Why Does Illegal Dumping Take Place in Hollywood? Because it Works!

CityWatch, May 18, 2012
Vol 10 Issue 40

RETHINKING LA - The Pastor of a local church arrived at his office to find a large pile of debris on the sidewalk next to his church property. It consisted of some furniture, some busted boxes of personal belongings, some trash, the kind of debris that is typically left behind when somebody moves.

The Pastor called 311 and then sent an email with a picture of the illegal dumping to some neighbors and to the City Councilman asking “What are people thinking?”

The answer is simple. They are thinking “If I carry my trash across the street, I won’t get charged for the pickup of the bulky items.”

In other words, people dump their junk on our quiet street because it works.

The Senior Lead Officer responded by sending an email saying “One idea would be is to contact the Department of Sanitation and have them remove the trash. I will put in a request for you but in the future you can contact 311 and place a request for a cleanup. Another idea, if you are interested, is to organize your neighbors and do a cleanup day in your neighborhood. I can contact operation clean sweep and request cleaning supplies. If you have further questions please feel free to call me.”

The problem with this advice is that it rewards the person dumping the trash by removing it without an investigation, and makes it the neighbor’s responsibility to do the dirty work. In other words, it works. 

The Council Office responded by sending an email (two days after the illegal dumping) “I have sent this to our beautification crew and have requested that they go out today and remove the items. In the future, please send it directly to me as well so that I can forward it on to the appropriate beautification staff depending on the day.”

This solution is equivalent to wiping the blood off the wound. It doesn’t stop the problem it simply cleans it up for a few moments. Again, for the person dumping, it works.

The Department of Sanitation responded by sending a crew that picked up the bulky items, leaving behind the broken glass and small debris that would require a broom or a shovel and a little more attention.

This solution is paid for by the “Multi-Family Bulky Item Fee” that is charged to all residents of apartments with 5 or more units per building on a monthly basis on their utility bill. In other words, two-thirds of the city pays for bulky item pickup while the other third pays if they call for a pickup. This is what motivates people to carry their trash across the street and to dump it in front of apartment buildings or in this case, a church.

The Bureau of Sanitation responded to the 311 call by sending a truck and picking up the larger items, leaving behind small bits of debris that included the ID card for the person who ended up confessing to the illegal dumping.

This solution keeps the Department of Sanitation busy cleaning our streets but it does nothing to stop those who do the dumping. In fact it does the opposite because it sends a loud message that “Illegal dumping works!”

The Bureau of Street Services is responsible for investigating illegal dumping but they don’t get notified when a resident calls 311 unless the party calling knows that Sanitation cleans while Street Services investigates. (Even our Senior Lead Officer didn’t know this!)

The person who dumped the trash on the sidewalk outside the church left several items in the trash that contained their name and address. (Across the street!) They left packaging from recent Amazon purchases and their final examinations from Law School. These items were given to the investigator from Street Services who took another look and found the ID card.

Meanwhile the Senior Lead Officer is convinced that no crime had been committed because the person who did the dumping says they called 311 for a pickup. The SLO was happy with the explanation, missing the “defrauding the city” and “illegal dumping” possibilities along with the trash that remained on the street.

The City of LA has Neighborhood Prosecutors who respond to quality of life issues, they simply need the cooperation of the LAPD. The LAPD has Senior Lead Officers but if they are limited to suggesting that residents do a better job of cleaning their streets, there is little hope that the Neighborhood Prosecutor will get LAPD support.

Sanitation cleans up big and bulky things but is not so good at the detail work. Meanwhile Street Services investigates illegal dumping and could balance the city’s budget crisis just by tracing the trash before it gets picked up and charging the offending parties the appropriate penalties.

As for Hollywood, it is your dumping ground. Your trash will be blamed on the renters, the Council Office will send the Beautification Team, the illegal dumping will get picked up for free, and the Senior Lead Officer will come around to suggest that the locals sweep the street up after you.

Seriously, illegal dumping takes place in Hollywood because it works!

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. You can also find him on Twitter and on Facebook.)

A Tale of Two Friends, Justice and Mercy

CityWatch, Aug 12, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 64

CITY ATTORNEY’S SELECTIVE PROSECUTION - My good friend Jenny is a cyclist, an intrepid citywide commuter who relies on her bike as her primary form of transportation, complementing it with mass transit for long journeys. In some communities, this behavior would be referred to as a traffic congestion solution.

