Term Limits, Vetos, Game Theory And 2009
Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- who is not a lawyer and, on the contrary, failed the bar exam four times -- chose to disregard the City Attorney's recommendation that he veto the so-called "City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act," on the grounds that it is illegal.
City Attorney Delgadillo had urged the City Council to split the ballot measure into two separate measures, one to amend the City Charter to change term limits from eight years to 12, which requires voter approval; and the other to change (i.e., weaken) various ethics laws, which the City Council could change right now, without voter approval. Instead, the City Council insisted on leaving the two measures joined together as one, and giving it a misleading name to avoid drawing attention to the term limits provisions.
Villaraigosa could have, and should have, vetoed the City Council's ballot measure, on advice of counsel. The City Council would then have had a second opportunity to obey the law (e.g., by submitting the measures to Neighborhood Councils before putting them on the ballot). Instead, the Mayor aided and abetted the City Council's scheme to dupe voters into supporting the measure, which was drafted by a law firm that represents lobbyists. (You could not make this stufff up.)
Delgadillo and City Controller Laura Chick have criticized the Mayor's refusal to veto. Why? Game theory. The proposed term limits measure excludes their offices, so whether the measure passes or not, these two career politicians will be "termed out" in 2009. Delgadillo's bid to become State Attorney General did not work, and Chick has already served on the City Council. So they can't stay in their cushy positions beyond 2009, and there is no way they would willingly enter the dreaded private sector. They will therefore posture themselves to run for Mayor in 2009. To avoid a challenge from them, Villaraigosa will have to promise them plum positions, thereby facilitating his campaigns for reelection and governor.
Posted by Walter Moore @ 8/05/2006 11:01:00 AM
27 Comments:
What would the "plum" positions be?
The City has a budget of $6.7 billion, and the LAUSD's budget -- which the Mayor plans to control -- is another $7 billion. I think somewhere in that morass, and/or in his 2010 gubernatorial campaign, he can find positions for two people.
After all, political "friends" like these help one another. Remember when Villaraigosa accidentally didn't get elected mayor in 2001, and was suddenly out of office? His buddy, Bob Hertzberg, got him a plum appointment to some kind of medical commission. And, years later, when Bob accidentally wound up out of office, he became Villaraigosa's "adviser."
Plus, don't rule out the extra-governmental temporary plum position. With billions to throw at vendors, Villaraigosa can "recommend" that a law firm or think tank hire one or both of these people, at least until he can seize control of the state bureaucracy, at which point there will be plenty of posts to fill.
Not surprised that AV didn't stop this; just shows that the stench of institutional corruption still permeates City Hall. At least historians will have something to write about down the line.
BTW, here is the plum Walter referenced:
LA Times June 30, 2001
State Assembly Speaker Bob Hertzberg (D-Sherman Oaks) on Friday appointed his former colleague Antonio Villaraigosa to a seat on the California Medical Assistance Commission.
The state commission position pays $99,000 a year, but the former mayoral candidate was appointed to a term that expires at the end of the year. Villaraigosa replaces former Sonoma Assemblywoman Valerie Brown, who is leaving the post and taking a job on Hertzberg's staff.
MEMO TO "LA ANTONIA TIMES"
Waiting on the edtorial condeming the abuse of power of Eric Garcetti. Further, don't forget to remind Polloraigosa that he promise to end this crap at City Hall.
Walter,
You are a gorgeous man with brains. Are under city council's watchful eye?
Walter,
You are a gorgeous man with brains. Are YOU under city council's watchful eye?
Delgadillo never said the ballot measure was illegal - he signed it "approved as to form and legality" and said he would defend it if sued. He just said he didn't like it, and thinks the Council should have voted otherwise. Since when was Delgadillo elected to Council?
The measure STINKS, with its stench extending from the Chamber and the Lobbyists Association all the way through every Council office. Whether Delgadillo and Chick were included or excluded, this does not change the fact that this whole thing has been handled in a sleazy fashion more suited to the type of corrupt system that Los Angeles worked so hard to clean up. And now only to see it return!!!
The fact is these asshole clowns on city council knew exactly what they were doing when they tried to rush this ballot measure through. They insult the voters intelligence thinking we're too stupid to not see all the ethics crap hiding the extended term limits. Why didn't they head this ballot measure as "TERM LIMIT EXTENSIONS"???? Because they tried to be sneaky and corrupt. Everyone is hoping Alger, Jason Lyon, Brady Westwater, Rusty Mullard, and the rest who organized against the DWP hike do it again and spread the word for everyone to campaign hard and VOTE AGAINST THIS.
There is a strong possibility that Antonio will lose the LAUSD takeover issue. He's losing a lot of his rich friends with all the illegal immigration BS, people who voted for him are now shaking their heads wondering why they voted for him, Antonio hasn't done a damn thing for this city since taking office except concentrate on LAUSD. I'm not to sure he'll be in any office come the future.
