The Los Angeles City Hall of Hypocrites

CityWatch, Oct 11, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 81

RETHINKING LA - LA’s City Council deserves an award for its ability to conduct its business with a straight face, on the one hand feigning sincerity as it embraces the Occupy LA movement while simultaneously imposing property liens on Angelenos in actions that can’t be explained, let alone justified.

Last Tuesday, speakers from the Occupy LA movement appeared in City Council chambers and spoke passionately about the issues that have prompted people across the country to speak up about corporate personhood, the collapsing economy, home foreclosures, economic inequity, social injustice, restricted access to healthcare and education, and a government that no longer represents the people.

City Councilmembers responded enthusiastically. Zine declared “The City Council is a non-profit organization.” Rosendahl bubbled “This is the American Autumn.” Reyes echoed “I want to join the choir.” Alarcon patted the city on the back saying “I want to commend the LAPD for working with us to ensure safety, so the message is the message, not about clashes.”

The City Council went on to issue a motion that ran for three pages, touching on the many issues that have prompted Angelenos to grab a piece of the Occupy LA movement, then concluding with an affirmation of Occupy LA’s 1st Amendment rights.

Kum. Ba. Yah!

Much was made of the Councilmembers who ventured from the Council Chambers and onto City Hall’s north lawn, home of the Occupy LA campsite that spends days on the grass and nights on the cement in an obedient nod to LA’s municipal code that allows camping, just not comfortable camping.

Rosendahl and Garcetti not only toured, they requested permission to speak. “Stay as long as you need," Garcetti told them. "We’re here to support you.” He then shouted “This is your City Hall!” and the crowd responded "This is our City Hall!"

Missing from the highlights of that day is the series of lien actions and variance requests that came before the City Council, all of which clearly demonstrated that in Los Angeles, it’s not what you know, it’s who you know.

A resident of Jan Perry’s district appeared before the City Council to point out that he inherited a property that came with a burned out building, a fence, and a City of LA lien that prevented him from moving forward to improve the property, to sell the property, to do anything other than to allow the blight to continue.

Does it take a City Council appearance to get the attention of the Council office? Does it take the City Council office to get the attention of Building & Safety? Does it require a special administrative hearing to pursue fair and effective enforcement of the city’s codes and standards by Building & Safety?

Apparently, yes. Councilwoman Perry quickly asked for a continuance and promised to look at the matter.

Ronald & Florence Miller then took to the podium in response to citations for excessive vegetation on their property. After their first notice, they hired gardeners to attend to the “excessive” vegetation. They then called for another inspection, which the city performed but when pressed, the inspector was unable to define “excessive” nor was he able to rule on the issue of compliance.

The property owners persisted but got no response from Building & Safety. They claim to have heard nothing until they received a notice of a debt in collections from a private party. They protested the collections and the debt, putting the issue back into the hands of the City of LA which again failed to respond, until it placed a lien on the Miller property.

Ronald Miller was cut off as his two minutes expired. He paused and his wife yielded her time so that he could continue speaking. Councilman Zine refused to allow Florencia to yield her time, requiring her to continue where her husband left off.

Zine may have regretted his rigidity when Florencia went on to claim violations of the right to due process, the right to face one’s accuser, the right to participate in an appeal process, and the right to be free of malicious prosecution, the uneven application of the law, and the discriminatory impact of selective prosecution.

Most of all, the entire City Council may have regretted Zine’s heavy-handedness when Florencia paused and changed topics, addressing the Council and calling them out on their inability to pay attention. “I’ve noticed that when people are speaking here, everybody is doing something else. It feels extremely bad to come here to speak to you and to feel ignored,” said Florencia, “I guess that is how the legal process works.”

Councilmember Ed Reyes stood to defend the behavior of the multi-tasking Councilmembers, explaining “I’m doing two or three things at the same time, it pains me to think that what you have to say has no value, it does. I am listening. The trip here was worth it.”

The Council then immediately contradicted Councilman Reyes by voting unanimously to support the Department of Building & Safety’s recommendation of a lien to be placed on the property as a result of the “excessive” vegetation that was removed in 2009.