Earlier this year Jenny was in the North Valley, riding downhill on a busy street in traffic when a tow truck loaded with two vehicles came from behind, began passing on the left and then turned into Jenny and another cyclist, Piero, forcing them off the road. Jenny felt that the tow truck driver’s behavior was aggressive, even road rage worthy. But mostly she felt thankful to be alive.

Jenny and Piero continued down the road, through fairly significant traffic congestion, the type that sometimes bottlenecks and slows down large tow trucks. This was bad for the tow truck operator and even worse for the cyclists.

Over the next half mile the tow truck operator came up on the cyclists again, again, and again. Four times he “buzzed” them, forcing them to give up their position on the road by pulling alongside and then turning toward them.

Jenny photographed the tow truck operator and his truck from the sidewalk. She then called the police, only to realize that they were standing outside the local LAPD station. Jenny and Piero filed a report and they went on their way.

Months went by and a detective from Foothill Division called. The interview went well and Jenny was encouraged. More months went by and Jenny was called in to identify the suspect in a line-up. Jenny was really encouraged.

Then the day of reckoning came and Jenny was called in for a meeting with the City Attorney’s Hearing Officer, Ben Lovato, who interviewed the suspect and the victims and decided that this was a “no harm, no foul” case that was not worth prosecuting.

In other words, when a tow truck operator engaged in the City of LA’s business uses a heavy truck laden with two more vehicles to repeatedly threaten the lives of two cyclists, the City Attorney doesn’t see any reason to prosecute for Assault with a Deadly Weapon. After all, the victims are still riding!

Justice denied.

I have another good friend, Maria, a homeowner who invested in a residential property in East Hollywood, a densely populated park-poor community that is low-income and high-crime. Her home is well-maintained, as are the other 19 homes on her street, 15 of which have front yard fences that are a few inches over the city’s 3 foot 6 inch limit.

Earlier this year, Maria was cited by the City of LA’s Building & Safety Department for her fence. She was singled out because a resident of LA complained. Building & Safety reports that they are bound by code to investigate every time there is a complaint.

On a street where 80% of the residents have over-in-height fences, the inspector only cited the homes that were subjects of complaints, in essence empowering the complaining party to decide where the City of LA’s code would be enforced.

Maria and her husband were given a choice: either remove the offending fence (masonry pilasters with wrought iron panels, approximately 4 feet 6 inches tall) at a cost of thousands or keep the fence and pay for a variance that costs $4800.

The citation came with a $336 penalty and a demand for compliance within 30 days and a notice that failure to pay the non-compliance fee within 30 days of the mailing could result in a late charge of 200% plus a 50% collection fee.

The ubiquitous nature of front yard fences throughout the City of LA made it hard for Maria to understand why her fence had attracted the interest of City officials, especially in light of the fact that her fence did not create a public safety issue. In fact, it’s Maria’s contention that her fence is consistent with the overall style of the homes on her street and that it enhances public safety.

Regardless, Maria didn’t find an audience for her position, nor did she navigate the City Hall bureaucratic maze successfully. She failed to find relief and she failed to demolish her fence resulting in a whole new level of city oversight.

Maria’s order to comply ended up in the City Attorney’s office which is the third largest government legal office in California, behind the Attorney General’s office and the LA County District Attorney’s office. 500 lawyers are supported by 500 staffers and in Maria’s case, it was a staffer from the finance department who ended up in control of her case.

The City Attorney’s office sent Maria a Final Notification that threatened punitive actions including “seizing property, attaching wages, and additional legal actions.”

Mercy denied!

So much for the “no harm, no foul” strategy that the City Attorney employs when somebody’s life is threatened. A tow truck operator who spends his days impounding cars (another revenue opportunity for the City of LA) can’t be taken off the road simply for using his vehicle as a weapon. After all, a man has to work!

But when a homeowner builds a front yard fence to protect their proerty, their home and their family, it's perceived as a challenge to the authority of the City of LA, and that is a crime that will get a City Attorney response.

There are two relevant twists in this “Tale of Two Friends” and they both speak to the City Attorney’s choices, failing to prosecute in assault case and aggressively pursuing in the fence case.

A couple of years ago, Dr. Christopher Thompson was sent to jail for his road rage violence against two cyclists in Mandeville Canyon. During the trial, it came out that this wasn’t the first complaint against him, it was simply the first incident prosecuted. Dr. Thompson, just like the tow truck operator, had been accused of running cyclists off the road in the past but the City Attorney declined to prosecute. It took the County’s Deputy Attorney to bring Dr. Thompson to justice.

