Clarification of LA Times Article
Maybe if Eli Broad takes over LA Times, he can make it more accurate...
FROM LA TIMES (11/09/06)
"The City Council voted Wednesday to spend as much as $100,000 for outside attorneys to defend legislation that gives Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa some authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District. [Aka: LAUSD's constitutional court challenge over AB 1381.] The mayor had indicated that the city would bear no legal costs for his initiative [As in to defend AB 1381 in court.] Plans changed after the district challenged whether his campaign committee could legally fund litigation costs." - LA Times
However, ZD says, although City Council did approve to spend as much as $100,000 for Mayor Antonio Villagrosa's "School-Takeover Legal Defense Fund", it does not mean that the Mayor has broken his promise to the voters of Los Angeles and the parents and children of LAUSD, yet. [Aka: "plans changed"]
You see, since the Mayor promised not to defend AB 1381 on the City's dime (because he is supposed to assume all liability for this wild limb he is out on (AB 1381) and not hold the City liable. So, he tried to use money from his election campaign fund, but a complaint was filed in court by the school district, challenging whether campaign contribution money was an acceptable fund to pay for the Mayor's personal legal tab over AB 1381, cause the City ain't responsible for defending the Mayor's school-takeover Bill.
And the problem with this situation is the same problem with AB 1381 in general: The Mayor is wearing two hats; one as Mayor of the City he was elected as; and one as the LAUSD big-cheese he wasn't elected as. (Beause AB 1381 was never put to a vote of the people, even though the committee on the Bill said it must be put to a vote of the people.)
So the LA Times makes it seem like, "Mayor's election money out...City Council money in." (And the promise was broken.) However, ZD is told by someone familiar with the situation, that although there is indeed a pending court challenge that may prevent the Mayor from using his campaign money to defend AB 1381 in court, there won't be a ruling for months.
It was out of "an abundance of caution" that City Council, under shady and rushed circumstances, voted "yes" on Special Agenda Item 01 (11/08/06) and authorized up to $100,000 on stand-by, as a back-up financial payment plan for attorneys, should the Judge rule Mayor Antonio may not use money donated to his campaign fund, to defend LAUSD business.
Councilmember Jack Weiss explains to the voting public why City Council rushed this onto the agenda sometime during the four-hour Council meeting, and doesn't really have time to get into it now, but just vote "yes": "It's a complicated legal matter and it is only going to get more complicated, rather than less complicated, and that will happen quite soon, if it hasn't already started, because of the issues and the nature of the parties and the nature of the attorneys."
Understand? Probably not. It's very unclear. And so is AB 1381. Good luck, kids.
FROM LA TIMES (11/09/06)
"The City Council voted Wednesday to spend as much as $100,000 for outside attorneys to defend legislation that gives Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa some authority over the Los Angeles Unified School District. [Aka: LAUSD's constitutional court challenge over AB 1381.] The mayor had indicated that the city would bear no legal costs for his initiative [As in to defend AB 1381 in court.] Plans changed after the district challenged whether his campaign committee could legally fund litigation costs." - LA Times
However, ZD says, although City Council did approve to spend as much as $100,000 for Mayor Antonio Villagrosa's "School-Takeover Legal Defense Fund", it does not mean that the Mayor has broken his promise to the voters of Los Angeles and the parents and children of LAUSD, yet. [Aka: "plans changed"]
You see, since the Mayor promised not to defend AB 1381 on the City's dime (because he is supposed to assume all liability for this wild limb he is out on (AB 1381) and not hold the City liable. So, he tried to use money from his election campaign fund, but a complaint was filed in court by the school district, challenging whether campaign contribution money was an acceptable fund to pay for the Mayor's personal legal tab over AB 1381, cause the City ain't responsible for defending the Mayor's school-takeover Bill.
And the problem with this situation is the same problem with AB 1381 in general: The Mayor is wearing two hats; one as Mayor of the City he was elected as; and one as the LAUSD big-cheese he wasn't elected as. (Beause AB 1381 was never put to a vote of the people, even though the committee on the Bill said it must be put to a vote of the people.)
So the LA Times makes it seem like, "Mayor's election money out...City Council money in." (And the promise was broken.) However, ZD is told by someone familiar with the situation, that although there is indeed a pending court challenge that may prevent the Mayor from using his campaign money to defend AB 1381 in court, there won't be a ruling for months.
It was out of "an abundance of caution" that City Council, under shady and rushed circumstances, voted "yes" on Special Agenda Item 01 (11/08/06) and authorized up to $100,000 on stand-by, as a back-up financial payment plan for attorneys, should the Judge rule Mayor Antonio may not use money donated to his campaign fund, to defend LAUSD business.
Councilmember Jack Weiss explains to the voting public why City Council rushed this onto the agenda sometime during the four-hour Council meeting, and doesn't really have time to get into it now, but just vote "yes": "It's a complicated legal matter and it is only going to get more complicated, rather than less complicated, and that will happen quite soon, if it hasn't already started, because of the issues and the nature of the parties and the nature of the attorneys."
Understand? Probably not. It's very unclear. And so is AB 1381. Good luck, kids.
Posted by Zuma Dogg @ 11/09/2006 07:49:00 PM
4 Comments:
Antonio wasn't elected to fight or takeover LAUSD. Tax payers should not foot the bill for his Battle with LAUSD. How can he tell city dept. heads to cut spending and yet the clowncil is passing all kinds of motions spending large amounts of money? I say cut their damn salaries and pay for it out of that if the clowncil is so kiss ass to Antonio.
I REALLY hate to come to the defense of the Mayor and Clowncil, BUT this horrible bill has become the law of the land. It was duly enacted by our corrupt and gutless legislature. Now, therefore, it is the duty of the Mayor and the Clowncil to defend the law against attacks, so, much as I'd like to, I cannot fault them for defending the law.
However, since we already have an army of lawyers on payroll -- Rocky, Bullwinkle and friends -- I do not understand why we must shell out $100,000 more for outside counsel. Heck, for $100,000, they could hire an additional attorney for a year.
The mayor did this without the support of the constituents. No way should we pay for his aggressions to usurp power over the LAUSD. We already have elected those officials and are paying them (not very well I might add, it's a crime what they get for the jobs they do) to oversee our school district. The idiots up in sacramento had no right to enact this law.
Furthermore, the mayor should have tried to work with the school board to enact changes he believed would help the youth of our city. He choose not to. Therefore, the city council should be very careful how they spend our tax dollars. Promoting the mayor is not a good way to get themselves re-elected to the extra term they just got from the voters of our fair city.
The city attorneys office is already over worked and bogged with so many cases. I mean they would have to be to allow the city to settle a case with a fireman who took two bites of dog food for 2.5 mil. The city council approved it. The only one who voted against it was Zine. Thank god he has a brain. It's time we watch the cases the city settles giving away our tax dollars without a checks and balance from anyone. I know this because if someone would have been overseeing this ridicules settlement they would have stopped the insanity...
Okie dokie...thank you. Where was the award winning LA Times writers on this one? Why don't they investigate the newest wanna be la city fire woman lotto winner who is claiming harassment. Ms Sotelo, the chair of the fire commission might nice to her as she was to the 6.5 "Big Dog" firefighter...we will have to watch and see...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home