. The court there rejected his challenge that relied on the actions being in violation of the city charter, saying that while it could not be done by the state government, the 2-in-1 law was not prohibited specifically by the city's charter.

So if you think that Tony is such a great individual, just think about why Tony could only could get hurt and not helped from being in a debate- maybe something might come out such as "the truth." That's a threat to his image; “the truth” about what he’s done and what he’s not done.

Of course the Mayor is not into truth- that’s his enemy. I just said that the campaign money will pay for ads on TV and radio. And the money will give you those very fine glossy brochures in your mail that should include lots of the pictures that Tony’s generated from all his necessary appearances. I see Tony proclaiming, “I’m the pothole king” and figure that it’s all that matters to him, the publicity. It brings to mind the Sit’N’Sleep set of commercials where the owner “Larry” is always doing something to sell more mattresses and making deals that make his accountant say, “You’re killing me, Larry.” Tony is the huckster, hustling the voters for something he’s shown he does not deserve. He needs to be the “One-Term Mayor.”

One other item missing from Tony's election brochure and website this year will be the same family man style of photos he used last time around. We all know why that is the case. Nice job, Mayor.

See the Steve Lopez column online (linked at the top of this item) in the "California" section of the L.A. TIMES, and make your selection online to VOTE on your opinion, Should Tony debate? Most responders are saying “Yes”