24 years ago, the City Attorney’s office was in court with an over-in-height fence case that was subsequently dropped when the City Attorney explained that such walls have become common in the city. At that time, the City Attorney’s office indicated that it will only prosecute “emergency situations” involving privately owned fences that are public-safety hazards.

Deputy City Attorney Theodore Heyck, in the 1987 Rubicant case, noted the prevalence of over-in-height fences and stated "If we file against her, we file against everyone in the neighborhood. Does the city wish to proceed against an entire neighborhood? Against a large segment of the city?"

City Prosecutors went on to call for an overhaul of the enforcement of current fence-height regulations by the city's Department of Building and Safety, a sentiment that was echoed by Van Nuys Municipal Judge Kenneth Lee Chotiner who heard the Fabricant case and noted the need to review the standards that guide prosecution.

It’s 2011 and City Attorney Carmen Trutanich has argued long and loud that the City’s budget cuts have eviscerated his department, making it hard for him to prosecute criminals while fulfilling his City Charter mandate of advising the Mayor, the City Council, and all boards, departments, and officers in the City of Los Angeles.

And yet...the City Attorney can find the time to pursue over-in-height fence citations.

That was then and this is now.

All Jenny wanted was some justice but the City Attorney has failed her.

All Maria wants is some mercy but the City Attorney has failed her.

Apparently, when the focus is on revenue, there’s no room for either justice or mercy.

That’s no way to run a Great City!

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)

Separating LA City Attorney’s Duties is Essential

CityWatch, July 29, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 60

RETHINKING LA - The recent debate over the City Council’s legal representation and the City Attorney’s obligations under the City Charter have dramatized the shortcomings of the current conflicted system.

Some members of the City Council would like a City Attorney that is loyal to their needs and their desires, not an objective legal presence with the potential to thwart their machinations. Their position is supported by Sec. 271 of the City Charter which directs the City Attorney to “represent the City in all legal proceedings against the City” and to serve as “the legal advisor to the City, and to all City boards, departments, officers and entities.”

Some members of the public have argued that the City Attorney serves the people of Los Angeles by enforcing the law, not protecting those who violate the law. Their position is supported by Sec. 271 of the City Charter which says the City Attorney “shall prosecute on behalf of the people all criminal cases and related proceedings arising from violation of the provisions of the Charter and City ordinances, and all misdemeanor offenses arising from violation of the laws of the state occurring in the City.”

This City Charter mandate to both defend and to prosecute would not be a problem if the law was never broken and if the need to negotiate legal actions never came up but not a day goes by that the City Attorney isn’t required to straddle both sides of the legal fence.

During the City’s recent budget drama, Chief Deputy City Attorney William Carter made much of this dichotomy of loyalties when he pointed out that the City Attorney’s office defended the City’s right to impose furloughs on City staff even as the union representing LA’s Deputy City Attorneys condemned the furloughs.

Further clouding the debate is the position of Barry Sanders, Recreation & Parks Commission President and retired partner from the Latham & Watkins law firm, who defended his “Government Speech” park advertising scheme with a third interpretation of the City Attorney’s responsibilities. Sanders took the City Attorney to task for raising issues of legality, claiming that the City Attorney’s responsibility is to support Commission actions by working to remove legal obstacles, not enforce them.

Sanders singlehandedly made the case for the creation of a City Prosecutor for the City of LA.

Those involved in neighborhood councils have learned the hard way that the City Attorney has a client, it's the City of Los Angeles. NC Boardmembers can call the CA's office for advice but they won’t get support if their complaint is with the City of Los Angeles, that's when the public finds itself without representation.

The City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to the City's employees and its elected officials and that prohibits the City Attorney from taking any action against the interests of those people. The City Attorney may not even conduct an investigation that might reveal bad behavior by one of his clients, and if he does get such information during an investigation, he must hold it confidential.

Municipal authorities typically address this situation by having two separate offices. The County of Los Angeles has the District Attorney who owes no duty to the County Board of Supervisors while the County Counsel serves the Board and the Supervisors themselves.

In similar fashion, the City of Los Angeles needs two separate offices, one for the City Attorney and one for the City Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor would prosecute all the crimes which the City Attorney now prosecutes plus its jurisdiction would be expanded to cover felonies and grand jury investigations within City Hall.

