Open Thread for Sunday
Former journo and Westside White Guy accomplice Bill Boyarsky pens an op-ed in the Fishwrap of Record about his now expired term on the City of LA's Ethics Commission. Boyarsky, who was appointed by City Controller Laura Chick upon his application for the job finds his service on the panel whose job is to clean up politics, a failure.
Boyarsky says the panel is hamstrung by a City Attorney ruling (one he finds to be in error) that the state's Brown Act prevents Commissioners from speaking with City Councilmembers or from speaking out on ethics related issues. As well Boyarsky found that any reforms to the system the Commission proposed had to be approved by a City Council who had no interest in reforming the system and buried their recommendations in committee.
Free from his public service, the question for Boyarsky is what's next? Perhaps he would like to join fellow former scribe turned populist leader Ron Kaye in bringing a bag of trash to City Hall on July 14th.
"I left City Hall frustrated, irritated and saddened -- and most of all, humbled by a culture impervious to change. "Free at last," I said when my colleagues asked me if I had some final words at my last meeting June 10."
Bill Boyarsky
Boyarsky says the panel is hamstrung by a City Attorney ruling (one he finds to be in error) that the state's Brown Act prevents Commissioners from speaking with City Councilmembers or from speaking out on ethics related issues. As well Boyarsky found that any reforms to the system the Commission proposed had to be approved by a City Council who had no interest in reforming the system and buried their recommendations in committee.
Free from his public service, the question for Boyarsky is what's next? Perhaps he would like to join fellow former scribe turned populist leader Ron Kaye in bringing a bag of trash to City Hall on July 14th.
Labels: bill boyarsky, Brown Act, Ethics Commission, Ron Kaye, westside white guy
Posted by Michael Higby @ 7/06/2008 11:16:00 AM
26 Comments:
Don't miss Kaye's post on Zine today. You won't know whether to laugh or to cry.
If the Brown Act is supposed to protect the public's ability to participate in local government meetings, what protection does the public have to participate in committee meetings of the State Assembly and State Senate? Does the Bagley-Keane Act provide public participation protection in state government meetings?
Come on, Boyarsky, you want us to believe you were naive when you accepted the appointment from Laura Chick, of all the hypocrites in town. FOR YEARS YOU WERE IN CHARGE OF THE CITY HALL COVERAGE FOR THE BLOODY LOS ANGELES TIMES! You hadn't figured out yet how that building works? And, if you were so repulsed by what you discovered when you re-entered the building, why didn't you just resign and publish your complaints then. Instead, you quietly sit there until your term is up, then cover your ass with this oped piece explaining you -- and Laura! - knew it wouldn't work all along. Give me a break. I've got a suggestion: Chick is about to move into another district and run for the City Council, so she can stay on the public teat. For your next treatise, cover her campaign and see where she gets her money. I'm sure you'll be shocked - again!
Excellent point 12:22 p.m.
There's a big move especially amongst Neighborhood Councils to get rid of the Brown Act. The Brown Act should not be messed with. If NCs want to be taken seriously, spend public money and be able to create council files the Brown Act has to stay. As it is a lot of taxpayer money is getting funneled to funky non-profits and other questionable purposes via NCs. As it is, the City Council doesn't follow the Brown Act. God forbid cutting them loose from it.
Yes, it's funny that Zine claimed that he was blindsided by Kaye being a guest on the show even though it's Zine's show.
Earlier this month, I was having lunch with a dear man I am proud to call my friend. He is in the United States with his wife and son on a work Visa from Zimbabwe. They are due to return to their homeland in the fall and as much as they love their country and the family they left behind, they are terrified to go back because of the political turmoil.
During our discussion, I found myself singing the praises of our political system proclaiming that -- even though we have had problems in the past -- we have learned from those mistakes and put safeguards in place to insure that every citizen has a vote and that vote is counted.