The hypocritical nature of the City Council’s strict adherence to municipal policy, municipal code, and administrative process was immediately demonstrated as Councilmember Koretz called the next item on the agenda “special” and then bent over backward to offer a stakeholder a “categorical exemption” to the law and to land use restrictions. In an effort to get around the requirement for a zone change, Koretz supported a variance request in a replay of a Council action that was recently reversed by the Court of Appeals which held that the City Council simply does not have the authority.

Recent legal rulings be damned, Koretz moved to support the variance request of a favored stakeholder who can claim no legal foundation for the R-1 conversion of a rec room into an illegal apartment, resulting in a special consideration that contradicts the ruling of the zoning administrator.

The Council then “listened” to legal objections, to protests from the community, to the presentation of letters and a petition in opposition to the variance, and then they voted unanimously to support the variance.

LA’s City Council goes about its business with a straight face, at times throwing its hands in the air and claiming to be limited by the law, while at other times, throwing the law in the air and claiming unlimited authority to apply mercy to insiders and punishment to those on the fringe.

As LA’s City Council prepares to continue with the charade of embracing the ideals of Occupy LA, it is important that the Councilmembers accept the fact that the City Council and its uneven application of the law, its selective enforcement of the law, and its failure to end the “divisive economic and social realities” is what makes the LA City Council the subject of the Occupy LA protest, not its partner.

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

Question for LA’s City Hall: Who are You Working For?

CityWatch, Oct 4, 2011
Vol 9 Issue 79

RETHINKING LA - "Conflict of Interest" charges are fighting words and those who stand accused of serving two masters often find themselves in an uphill battle to defend their honor, their careers, and even their lives.

Ethical clouds have hung over LA’s City Hall for generations, sometimes wispy and prompted by rumor and other times dark and supported by criminal allegations. Political regimes have toppled, reform movements have taken steps to ensure impartiality, and through it all, controversy follows those who speak on behalf of the people of Los Angeles.

The recent Congress of Neighborhoods at LA’s City Hall included training sessions for neighborhood councils on ethics, including conflict of interest and the Brown Act. Perhaps it’s the relentless oversight of community members that has prompted some neighborhood activists to turn it around and reexamine the actions of our current Mayor and City Councilmembers.

Over the course of history, a betrayal of loyalties has consistently been considered one of the most serious crimes against a community and the penalties are typically severe, ranging from excommunication and banishment to imprisonment and execution.

Efforts to ensure loyalty have ranged from dangerous physical challenges in battle and co-mingled bloodlines to public oaths and legal contracts but no single effort has been able to prevent betrayal from entering the battlefield, the courtroom, the sporting arena, the boardroom, council chambers, and the negotiating room.

The art of the double-deal is as old as the act of negotiation itself and some of our wisest and most revered of strategists have included elements of deception and subversion in their counsel, but that doesn’t make it right, it simply makes it common.

On the one hand, the artful manipulation of loyalties carries with it the seductive glamour of a James Bond movie but in reality, the art of the double-cross is less about “the deal” and more about “the betrayal” and the sale of allegiance to the highest bidder.

The people of Los Angeles are surrounded by measures that are in place to ensure that those who act on their behalf are doing so openly, honestly, and impartially. At the same time, there are those who charge that the net is full of holes and only serves to keep honest people honest while the dishonest simply grow more powerful and wealthy.

In sports, professional athletes are forbidden from associating with gamblers and members of organized crime in an effort to ensure that those competing in sporting events are actually competing and not influencing the outcome for financial gain. Baseball’s Pete Rose was denied his place in the Hall of Fame because he served two masters, one was baseball, the other was a bookie.

In legal circles, professionals are held to a high standard that restricts an attorney or a firm from representing any other party with interests adverse to those of a current client.

In local government, elected officials are required to recuse themselves from any negotiations or actions that would benefit them financially. This can include direct benefits as well as benefits to a company or cause that has contributed to the politician.