7:52, you forgot that he had 83 potholes filled across the city and (I think) improved the traffic signals on 3rd St. between downtown and Alvarado.
Car show was da bomb!
El sereno rules!
9:30 Ghetto
You can read Delgadillo's letter for yourself at my website: http://mooreisbetter.com/CityAttyLtr.pdf .
After reading it, consider whether you, as an honest politician, would proceed with the ballot measure as is, or whether you would instead at least submit it to the Ethics Commission for review, and at most split it into two separate ballot measures. You may want to consdider the following passages:
Page 2:
First, the legislative proposals could be vetted with public notice and comment through the City's Ethics Commission, the body designated by the Charter to consider such issues.
Page 2:
Finally, we also note that combining Charter amendments and ordinance provisions in the same ballot question has not been the City's prior practice and could be subject to legal challenge. The legal authority to place a charter amendment before the voters is based on state law, while the authority to place a municipal ordinance before the voters is based on our City Charter. A court could interpret this legislative separation as requiring a Charter amendment to be on a ballot separate from a municipal ordinance.
Page 10:
". . . the Ethics Commission itself jas not
had the opportunity to give these proposals due deliberation pursuant to its duties and
responsibilities provided in the Charter."
Okay, now that you've answered the pop quiz, you can grade your answer yourself based on the following passage from the L.A. Times about the City Attorney's subsequent statements to the press:
City Atty. Rocky Delgadillo and Controller Laura Chick had urged the mayor to veto the controversial measure, and two members of the Ethics Commission objected to the commission's not having a chance to vet the reforms portion of the ordinance.
The mayor's statement brought swift reaction from Delgadillo's office:
The ballot measure "was written by City Hall lobbyists and weakens current ethics laws, places the city in legal peril and is misleading to the voters."
"The City Council has ignored the opinion of its own lawyer, the city attorney, and made a troubling end-run around the Ethics Commission to ram through a term limits extension scheme by half-baked ethics measures," said Nick Velasquez, Delgadillo's spokesman.
Sure..................................................................gangbanger car show, beer cans, filth tatoo gang members, public erotic dance................................................
Villaraigosa and Nunez bail on LAUSD audience
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_gVa-b6rHI
How many unpaved streets exist in Los Angeles?
Please Pave Glencoe Way - Los Angeles, CA 90068
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NsdgmynIE2M
Venice Outlaws Fight Corruption Ballot Scam and Lottery
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-MyVi3oSgI
Zuma Dogg or the chimpanzee I saw at the LA Zoo the other day could do a better job running the city than these current council clowns (no offense to Zuma Dogg).
yEA. zUMM DoG Is dA mAN
DOWN WITH CITY HALL CORRUPTION
City Council has attracted the looney people because no one has any respect for them. I've never seen the idiots who are speaking out that are as crazy as Zuma Dogg, and the rest. They even announce it's their "Outlaw Show on Channel 35."
I normally don't like Mariel Garza but love her opinion in today's paper
UNLIMITED ARROGANCE AT CITY HALL
...They didn't even have the guts to introduce the term-limit measure themselves, but invented a farce about how the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the League of Women Voters came up with the plan all on their lonesome, and at the last moment. Oops. They just love the current council members that much!
I don't understand the vitriol some of you spew on this thread. I SUPPORT the extension of term limits for Councilmembers. The Councilmember who represents me, Jose Huizar, is one of the most committed and talanted individuals I have had the pleasure of meeting. I would be honored if he could serve our district for three terms.
If the rest of you have such a problem with the current leadership in your districts, then why don't you vote them out of office? The rest of us should not suffer limited terms because you feel this way. Stop being lazy and remove your representatives from office!
CD 14 loves Mr. Huizar!
I don't understand the vitriol some of you spew on this thread. I DO NOT SUPPORT the extension of term limits for Councilmembers. The Councilmember who represents me, Jose Huizar, is one of the most lazy and incompetent individuals I have met. I would be honored if he left and let another candidate serve our district for three terms.
If the rest of you have such a problem with the current leadership in your districts, then why don't you vote them out of office? The rest of us should not suffer limited terms because you feel this way. Stop being lazy and remove your representatives from office!
CD 14 loves Mr. Huizar!
Hey Huizar staff members
You only need to send one suckup piece at a time.
Someone please send that kiss ass Huizar lover some prozac. No one "loves" sleazy weezy in CD14. In fact everyone makes negative comments about him at every community meeting. He hasn't done a damn thing for his district. He never attends meetings he should be at because like his Boss, he's wimpy and hates confrontation. Yes, there are plenty of people already planning to VOTE HIM OUT. He's not as secure in his job as he thinks.
August 07, 2006 8:42 AM,
You'll have your test by fire soon enough. Can you put your money where your mouth is?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home