And while I was extolling the virtues of our electoral process, I thought about Measure R. And as I kept talking, the voice in my head got louder and louder until I had to stop. Some might think that comparing the tragic events in Zimbabwe to a deceptive proposition on a local ballot is stretching the truth. But is it?
It’s true that no one was intimidated into voting “yes” on Measure R when it appeared on the November ballot in 2006. And, as far as I know, no one’s ballot was changed after they left the voting booth to reflect a “yes” vote. And, it should also be acknowledged that the measure received the necessary 50% plus 1 votes needed to pass.
But that is what makes the whole set of circumstances so disturbing. If the LA City Councilmembers had threatened or intimidated voters into voting for the measure or if they had passed it regardless of the vote, that would have made the fight for truth much easier. Instead, they used all the powers at their disposal to manipulate and deceive the people to get an extra four years in office.
They began with a big event called mid-term elections and polled voters to find out if they would approve of a term limit increase. When they concluded that the term limit increase would fail, they changed enough words to the City Charter to call it “Ethics Reform.” Then, they spent a million dollars flooding the homes of all likely voters with expertly designed flyers misleading them into thinking that a vote for Measure R would “reform politicians”, reduce the “influence of lobbyists” and “limit” Councilmembers to 3 four-year terms.
And now the League of Women Voters is back in the act arguing in favor of the LA City Council claiming that an additional four years in office makes them more ethical. Based on that reasoning, I can only hope that -- in their third term -- the Councilmembers will get a conscience and realize their participation in one of the most underhanded political maneuverings in recent history.
LA Times responds to Zuma Dogg's request for an investigation into shady non-profit corruption with a front page Sunday article.
Laura Chick told Bill Cooper on KFWB 980-AM regarding he run for City Clowncil that, "There is still a lot of work to do. I am going to really think about it."(As in wait and see what happens with Prop R.)
2nd Appellate District
Change District 2
Court data last updated: 07/06/2008 01:05 PM
Case Summary Docket Scheduled Actions Briefs
Disposition Parties and Attorneys Trial Court
Docket (Register of Actions)
Hernandez et al. v. County of Los Angeles et al.
Division 8
Case Number B203097 Date Description Notes
10/26/2007 Notice of appeal lodged/received. n/a 10/15/07 David Hernandez & Ted Hayes
10/26/2007 Default notice sent-appellant notified per rule 8.100(c). Party: David Hernandez et al.
10/30/2007 Filing fee. Eric Grant for Aplnts
10/31/2007 Certificate of interested entities or persons filed by: Attorney: Judy Whitehurst Party: County of Los Angeles (Resp.)
11/05/2007 Certificate of interested entities or persons filed by: Attorney: Eric Grant Party: David Hernandez, et al.
11/05/2007 Civil case information statement filed. Attorney: Eric Grant Party: David Hernandez, et al.
11/27/2007 Notice per rule 8.124 - with reporter's transcript. Ntc of desig filed on 10/23/07 SCLA
02/26/2008 Record on appeal filed. R-1
02/26/2008 Record imaged. ikon
03/28/2008 Appellant's opening brief.
03/28/2008 Joint appendix filed. 2 vols.
03/28/2008 Filed letter from: Atty Eric Grant dated 3-27-08 re supplement to Part III of Case Info Stmt
04/28/2008 Request for judicial notice filed. Respondent's City of Los Angeles (documents attached to the notice).
04/28/2008 Respondent's brief.
04/29/2008 Filed proof of service. Re; amended proof of service on additional counsel by repondents City of Los Angeles etc.
05/14/2008 Respondent notified pursuant to rule 8.220(a)(2).
05/22/2008 Certificate of interested entities or persons filed by: respondent
05/22/2008 Respondent's brief.
05/29/2008 Motion filed. Appellants' Motion for Calendar Preference
05/29/2008 Appellant's reply brief.
05/30/2008 Case fully briefed.
