Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Thursday, December 21, 2006

Mayor Sam's Hotsheet for Thursday

Its getting closer to Christmas and not a whole lot going on. Martini Republic notes the general boredom pervading local blogs.

Over at the LA Times they take a look at the differences on each side of the 405 in the San Fernando Valley. Bottom line? The east is more liberal, the west more conservative, the south is more in favor of LA and most of the north isn't. We also learn that Tom LeBong met his wife at the legendary Palomino Club and that the Westside White Guy thinks that the East Valley is "filling in," though it developed first and has also had a larger population than the West Valley.

In the meantime the front page news at the Daily News is a round-up of donut shops in the Valley. That was one topic the LA Times forgot to cover in their report.

Oh and in real news the Engineers and Architects Association seems to be closer to a contract agreement with the city.

Anything else going on?


Anonymous Anonymous said:

David Z has to be given an award for having the most guts as a reporter in this city. David you truly are a great reporter. A great read.
laweekly.com Anti-Choice Mayor

...Fuentes and Montañez are the latest examples of the hot trend in Los Angeles politics: the tidy disappearance of candidates trying to challenge forces larger than themselves — or offer voters another choice. Think of it as the Sacramento-ization of City Hall, where deals are cut behind the scenes to clear the field for hand-picked candidates chosen by the powers that be. In L.A.’s current political climate, campaigns mysteriously evaporate. Candidates who are on the attack one day suddenly go mute the next.

And each time a candidate is anointed and the opposition removed — not just by Alarcón, but by the rising machine of Villaraigosa — the electorate misses out on a serious debate in which candidates compete over ideas for improving Los Angeles.
Skelton clearly knows the drill by now. While the once-scrappy Montañez would not come to the telephone, Skelton acknowledged in a telephone interview that Montañez, now his client, was not happy about quitting but felt that other political opportunities would come her way. Other City Hall veterans were more blunt, arguing Montañez would not have backed out unless she thought she was going to be dumped by Team Villaraigosa.

December 21, 2006 11:04 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

The EAA agreement would be for the term beginning in July '07. There would be no changes to the contract that the City Council unilaterally imposed. Supposedly the contract calls for annual increases of 3% over 3 years. I don't see how EAA and Aquino can recommend approval of this contract to its members. This a far cry from the "Equal Pay, Equal Work" theme they've been running with during these strikes (which apparently were ineffective in getting a better contract than SEIU). Forget parity, this isn't even equal to what DWP gets at a minimum (3.5% annually with escalators that could reach up to 6% annually). Relative to the 0%/2%/4.25% contract the Council forced the union to accept, it's an improvement, but it's still less than the typical 4%/4%/5% the union received prior to Tony V's tenure. This is akin to getting kicked in the balls or punched in the face, one incredibly sucks, the other's not all that much better. I think EAA members will get screwed if they agree to this contract. SEIU will come to the bargaining table using the 0% first year and not being allowed to take advantage of the clause in their contract that would allow them to renegotiate as leverage in getting a better contract and EAA will be shat our of luck.

December 21, 2006 11:36 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To Whom It May Concern:

Enclosed is a letter for your consideration. I would be open to any comments or advice you have to offer. Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Donna Connolly

I have contacted Liza White, President of the League of Women Voters and Ron Gastelum, President of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce (the two main sponsors of Proposition R) and every member of the LA City Council, and no one seems to want to answer the simple question: Why did the League and the Chamber feel the need to re-write the existing City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act at this time?

I would like to know why there was such an urgent need for Ethics Reform in Los Angeles government. I think it’s important for LA residents to know why the League and the Chamber rushed this measure through the city council without giving the Ethics Commission a chance to review it, and why they ignored the City Attorney’s opinion and appealed Judge O’Brien’s ruling that it violated the constitution.

Why have two highly respected organizations forced this city into another lawsuit over a ballot initiative?

If anyone can answer these questions, please contact me at dconnla2@yahoo.com.


I contacted the Sutton Law Firm and was told no information could be released to me. My last questions for which I am still waiting for an answer was: Who was your client and who paid your bill?

December 21, 2006 3:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Donna Connolly, excellent question.
You're not the only one waiting for the answer to, "Who was your client and who paid your bill?"

December 21, 2006 5:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Replace trees causing sidewalk damages before palm trees.
eliminate stupid ideas like getting rid of California's historical landscape that include only the Palm trees.
eliminate the rats in LA.
eliminate self serving politicians

December 24, 2006 11:47 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home