The City Council met today for the first of the three regular meetings this week. They ended last week with the announcement that their monthly first-Friday-of-the-month meeting at the Van Nuys City Hall would end due to the budget conditions. This decision might make some sense unless you give it a second look and ask, "What are the extra expenses that we can't manage?" It's the one opportunity for Valley residents to see their CMs in person without the trek downtown and all the inconvenience inherent in downtown visits.
They have ONE meeting a month and their burden for one day a month compared to the one consituents bear visiting City Hall downtown is minimal. But that's the way they think and that's not a compliment. Another example of Garcetti-led choices that are completely baseless and dishonest, not to mention being "constituent-UNfriendly." The CMs decision also was not one decided in public, and violation of the Brown Act's provisons sure sounds like a possibility.
Today's meeting started late, as usual, a little after 10 a.m. when Council President Garcetti started out quickly and boldly, saying very clearly that we want to “save city services, save city jobs…” Again, putting the idea of saving jobs ahead of all else that the city does. It should be no surprise that the oft threatened layoffs never have materialized in the year or more that has gone by since first announced. Even the ERIPs (Early Retirement Incentive Program) has only just begun to take hold, with 2400 retiring under that program, with about 350 retirements a month being processed out as we were told back at Villaraigosa's City Hall budget meeting back in October.
The delays with moving that program haven't helped. But there has been a continual effort to find a way to transfer people to jobs "not paid for by the general fund." The mayor's 1,000 person layoff was really coming down to 1,000 POSITIONS eliminated, and that doesn't mean losing all those jobs.
They work to shuffle things around and that's not getting us anywhere. They really conisder that the city work force should not be touched by the consequences of both a bad economy joining with the lousy management of the Mayor and Council members for years- and now it's all hitting the fan and they still work on all this shuffling of personnel as a solution. It seems a hard concept to swallow. How will things will be better if they KEEP onboard all or most of the numbers of employees currently employed?
Well, that was a theme that seemed to draw all the CMs attention in budget concerns, led by CM Janice Hahn, saying it would only make the economy worse; it would add more people to the unemployed. Well, it sure would do that for the ones losing their jobs, but it's been happening in the private sector almost immediately after each business decides to pull the plug. Should the city operate differently? Is that maybe just another reason WHY the city is in bad shape?
It’s kind of like a few critical decisions have to be made on the ship to keep it from sinking with all aboard, and the delays just allow the water levels to rise each day. Will it sink? If we just keep thinking and not doing, I expect it will. And that's the style of management at City Hall.
NOBODY really says that this condition would have been less serious had it been attended to earlier by them instead of just sitting by and watching as the events unfolded to a more serious level with the passage of time. You can say, “What were they thinking?” Maybe they just were not thinking at all, expecting things to roll along merrily as they continued spending beyond what was being covered by the money coming in, their "revenue."
CAO Santana spoke of the urgency of the situation. Hired consultants laid out the reality of the money situation and the impact of different choices. It wasn't a session with choices filled with hope and joy, not in the least.
At approximately 11:30 a.m., Mayor Tony began speaking in the increasingly-halting style he's acquired that sounds like he’s never seen the speech before, doing a cold read, and poorly at that. One word Villaraigosa had in the speech was "heretofore," a word that of course is used mostly in legal papers and is supposed to be impressive. It wasn't impressive, at least in any positive sense. I have to add "pomposity"as another descriptor of what we have with the Mayor- and you only have to see television news for that demonstration, especially when there's a disaster or city problem happening.
Another part of the Mayor's style was reflected by his statement, "I would dilute the urgency of the message if I came here on a weekly basis." This is how he thinks. Something has to be "worthy" of his attention, and in this case it's truly a crisis that's been begging for his and the Council's attention for over a year, and even longer if you would expect any of them were sharp enough to recognize the warnings and read the signs that came up even earlier.
The Mayor would have been wise to keep some open communication with the Council and these visits to Council Chambers shouldn't be the rarities that they are. Maybe if Tony had tended to the store and cut out the accumulation of frequent flyer miles while trying to hit every political or social event he could find across the country, he would PERSONALLY be familiar with things instead of being "briefed" as he must be- often showing the superficial nature of his familiarity with any number of topics that he SHOULD have known. All that "11% Mayor" business has cost us a real mayor. He talked a good game, but his actions never showed any genuine effort by him to be a good mayor.