06/12/2008 Ruling on request for judicial notice deferred. (request filed 4/28/08)
06/17/2008 Application to file amicus curiae brief filed by: League Of Women Voters Of LA & LA Area Chamber Of Commerce in support of respondents County of LA, City of LA & LA City Council (Amicus curiae brief attached)
06/18/2008 Received document entitled: Request For Judicial Notice by counsel for Amici Curiae, League Of Women Voters Of Los Angeles et al.
06/25/2008 Order granting motion to file amicus curiae brief. Order granting League of Women Voters of Los to file amicus in support of County of Los Angeles etc. Any party to this appeal shall have 15 calendar days to file a reply.
06/25/2008 Amicus curiae brief filed by: filed with permission
06/25/2008 Request for judicial notice filed. by amicus curiae
06/25/2008 Ruling on request for judicial notice deferred. ruling deferred until consideration of merits.
06/27/2008 Order filed. Aplts' motion for calendar preference filed 5/29/08 is granted and the clerk of this court is directed to place the case on the August calendar.
We are on the move see you in court.
Click here to request automatic e-mail notifications about this case.
Mayor Sam,
It's not fair to lump all the Neighbor Council's under your comment regarding the Brown Act. Name the ones the don't and let them be held accountable. I agree with you the Brown Act should be held in place to protect our citizens from unscrupulous NC members. I'm no fool to believe everyones is perfect, but, not everyone is bad. Let's keep everthing in perspective and not let a few bad apples ruin NC's for everyone.
Since the Brown Act has been misused by the dregs of our society to turn City Council public comment into "the outcasts too stupid to claim a spot on Venice Beach from machete jugglers and their weird friends will rudely and with plenty of vulgarity tell you how to run the city" buffoon session -- I'm all for Council just following what the Brown Act actually dictates, and cutting these idiots out. In particular, the idiots who actively promote their blog on Ch. 35 and vv., misusing our city funds intended for public business.
The collective hours spent by all the Councilmmembers, their staffs and misc. staffs it takes to run City Hall and the Channel, cost way too much, so we can listen to these idiots who can't manage their own lives, berate elected officials. It's not how we want to spend out taxpayer dollars -- they rant about waste of money, but they're the biggest wastes of money there are.
Just look at every other elected body, from the Supervisors to the Senate especially; to Commissions like Harbor and LAWA, and you'll see real people, with real concerns, expressing themselves respectfully and intelligently and getting the same back from the podium. The opposite of the Dogg and Ponies shows at City Hall.
One of these persons is even used by the more backstabbing, insecure Councilmembers to carry their bile against other members -- of course, we see their lack of character from doing so and know who they are.
Eric needs to cut the timewasting, self-promoting fools to the 7-8X/ YEAR the Brown Act mandates.
As for Boyarsky's comments: They concern the egregious actions under the Jimmy Hahn tenure and by Hahn himself -- why Janice thinks that we need another Hahn in office utterly defies reason. She, Alarcon and some others just have a sense of entitlement after spending their whole lives at the public trough and ruining our city -- he's reason enough to overturn Prop S, so he can't run for CM again. However, it was voted in by the public no more deviously than, say, Janice's lying about the "parcel"/ homeowner tax for her gang programs doing anything to benefit those who will pay for it.
Thank you Zuma. There is so much ocrruption with the non profits in this city I hope there's a full investigation. Notice all the directors of these non profits drive nice new cars. Something interesting is beginning to happen with certain NC's. The council people are now asking NC's for money then they turn around and give it to a non profit of their choice. Isn't there something seriously wrong with this?
12:22-
You should be so lucky to get Laura Chick. If you get stuck with Tamar Galatzan, you'll be more sorry than you ever dreamed possible.
Now that the mayor has placed Cindy Montanez in a position just to keep her from running for CD 2 against his annointed one, Tamar, the best thing that can happen to that district is if Laura steps in and kicks Tamar's butt. I guess Antonio didn't think of this happening.
Higby:
You're confused and you've confused your readers.
There is no effort to change the Brown Act as it applies to the City Council.
