GLASSELL PARK NC UPDATE AND MORE YouTube of The "J.R. Ewing" of the NC System, Bradley of E.B.E. (He's the STAR that people LOVE to HATE!)

WATCH THIS THREAD ON SUNDAY FOR UPDATES INCLUDING TOMMOROW'S GLASSELL PARK NC MEET AND GREET WITH DONE'S CAROL BAKER THARP.

***** UPDATE ****
THERE'S SUCH A FLOOD OF NEW INFO POURING IN, I HAVE TO POST SOME OF IT OFF SITE. HERE'S SOME COMMENTS FROM PEOPLE WHO CLAIM TO HAVE PROOF OF FRAUD AT GPNC, PLUS OTHER GPNC COMMENTS NOT POSTED ON ANY OTHER BLOG. EVEN MORE GPNC INFO & COMMENTS (GOOD STUFF!)

FROM ZUMA'S ZAP INBOX:

ZAPPER: ZD, What is the entire Glassell Park NC group doing with a Highland Park phone number -- belonging to someone who doesn't appear to have any link to GPNC, at all? Maybe it's nothing, but maybe it's something...

ZD: Oh, I'm sure it's nothing. It never is.

...And this thoughtful and insightful dialouge from the NortheastLA Yahoo Group regarding "Conflict of Interests" and what the City is and isn't willing to do about all this NC scandal triggered by Bradley and his Glassell Park (and regional) NC in Cahoots crew. (And that cahootsism includes the Planning Department, and that means Councilmembers!)

Zuma, Kind of interesting that the the new Bradley/Victory Outreach-controlled GPNC has eliminated all funding for projects other then "outreach," while reneging on funding for the Cypress/Glassell Park walkabout (which I understand was very successful) and not bothering to show up to any of the local community events for which outreach sponsorship had already been provided.

PROOF POSITIVE THAT GLASSELL PARK NC DOES PLENTY OF OUTREACH
[SO DON'T BLAME THEM, FOR BLAMING YOU FOR NOT SHOWING UP!]


Zuma,

More unrest from the pueblos in Cahootsville.

This whole string is fascinating. [ZD: I AGREE!]

-----Forwarded Message-----
From: Rob Schraff
Sent: Jun 10, 2007 11:18 AM
To: NortheastLA@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [NortheastLA] Re: Bradley's Victory Outreach Conflict - Proof

CLICK READ MORE FOR THE INFORMATIVE TRANSCRIPT. AND YOU MAY WANT TO SCROLL TO THE BOTTOM AND READ YOUR WAY UP TO CATCH THE REPLIES IN THE ORDER THEY WERE POSTED.


Mary -

Cases are different. Times change. I AM hopeful that Bradley's spectacularly poor bahavior does cause change.

Remember, tomorrow night, Carol Baker Tharp will be meeting people at the Glassell Park Community Center. [With convientent 5pm starting time. Tell your boss you have to take off work around 3:30pm to get there in time.]

Rob

From: "Mo"
Reply-To: NortheastLA@yahoogroups.com
To: NortheastLA@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NortheastLA] Re: Bradley's Victory Outreach Conflict - Proof
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 18:10:48 -0000

Rob, City Ethics WILL NOT investigate. Call them directly and talk
with them, as I have a number of times. The laws may technically
apply (and even that's arguable), but without financial disclosure,
they will NOT investigate or enforce. I have been told that by the
city attorney's office, the city Ethics Commission, the Fair Political
Practices Commission, the state attorney general and the county
attorney's office. DONE has no enforcement power. So even if the
laws DO apply, if no one will investigate them or enforce them, what
possible difference does it make? I'd love to see some city agency
undertake an investigation...but it ain't gonna happen until someone
files a successful lawsuit forcing the issue. And given the structure
of the NCs, that would be difficult because the NC approvals ARE
"advisory" only. We have neighborhood council members who use their
positions for their own financial gain, and the only ones who seem to
give a darn are those few of us who have witnessed it and tried to do
something about it. I am hoping that Bradley's blatant violation of
the Brown Act will cause enough embarrassment to the city that it
starts to do something...but I'm not holding my breath.