The City Charter would need to clarify jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor and provide for felony investigations that involve the City of Los Angeles. Cities, counties, states and the feds can have concurrent jurisdiction, thus allowing the City Prosecutor to investigate and/or prosecute cases which involve or may involve the City, a City agency, or a City official. This must take place without divesting felony jurisdiction from the District Attorney or the State Attorney General.

As the people of LA continue the fight to establish a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accountability (OPA), it is important to remember that oversight and accountability means little, if anything at all, without enforcement authority and a mandate for prosecution.

Grassroots advocates have fought hard to bring the issues of open and transparent governance into the marketplace of ideas. Progress has been made but the impending success will be hollow if we do not continue the journey.

If the residents of LA are to move forward from awareness and into the arena of performance and accountability, it is essential that they are supported by a City Prosecutor that has the budget, the professional expertise, the legal clout and the mandate to do a meaningful job of representing the people.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net.)

CityWatchLA - CRA, Taxes and the CD4 Candidates

CityWatch, Jan 21, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 6

Before Governor Brown astounded the State by proposing to abolish all the Community Redevelopment Agencies (CRA’s), this writer had sent a CRA questionnaire to the candidates for Council District 4.

The candidates for Council District #4 for the March 8, 2011 election are: Councilmember Tom LaBonge, Stephen Box and Tomas O’Grady. Each has a website so readers can see for themselves the biographical information.

The CRA’s were established after WW II as a vehicle to stimulate urban renewal. No city must establish a CRA, but Los Angeles chose to create one, CRA/LA. CRA’s obtain their revenue by taking all the incremental property tax revenue generated by their projects as well as by sometimes taking the sales taxes connected with their projects.

Bunker Hill, for example, has taken in $717 Million in property taxes for the CRA/LA. Overall, CRA/la has taken in $2.8 Billion; $1.2 Billion in the last seven years.

Because the schools had clawed back some of the CRA money by state statute and by lawsuits, the City supported Prop 22 on the November 2010 ballot which made it unconstitutional for any CRA money to go to schools or to the City’s general fund, e.g. for roads. Yes, the City defunded schools in order to give billions to real estate speculators!

Because the City has claimed that it is broke, and thus, it has to fire personnel and reduce services, the fact that the CRA has a multi-million dollar surplus merits public discussion. Hence, the CRA questionnaire.

Councilmember LaBonge’s response:
Councilmember finally made some written responses, although rather brief.

Candidate Tomas O’Grady’s responses:
Mr. O’Grady made long, thoughtful responses showing an openness which all candidates should exhibit.

Candidate Stephen Box responses:
Mr. Box’s also made long and thoughtful responses.

At the outset I believe all Angelenos should be very thankful that Tomas O’Grady and Stephen Box actually believe in openness and wrote extensive, thoughtful answers, knowing that their answers would be used for an article over which they will have no control. Councilmember LaBonge’s answer were short, evasive, and seldom dealt with the issues. Each reader can link to the full answers to form their own opinion about the candidates’ full statements.

Question #1: Should City Council tell the public about the multi-million surplus in the CRA/LA account when discussing the budget?

Labonge:
No. Instead the councilmember wrote: “The intricacies of the funding mechanism in place are available to anyone who seeks them out, and I will always work to make that information available to anyone who wants it. You can also go independently on-line to the city and CRA websites to find this information.”

Councilmember LaBonge will not disclose the data unless someone somehow knows that it exists and then he will give it to that person who apparently already knows about it. Voters can decide whether finding out the city’s true financial condition should be a Game of Hide ‘n Seek.

O’Grady:
Yes, the public should know. Mr. O’Grady has some cogent and specific ideas how the CRA should provide more detailed information. He gave a lot of thought and research into this matter and I urge people to follow the link to his full comments.

Box:
Yes, the council has the duty to communicate all surpluses. Similarly, Mr. Box gave thoughtful answers and people should also read his comments in full.

Question #2: Do you favor abolishing the CRA?

LaBonge:
No. Councilman LaBonge strongly disagrees that the CRA should be abolished. Contrary to the other two candidates, he did not provide any analysis how to deal with the CRA’s financial impact on the city.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady suggests a new Redevelopment Pilot Project to stimulate development from “within communities” as opposed to having large projects imposed on communities by outside developers. I interpret Mr. O’Grady’s comments to be “Yes” for abolishing the current CRA and designing a new one which achieves community objectives.