LA County’s Metropolitan Transit Authority (METRO) recently found itself immobilized by contributions when a large developer brought a huge contract before the Board, only to find the entire Board subject to conflict of interest charges because of the liberal contributions that had preceded the contract. The METRO Board, unable to move forward without a vote, chose to invoke the “Hayden Rule” which they defined as “the drawing of straws to select a representative group from the recused members,” providing a randomness that ensured no “conflict of interest.”

METRO went forward, allowing all members of the Board to keep the developer contributions, allowing the Board to vote on the contract, allowing the Developer to benefit from the approved contract, and motivating a member of the audience to call Tom Hayden who was surprised to be credited with the legal “workaround” saying he had never heard of it.

Political figures in LA’s City Hall are regulated on a few different levels, from the Fair Political Practices Commission at the state level to the Ethics Commission at the city level. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa ran afoul of both organizations when he accepted tickets to sports and entertainment events but failed to disclose the gifts as required.

Developer Rick Caruso recently made the news when he resigned from the Coliseum Commission amid charges that he serves two masters, one being the Coliseum Board and the other being USC where he serves as a trustee. USC’s football team is the Coliseum’s largest tenant and the proposed “master lease” would give more control over the Coliseum to USC.

City Councilman Bernard Parks, also on the Coliseum Commission, opposed Caruso’s participation in the USC contract talks and is fighting USC’s efforts, claiming that a private school should not have control over a publicly owned stadium.

On the other side of town, City Councilman Ed Reyes on the receiving end found himself of a complaint that charged him with serving two masters in violation of a state law designed to prevent public officials from also serving on boards, commissions, city councils and other governing bodies that may have interests that clash.

Reyes resigned from the Metro Gold Line Foothill Construction Authority at the urging of deputy city attorneys, who advised “it was less risky to his position as councilman to resign from the Gold Line board should the attorney general conclude that he holds incompatible offices.”

The Los Angeles Neighborhood Council Coalition was the most recent setting for “conflict of interest” charges, coming in the midst of debate over local development issues and the city’s municipal budget.

A presentation on Farmers Field and the AEG’s proposal to move the convention center in the process of bringing a football team to LA drew great debate, most of which revolved around the terms of the deal and the risk to the people of LA. The rigorous debate was best summed up by a community activist who bellowed “Let’s get ready for some Football!” on the condition that any member of the AEG team be expressly forbidden from contributing funds to any politician anywhere in the City of LA, the County of LA, or the State of California. “Only then will the people of LA stand a fair chance of a level playing field.”

This was followed by a speaker who pointed out that the City of LA regularly engages in negotiations with the City’s Union representatives, people who also contribute campaign funds to those who run for office and who represent the people of LA.

“How can the Mayor, the City Council, and the City Attorney represent the people of Los Angeles,” the budget activist asked, “if they are negotiating with Unions who have directly contributed to their political campaigns?”

One might suggest that it cuts both ways, even a Councilmember who was not on the receiving end of Union campaign contributions would lack an impartial position if the Union contributed to their opponent and/or campaigned on behalf of their opponent.

Through it all, the City Attorney is elected by the people of Los Angeles, in a campaign that is fueled by contributions from many special interests, to a position that legally represents “the City, its departments, commissions, and employees in civil litigation and transactions.”

Representatives of LA;s City Attorney frequently remind the people of Los Angeles that it is the Corporate City that is the client, not the people of Los Angeles.

Which master does the City Attorney serve as he takes his place at the table, next to the Mayor and the City Councilmembers, and proceeds to negotiate contracts that benefit the employees of LA while the people of LA aren’t considered “the client” and aren’t invited to the process.

It is imperative that the Mayor and the City Council clearly identify the master they serve. If money has changed hands, they must acknowledge the ethical cloud that follows the money and they must recuse themselves from the negotiations.

Lawyers can lose their licenses for violating specific standards that prevent even the impression of conflict. Athletes can lose their ability to compete just for communicating with known gamblers. Business licenses can be revoked if the operators are found to associate with members of organized crime.

Yet when it comes to LA’s City Hall, the people who are making decisions on behalf of the people of Los Angeles are negotiating with people who have contributed to their political careers. It’s time to take the money off the table and to ask those in City Hall the tough question, “Who are you really working for?”