The City Attorney opined that the Brown Act also applies to the NCs. He could have issued a different opinion and see if anyone sued.
There is NO enforcement of the Brown Act as it applies to the Brown Act. None! Nada! Zero!
Enforcement is by the District Attorney who had said that he doesn't have the time or the resources to enforce the law as it applies to our "advisory" groups.
The City cannot enforce the Brown Act because it is a state law.
The solution that is being worked on is to develop a city Brown Act that keeps the important parts, such a prohibiting a majority of board members from meeting a pre-deciding issues), and gets rid of the parts that create an uneven playing field for the NCs and the lobbyists. I.e., lobbyists can communicate privately with as many Councilmembers as they wish as often as they wish, but NCs, because of the Brown Act, can only communicate with less than a majority of them. It also makes it difficult for a majority of NC board members to discuss issues in public forums such as this blog.
By making it a city law, it could be enforceable by the city.
3:16 doesn't know what he/she is talking about. 3:16 thinks you can have a council meeting without the brown act as long as you follow the brown act 7/8 x a year. So right off the bat you know this person is kinda off. But this person speaks for all people so it's o.k.
6:23: You're the confused one, probably one of the public comment babblers themselves. Council is only required to hold 15 public meetings over 2 years, and the Supervisors have limited public comment per person to approx. that amount (was monthly, which is MORE generous, but they're now reviewing policies). You are being given a privilege you don't deserve, because Eric wanted to be th "most open legislative body" and he's shot himself and Council in the foot.
6:04: I don't think Galatzan is as beholden to the Mayor as you think; ever see LAUSD Board meetings? She often opposes Monica Garcia and Jolie Flores on their plans to spend more money without having done a cost-benefit analysis -- she makes Monica sound idiotic a lot of the time, and Flores like a straight ethno-centric dogmatist.
Which means Tamar wouldn't be so bad, certainly not compared to Cindy Montanez. But if Laura Chick is on the Council and holds their feet to the fire financially, while Wendy's doing it as Controller, we'll all be better off. Plus she's not a leftie wingnut like Janice Hahn. She's have had the gut to tell Hahn and Rosendahl to butt out of the LAX-area hotels living wage debacle: the hotels are suing the city for discriminatory legislation that arbitrarily singles them out and they'll win. Laura would also want to see gang program monies are better spent before approving a tax on homeowners only for Hahn.
7:47
Where does it say that the City Council only needs to hold only 15 times in a 2 year period?
The Charter requires them to have regular meetings 3 times a week, minus a few recess periods. Those are public meetings.
A tad sanctimonious, and much of the same thing many in the blogosphere have been saying for years...precisely the kind of commentary, too little too late, that is the reason why people read blogs to weigh opinions, rather than op-ed pages.
I don't have much against Bill Boyarsky, but there is the feeling that the double dose of fishwrap experience plus City Commission service (which is not at all the same thing as City Hall service) has left him about three years behind---because everything he said about City Hall was completely evident within the first hundred days of Antonio's Mayoralty---disgusting anyone who was following along, and turning off most of them.
"Free at last"---for what? To give up? That's what most of us indeed have felt like doing since 2005. Here's a way not to give up: every opinion writer in town and on blog should insist that the Mayor fire the incompetent pawn Gail Goldberg, who is the real lynchpin of the LA's fatal developer/contractor/campaign contributor/land-use-attorney quadrangle of corruption, and get a real urban planner for planning chief.
8:29: The 15 number comes from the City Attorney's office and Eric has mentioned it when the wackos whined about Council missing a meeting or two. They could miss a bunch more public meetings but they'd gotten into this habit -- it never used to be a problem til the circus came to town, and clearly has nothing better to do, no jobs or lives for them.