Mo

In NortheastLA@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Schraff" wrote:

Mo -

Here's the catch, from Bradley's point of view -

"WHEREAS, if neighborhood councils are exempted from adopting and
promulgating a conflict of interest code, they nevertheless will be
bound by the substantive provisions of the Political Reform Act
requiring disclosure and recusal in specified situations involving
conflict of interests"

So, in a nutshell, NC reps don't have to reveal conflicts, but are
still not allowed to act on them. Bradley is clearly in violation of
the Political Reform Act, as well as the Brown Act. (It would also be
interesting to know how many meetings and telephone conversations the
board has had in private in violation of the Brown Act.) The county
D.A., could definitely get involved. Of course there's also the
California Fair Political Practices Commisssion -
http://www.fppc.ca.gov/

I suppose if the sign actually goes up, Bradley could even face a
civil suit for damages.

Here's another interesting point - the exemption is specifically
allowed only until - "The entity obtains authority to engage in
regulatory, quasiregulatory, permit, licensing or planning authority
or functions;"

I would say the support of the Victory Outreach sign assumes "quasi-regulatory" "planning authority" functions. I'm sure the city attorney would argue otherwise in regard to the NC's "advisory"status, but it seems the word "quasi" makes this difficult when an official, elected, city body under the charter takes a stand onplanning issues.

There is a process for addressing this through the Ethics Commission,
but maybe instead city needs to reconsider the conflict exemption,
lobbied for by DONE, and a problem in a number of local NCs?

- Rob


From: "Mo"
Subject: [NortheastLA] Re: Bradley's Victory Outreach Conflict - Proof
Date: Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:08:37 -0000

Well, Rob, I wish it would do some good to go to the City Attorney or
County Attorney or DONE -- BUT IT WON'T. As I pointed out in my May
30th posting, there is NO enforcement of the Conflict of Interest or
Ethics laws when it comes to Neighborhood Councils.

I've been raising that issue ever since I found about it last fall.

Because of issues involving a conflict of interest issue and unethical
behavior on the part of Jim Perry, an Eagle Rock Neighborhood Council
board member, I filed complaints with the City Ethics Commission and
the City Attorney. Much to my surprised dismay, I was told that the
city ethics and conflict of interest laws DO NOT apply to Neighborhood
Council board members and no city agency will investigate or enforce
those laws with respect to Neighborhood Councils. NC board members
are required by law to take the conflict of interest and ethics
training...but they will NOT be held accountable if they violate the
laws. Next I tried state enforcement agencies, hoping I could get
someone there to investigate. I was told the same thing --- no
enforcement because Neighborhood Council members are exempt and do not
complete the state financial disclosure forms.

On the DONE website, there is a link for Reference Library, which
drops down a list of more links. Choose "Laws that Govern Us". That
will give you a list of documents available. From that list, choose
the one titled: "Ordinance 176477 - Form 700 -- Conflict of Interest
Disclosure: Exempts Neighborhood Councils from adopting a conflict of
interest code and filing Form 700 financial disclosure statements."
The link to this document is:

http://www.lacityneighborhoods.com/documents/Ordinance%20176477%20eff%2003-28-2005.pdf

The Mayor himself applied for and received an exemption from the
state's Fair Political Practices Commission for oversight by that
agency of Neighborhood Councils.

So who oversees the ethics and honesty of the Neighborhood Councils?
The boards themselves! Yep - you got it! The boards are free to add
ethics and conflict of interest language to their bylaws, and then
police themselves. Huh. Wonder how likely it is that any board will
actually step up and do the right thing? From what I've witnessed --
not too likely.

So is anyone beginning to understand why this issue has had me upset
for lo these many months? Particularly now, when NCs are pushing for
more power and more money?

Mo Oxford

--- In NortheastLA@yahoogroups.com, "Rob Schraff" wrote:

Attached is a pdf doc for city planning Case ZA-2007-824.

In this perjury statement Bradley signs that he is verifying that this
is the map that he has drawn of the radius (500') from the Victory
Outreach sign, within which occupants are to be notified of CU Permit
hearing.

His signature is on a statement verifying that the list of occupants
and their addresses within the 500' radius of project is correct.

Specific Proof that Bradley was (is?) working for Victory Outreach,
and has a clear conflict. I must say its time to stop messing around
with DONE re: this particular scum, and go straight to the city
attorney or County D.A.

Might also be worthwhile to check if he has a real-estate,
contractor's or Section 7 financial services sales licence....

contact: zumadogg@gmail.com