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

LADOT and City Planning revisit "The errors of the past!"

The LADOT and City Planning have a "secret meeting" planned for a select number of bike activists along with representatives from three city council offices, all in a clear demonstration that the public process is of low priority in the ongoing saga of the City of LA's Proposed Bike Plan. (aka the $450,000 two year long uncoordinated journey of professional malpractice led by the Department of "No!")

At issue is the meeting that is planned for this Tuesday @ 4:00 pm (shh! It's a secret!) where the LADOT and City Planning are intending to "preview" the new and improved Proposed Bike Plan, the one that Michelle Mowery, LA's Bikeways Un-Coordinator, referred to on KPCC Radio last week as having elements that the public hasn't seen yet. That doesn't speak well for the two year long process of gear-grinding and other infeasiBULL planning injustices.

There are two explanations for the upcoming "secret meeting" process for the Proposed Bike Plan unveiling:

1) The LADOT and City Planning have forgotten how the community meetings went in 2008, when community members complained vocally and with great enthusiasm about the fumbled opening process that was limited to four meetings of two hours each, light on dialogue and heavy on post-its and poster board. These meetings serve as a low point in the civic engagement process and perhaps the LADOT and City Planning completely forgot that to exclude is a huge mistake. Perhaps they forgot that excluding the public is a bad idea and the 'secret meeting" is the result of simple incompetence.

2) The LADOT and City Planning might remember clearly that the participation of the public raises the expectation and sets a standard for performance in excess of the departmental intentions. Bike Activists have long held that the Proposed Bike Plan process was flawed from the beginning, when the Bikeways Un-Coordinator drafted the scope of work, put it out to bid, selected the consultant, supervised the consultant, refined the initial Bike Plan proposals, implemented the infamous "Infeasible" status and then retreated into the "budget crisis" retreat that allowed a regrouping, this time claiming that there was no more money for the consultant. Perhaps the "secret meetings" is a simply calculated attempt to circumvent the public process and to get to the finish line.

Either way, this "secret meeting" is infeasiBULL!

City Council President Eric Garcetti, PLUM Committee Chair Councilman Ed Reyes, and Transportation Committee Chair Councilman Bill Rosendahl are currently participants in the "secret meeting" and their staff are collecting the names of "friendlies" (three per CM!) who can meet with LADOT and City Planning for a limited review of the Proposed Bike Plan. The Councilmembers would be well advised to reconsider their affiliation and inadvertant endorsement of this "briefing" that is, at best, a simple case of incompetence but at worst, a demonstration of subtrefuge.

The City of Los Angeles has a Bicycle Advisory Committee, one made up of 15 people representing the 15 Council Districts and 4 more people who represent the Mayor. The 19 members of the Bicycle Advisory Committee met just last week and the City of LA's Bikeways Un-Coordinator submitted a written report on, among other things, the Proposed Bike Plan. No mention was made of this "secret meeting" but that is probably because it is...a secret! How is it that the LABAC is left out of the loop? That's standard operating procedures for the LADOT and City Planning, both of which consistently fail to involve the very people our elected officials have designated as their representatives and advisors.

There is one more possible explanation for the "restricted" access of the "secret meeting" and that is the sheer size of the Proposed Bike Plan is too much or average mortals. At several hundred pages of bikeways planning fodder, light on vision but heavy on background information, the Proposed Bike Plan even has a diagram of a four-way stop intersection, just in case none of us have ever seen one. The Proposed Bike Plan has proven mildly interesting but painful to print, and even more tedious to read, all as one hopes that the vision for Los Angeles will magically appear if one simply sticks with it. Perhaps the "secret meeting" is limited to speed readers, those who can digest hundreds of pages of Proposed Bike Plan in a single sitting, offering insightful feedback and recommendations that will make us all proud and that will make LA a great place to ride.

That leaves us with three possible explanations for the "secret meeting" scheduled for Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 3:00 pm.