NOT to excuse those yammerers, but I do agree with those who feel Council could spend more time explaining and dealing with vital city issues instead of resolutions on the war in Iraq and gay pride (Bill), long-winded song and dance shows for every Mexican holiday great and small and even friggin' Mexican beauty pageants, lasting hours (ALL the Mexicans joining in), marching bands from Ischia and PR videos about (a fake, they lost the real one) Reggie the Alligator -- Hahn.
If this group stopped wasting time with ten times more presentations than the rest of them together in a year, and the fruitcakes went back into their tin boxes, they could inform and educate the public about policy.
Hey it's great to hear from Joe Mailander! Welcome Joe!
617, looks like you're confused or you didn't read the post. I said there is an effort by some to end Brown for the NCs. I didn't say there was (at least that I am specifically aware of) for the big Clowncil. However, IF the NCs did try to get themselves exempted from Brown (as Mark Ridley-Thomas tried with a bill he authored) it would be difficult for them to expect the City Council to be held to the same standard.
First poster:
I cried.
I think it's time to move.
7:47
Yes, as a matter of fact I do watch Channel 12 and I do watch school board meetings. It's not hard to make fools of Garcia or Flores. I think you are mistaken though when it comes to whom Ms. Galatzan-Huffman is beholden to. You need to face facts. Mayor Villaraigosa will not back a loser. He knew for a fact that Cindy Montanez would kick Tamar's butt, therefore he gave Cindy a little DWP job to hold her at bay for awhile so that Tamar could take a stab instead. If Laura runs, good that Cindy did get that job and for all of us in CD 2, we can laugh all the way to Laura's office who we believe will answer our calls when we make them.
Why you wouldn't want Cindy is beyond the scope of my thinking. She would be the very best thing to happen to that district and Laura runs a close second. Tamar can stay at Delgadillo's office where all the corruption is. Is VICA pro-Home Depot? Oh yeah, they are. Why would we want the president's wife making our planning decisions? Oh right, we wouldn't.
If Antonio Villaraigosa's office is listening or reading, tell them we will find someone other than that cranky, worthless Tamar Galatzan.
Trust me, she is beholden to the mayor. Disagree now and I'll say, 'I told you so' later.
Question -
Boyarsky complained that the ban on city commissioners fundraising sat in council committee for 10 years.
Mailander says that in the first 100 days of Villaraigosa's tenure we were able to see what kind of Mayor he would be.
Well...I recall in the first 100 days of Villaraigosa's City Council term he made an effort to move the ban out of committee and was rejected by Padilla who was the committee (and Council President) chairman at the time. However, Villaraigosa was able to get the ban started and talked about during his run for Mayor and enacted during his administration.
Boyarsky should have creditted him for that, especially since he made an effort at it before ever running for Mayor in 2005 and Mailander should also have noted that accomplishment withint the first 100 days.
thx
The most significant difference between The Brown Act and Bagley-Keene is that Bagley-Keene prevents more than two members of any state board from having a private meeting on any business of the board without public notice; The Brown Act simply prevents a majority of the board meeting without public notice, and is therefore less restrictive.
Neither, while given lip service, is ever enforced by anyone.
Welcome to Prop. XIII unintended consequences.
Bagley-Keene applies to State of California Boards only.
Boyarsky should have creditted him for that, especially since he made an effort at it before ever running for Mayor in 2005 and Mailander should also have noted that accomplishment withint the first 100 days.
I'm not inclined to give kudos for efforts, only results. Mere efforts can have the tinge of phantom punches and anyway the appointment of City Commissioners is not even a tenth as important as the appointment of Department General Managers. I'm not sure the general public who has never worked for the City understands that.
City Commissioners sit in politely remote rooms and largely make decisions affecting department culture: we'll dock this worker for a month without pay, we'll approve this public art project, we'll ask this friends group what they intend to do with that donation. The General Managers make decisions daily that actually affect public policy: we'll close this swimming pool, we'll divert funds from heavy equipment to salaries, we'll cut the book acquisition budget. You can put a fool on a civic commission and the City still works; but install one as General Manager and the department falls apart.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home