Box:
Mr. Box’s immediate remedy is to examine the CRA and its relationship to the City of LA and explore options for immediate action, leading up to a Charter Amendment that would abolish the CRA.

Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided analysis of the situation and I recommend that readers link on to their full answers.

Update on Question #2: After my CRA questions were posed, Governor Brown announced his plan to abolish the CRA’s. Readers will have to look to candidates’ web sites for discussions of the Governor’s proposal. There will be much discussion in the upcoming weeks about how taxpayers can retrieve their billions upon billions of tax dollars from the CRA’s.

Question #4: Do you support bringing Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles?

Under Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005), a city may take property and give it to another private person for that entity’s personal profit. Traditional eminent domain forbids the property going to another person for personal profit. CRA eminent domain is Kelo eminent domain as the properties go to private developers who reap the profits.

LaBonge:
LaBonge supported AB 2531 which would have brought Kelo eminent domain to every parcel in Los Angles. His response today is that he wants to review the matter with the City Attorney.

He opposes “unilateral eminent domain,” but there is no explanation of what he means about unilateral eminent domain, so at best his answer appears to be evasive. One would think that since he supported Kelo eminent domain, he would have some thoughts to share with the voters.

O’Grady:
While he opposed the secretive manner in which AB 2531 was sprung upon the public, Mr. O’Grady would support a new AB 2531 to bring Kelo eminent domain to all of Los Angeles.

Box:
Mr. Box vehemently opposes expansion of eminent domain powers and would oppose any attempt to bring Kelo eminent domain to Los Angeles. He believes as a matter of principle that the government should not take one man’s property and give it to another private citizen.

Question #5: Since the City Attorney may not investigate wrongdoing at City Hall, would you support a charter amendment to bifurcate the City Attorney into two separate offices (1) City Attorney to advise the City, Council and staff, and (2) City Prosecutor whose sole function would be to prosecute criminal wrongdoers?

Because the City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to his clients who are the City, its staff, and its elected officials including the CRA, if a councilmember confides in the City Attorney, “I want to take this cash bribe from developer X,” the City Attorney cannot take action, even if the councilmember stuffs thousands of dollars into his pocket right in front of the City Attorney. Thus, the prosecutor whom the public believes would be most diligent in protecting it from city hall corruption is legally prevented.

LaBonge:
The councilmember states: “This issue deserves further discussion, study and review.”

The point of the questionnaire was to obtain the candidates’ thoughts so that the voters can discuss, study, and review. This is a politician’s “No Comment” answer.

O’Grady:
Mr. O’Grady’s answer is a thoughtful discussion of the different ways the civil and criminal functions of a City Attorney Office may be structured. Mr. O’Grady seems to believe that how the city attorney interprets the “client determination” issue can resolve the matter, and thus, it appears that he is not prepared to support two separate offices. I do not think, however, that this opinion will necessarily be Mr. O’Grady’s position on the subject.

Box:
Mr. Box supports bifurcation so that the City Prosecutor would be free to address any and all criminal matters which the City Attorney now handles plus being able to handle any and all criminal matters including felonies which involve the city, its staff and elected officials. He also supports Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accounta-bility (OPA) who would assist in keeping the City honest.

Final Words:
Both Mr. O’Grady and Mr. Box provided extensive answers taking the city’s problems very seriously. Because literally billions of dollars and the quality of life for Angelenos are at stake, I hope people will take the time to look over their suggestions. Councilmember LaBonge’s seems to think everything is fine as it is.

(Richard Lee Abrams is an attorney in Los Angeles. He can be reached at rickleeabrams@gmail.com )

CityWatchLA - Oversight and Accountability requires a City Prosecutor with Enforcement Authority

CityWatch, Jan 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 1

Angelenos in pursuit of oversight reform are in the midst of an "all or nothing" battle that starts with the upcoming opportunity to create of a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and establish the Office of Public Accountability. (OPA) But both efforts will be for naught if they are not supported with significant Commission Reform and the establishment of a City Prosecutor.

It was increasing public outrage over LA's Department of Water & Power cavalier behavior that stirred a grass roots battle to establish a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) with oversight authority in order to ensure open review of the DWP's operations, finances, and management.

