L No?
The Daily News urges a "no" vote on Measure L, and makes a pretty good case:
First, no salary hike is warranted, the Daily News says, because the board is supposed to be, well, a board. You know, like a corporation's board of directors? They're not supposed to micromanage every little thing. They're supposed to check in now and then and make sure everything's headed in the right direction.
Second, the committee established to determine the pay levels could set it at whatever the committee deems appropriate. Hey, thanks but no thanks.
Third, the term limits would begin at the election, so all the incumbents could serve another 12 years.
Fourth, though the paper isn't clear to me on this one, they claim special interests could circumvent the $1000 cap on contributions. Hmmmmm.... Right now, you've got individuals donating hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have to say, though, it sure seems like special interests manage to circumvent the limits in the mayoral races.
Maybe it's better to eliminate the dollar limits, and just require disclosure. That could make it easier to identify who's REALLY funding the campaigns.
Anyway, I'm going to follow the old debate rule: when in doubt, preserve the status quo. No one's made a great case for Measure L to me. Have they presented such a case to you?
First, no salary hike is warranted, the Daily News says, because the board is supposed to be, well, a board. You know, like a corporation's board of directors? They're not supposed to micromanage every little thing. They're supposed to check in now and then and make sure everything's headed in the right direction.
Second, the committee established to determine the pay levels could set it at whatever the committee deems appropriate. Hey, thanks but no thanks.
Third, the term limits would begin at the election, so all the incumbents could serve another 12 years.
Fourth, though the paper isn't clear to me on this one, they claim special interests could circumvent the $1000 cap on contributions. Hmmmmm.... Right now, you've got individuals donating hundreds of thousands of dollars. I have to say, though, it sure seems like special interests manage to circumvent the limits in the mayoral races.
Maybe it's better to eliminate the dollar limits, and just require disclosure. That could make it easier to identify who's REALLY funding the campaigns.
Anyway, I'm going to follow the old debate rule: when in doubt, preserve the status quo. No one's made a great case for Measure L to me. Have they presented such a case to you?
Posted by Walter Moore @ 3/02/2007 07:14:00 PM
2 Comments:
If you want to know who is really "funding" an official, because of donation limits it is difficult to discern. However, if you look up the funding for the official's pet project, there are no limits and those who wield the most influence and receive the most favors contribute the most money to the pet project.
If you look at LA's BEST, the after-school program Wendy Greuel helped to start when she worked for Tom Bradley and what has become her pet project, you will see, for example, that she receives huge donations from Eli Broad and the Economic Alliance. The Economic Alliance is made up of the ex-seccessionists who are now busy promoting Vision2020 which is the smart growth urban planning mechanism to promote urban transit villages throughout Los Angeles. The condominium developer's wet dream!
Interestingly Ms. Greuel's husband sits on the board with Latham and Watkins whose employees are allowed to ride along with Mayor Villariagosa on his trips to Japan and other parts of the world.
You want Wendy out! Write-in DAVID CAIN for COUNCILMEMBER
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home