I need to wrap this up for now with the key points for the Mayor's pitch to the Council. He wants to effectively,sell off about 5 parkng structures to private business, unload the zoo and the Convention Center and parking meters. The city of Chicago did that, and it was a failure. Chicago's 30 or more years lease to private operators is a disaster with quadrupled rates put into effect immediately and meters vandalized. Tony says it tells us "what NOT to do" but that was entirely read incorrectly by him- it tells us "Don't do it AT ALL." Losing a revenue generating operation is not smart.
What Tony and some of the CMs want is a lump sum payment NOW whatever the cost LATER (since they will be out of office and not accountable anymore- as if they are now), and that's bad. Remember when Magic Johnson was signed to a "lifetime contract" that paid out $25 million? It sounded huge back then but now you see the Lakers came out prety well with today's ability to look back and size things up. That short-sightedness is another one of the attributes to most of the council's and the mayor's decisions. But why should they worry? It won't hurt them at all; it's part of the system to mess up things and either point fingers at others or just not even be around to be hit with blame.
Back to the Mayor's sell-off plans: Tony cited other cities that don't run zoos. The idea was that the city is not in the business of operating zoos. Another twisting of facts to his specifications. I remember that the zoo was working and apparently without much problem since the 1950s, from the old Griffith Park Zoo to this one from the 60's. He just managed to have everything become unravelled in the city while he was Mayor, and now he's blaming other things and people.
The mayor tried juxtaposing the public safety elements of the police and fire departments with golf courses and parking meters, and concluding in this setup comparison that he "has to go with public safety." What a surprise. But looking just a little past this shocking choice, you will see that he is setting up the sale of the parking meters and golf courses. "Partnerships" is the word used for "privatization" to make it sound cool. SOME things COULD be handled better by the private sector FOR the city, but GIVING AWAY assets is purely stupid for the one-time benefit received. First, the price to expect will have to be below-market value since everyone knows the city is with it's back up against the wall and will take whatever it gets. Fire sale prices is one term used. THEN, you know you will be in for a rate increase, steep and often. That would be expected. The city operates things to serve the public and the private sector has no such mission.
The "leasing" for anything longer than what would be a storefront's term, maybe 5years, would be as good as a sale. That's what he has planned here.
Our Mayor only cares about how he looks, and the CMs are right there with him. Selling off city assets means losing them. It really is an admission of the failure that Tony has accomplished for the city. There are other areas that private sector MANAGEMENT would work, however, but if the golf cart concession at some city golf courses is still unsolved by City Council bungling and the ever present influences put upon them, what would you expect to happen with other opportunities. It only took a couple of years to get a Medical Marijuana Ordinance after the 2007 moratorium was ordered (and meanwhile, essentially ignored without consequence).
CM Alarcon says, we need to "turn over every stone, we want to AVOID layoffs." That's probably their priority and why we still don't get anywhere. Alacon added, "How many of those jobs can be city jobs? IF we created 50 jobs, that’s 50 layoffs not needed." But you know what? Adding all the jobs over the years to the city's financial obligations just was another of the burdens, and, by not keeping a watch on things all around with a lot of wasteful spending is what got them where they are.
An example of needless city expenses accrued was given the LAPD's Police Protective League director, Sgt. Manna, who spoke at a community meeting last Saturday. He said that the city did not move phones from 150 N. Los Angeles Street, the Parker Center, over to the new headquarters a couple of blocks away, putting all new lines in and leaving the old ones there. He said, as I recall the number, that it was costing something like $2 million a year for those old lines. I could be wrong either up or down, but that's something that can be checked out. The idea here is that city business operations do nothing to control details- remember when the DWP was spending lots of money for bottled water? Add all this up and you see it was a culture of waste. Since there was "always more money where that came from," it continued unabated.
CM Greig Smith tried to nail down how all this came about and the Mayor said, "We took too long." Finally something of truth from Mr. Villaraigosa.
You can read the more complete report of this Council meeting where they include his comments on the "criticism" by the media where he said that it took courage for actions of council when they knew they would be targets of such criticism. Well, boo-hoo for being targets, but who's courageous when they continue to yield to union pressures all through the years- and Tony himself kicked off that kind of approach when he took office in term one, approving that sweetheart DWP contract, the one that keeps on giving, to the employees, that is. That's the same DWP union getting about 4 more years of raises recently approved by council. Very courageous, Mr. Mayor.
"L.A. mayor visits City Council to urge quick action on budget- Antonio Villaraigosa was cordial but adamant about the city's urgent need for layoffs, department cutbacks and privatization plans. Any delay could force the city into a 'financial tailspin,' he said." By Phil Willon and Maeve Reston, February 9, 2010 8:04 p.m. http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-budget-mayor10-2010feb10,0,136871.story
Posts