Through it all, public distrust of what Jack Humpreville refers to as "the DWP’s politically appointed Board of Commissioners, its overly politicized and less than candid executive management, and the Mayor and his evasive staff" continued to grow.

It was an internecine struggle over LA's budget crisis that led to a family feud between the DWP, the City Council, and the Mayor's Office. The residents of Los Angeles watched and listened to threats of bankruptcy, renewed layoffs, increasing flotsam and jetsam, ongoing cuts to city services, and the impending sale of city assets.

Through it all, public distrust of what Richard Lee Abrams refers to as "lots of emotional hysteria about lost services, but total silence about available funds" left the Mayor and City Council struggling to explain how a large LA deficit matched by a larger CRA surplus still results in a budget deficit that requires a fire sale of city assets.

The resulting groundswell of grassroots support for greater oversight of the DWP, the City's budget process, and the machinations of LA's Commissions and Boards stirred a stampede as the DWP Commission, the City Council, and the Mayor's office all got in the game.

As the deadline for March 8, 2011 ballot measure drew closer, there were competing proposals for a Ratepayers Advocate, an Inspector General, and an Office of Public Accountability. The DWP's union entered the fray, management and commission positions changed hands, and by the time the City Council was done, the proposed ballot measure had been watered down, resulting in reduced authority and narrow jurisdiction.

While the DWP Reform Panel originally called for charter amendments authorizing a well funded, empowered, and truly independent Ratepayers Advocate as well as an Inspector General, the resulting ballot measure no longer include the authorization of City Council to remove the DWP General Manager and any Commissioner with a two-thirds vote. The Office of Public Accountability will be limited to the review of water and power rates and will rely on the City Council and Mayor to pass ordinances to insure the thorough review and analysis of DWP’s $60 billion strategic plan and its operations, finances, and management.

Still, progress is admirable. It is rewarding and it is encouraging. But the establishment of a Ratepayers Advocate supported by the Office of Public Accountability is a hollow and symbolic gesture unless they are supported by subsequent ballot measures that reform the Commission process and establish a City Prosecutor.

All four elements must exist or the City of LA will have oversight reform that consists of a dog that is "all bark and no bite." The last thing LA needs now is oversight reform that consists of more audits and advice with no authority or mandate to enforce the law.

Those involved in neighborhood councils have learned the hard way that the City Attorney has a client, it's the City of Los Angeles. NC Boardmembers can call the CA's office for advice but not for support if their complaint is with the City of Los Angeles, that's when the public finds itself without representation.

The City Attorney owes fiduciary duties to the City's employees and its elected officials and that prohibits the City Attorney from taking any action against the interests of those people. The City Attorney may not even conduct an investigation that might reveal bad behavior by one of his clients, and if he does get such in formation during an investigation, he must hold it confidential.

Municipal authorities typically address this situation by having two separate offices. The County of Los Angeles has the District Attorney who owes no duty to the County Board of Supervisors while the County Counsel serves the Board and the Supervisors themselves.

In similar fashion, the City of Los Angeles needs two separate offices, one for the City Attorney and one for the City Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor would prosecute all the crimes which the City Attorney now prosecutes plus its jurisdiction would be expanded to cover felonies and grand jury investigations into City Hall.

The City Charter would need to clarify jurisdiction of the City Prosecutor and provide for felony investigations that involve the City of Los Angeles. Cities, counties, states and the feds can have concurrent jurisdiction, thus allowing the City Prosecutor to investigate and/or prosecute cases which involve or may involve the City, a City agency, or a City official. This must take place without divesting felony jurisdiction from the District Attorney or the State Attorney General.

As the March 8, 2011 election approaches and the ballot measure establishing a Ratepayers Advocate (RPA) and an Office of Public Accountability (OPA) get the spotlight, it is important to remember that oversight and accountability mean little, if anything at all, without enforcement authority and a mandate for prosecution.

2010 was a great year for the grassroots advocates who fought so hard to bring the issues of open and transparent governance into the marketplace of ideas. Progress was made but the impending success will be hollow if we do not continue the journey.

2011 is the year in which we can work together to move forward from awareness and into the arena of performance and accountability, supported by a City Prosecutor that has the budget, the professional expertise, the legal clout and the mandate to do a meaningful job.

(Stephen Box is a grassroots advocate and writes for CityWatch. He can be reached at: Stephen@thirdeyecreative.net. Disclosure: Box is also a candidate for 4th District Councilman.)