1) Incompetence
2) Subtrefuge
3) Technocratic Superiority

Regardless of the explanation, the "secret meeting" is a flawed process, consistent with the LADOT and City Planning journey, but completely unacceptable to the people of Los Angeles who deserve accountability, responsibility, and the opportunity to participate in the process and on the delivery of the final product.

This "secret meeting" is infeasiBULL!

LA City Council - "Failure to Deliver"

Los Angeles is a City that loves to order departmental surveys, concept reports, project studies, recommendations and proposals. What Los Angeles doesn't do well is deliver.

It's been two and a half years since the LA City council, over the objections of the LADOT, acted decisively and made it illegal to park in a Bike Lane in Los Angeles. Unfortunately the LADOT and the LAPD are still ill-equipped to enforce the ban and the ordinance remains irrelevant.

It's been a little over three years since the City Council approved the contract with Illium and Associates for Bike Maps which we argued would be redundant since the Metro does county-wide maps that are of better detail and quality than the city maps. The City Council moved forward and approved the $400,000 contract but that was the last movement to be made. Three years later, is Ilium developing those maps? Is Alta Planning also developing Bike Maps as part of the Bike Plan process?

Last year CM's Huizar and Perry said "I FURTHER MOVE that the Department of Transportation, in partnership with the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee and the General Services Department, be requested to develop a mass parking policy and designate an efficient place and manner to lock up large number of bicycles for individuals who come to City Hall as a part of a group." Maybe it was just a joke and we fell for it. Ha, ha! Seriously, how hard is it to lock up bikes at City Hall? Too tough for the LADOT to figure out. They study, we wait.

It's been over 18 months since CM's Garcetti and Reyes got all interested in Sharrows and said "I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council direct the Department of Transportation to develop a "Shared Lane Pavement Markings," also known as "sharrows," pilot program. So far, nothing except that the plan to engage in a study is almost underway. Meanwhile, Long Beach has put in colored Sharrows and the Department of DIY has put in homemade Sharrows.

It's been 18 months since CM's Greuel and Garcetti were inspired by the bike-share programs of the Great Cities they visited, returning to LA and commanding "I THEREFORE MOVE that the City Council instruct the Department of Transportation to examine the feasibility of creating a bike sharing program in the City of Los Angeles and submit recommendations to the Transportation Committee within 45 days." Tough talk! New Transportation committee Chair Rosendahl liked it so much, he gave the same instructions to the LADOT last week.

Meanwhile, on February 24, Claremont and Covina will be cutting the ribbon on "Bikestation Claremont and Bikestation Covina, the first bicycle and alternative transportation center “network” in the United States."

It would be great to have the City Council's Transportation Committee visit Claremont and Covina for the Bikestation ribbon cuttings but the 24th is an important day in LA, everybody will be on the 10th floor as LAPD Chief Charlie Beck visits the Transpo Committee. Will he have the Hummer vs. Cyclist report from last year?

It's been almost a year since a group of cyclists encountered a motorist behind the wheel of a Hummer, sans license plate, and ended up in a Wilco Tango Foxtrot encounter. Three times the Transportation Committee has directed the LAPD to appear to report on the incident and the subsequent investigation but in all three appearances the LAPD neglected to bring the actual LAPD report, resulting in a lot of "I don't know. I'll have to check." responses. Will Beck produce the report? Will Rosendahl follow up on the failure of the LAPD to respond to his instructions?

It's been over a year since the City Council embraced the Cyclists' Bill of Rights and boldly directed "the Los Angeles Department of Transportation, Planning Department, Department
of Public Works, and Los Angeles Bicycle Advisory Committee, in consultation with the City Attorney and the Los Angeles Police Department, to report with recommendations on how to
incorporate the principles enshrined in the "Cyclists' Bill of Rights" into the City of Los Angeles Bicycle Master Plan and other relevant documents and practices." That went nowhere fast.

The City Council has demonstrated clearly that it is incapable of following up on the many instructions it puts in play. Hence the need for community oversight. Now, more than ever, it is imperative that LA's Budget, the delivery of services, and the civic process itself be open and transparent. The public must be at the table.