Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Monday, January 24, 2011

Day 8 of Councilman Huizar's Listgate: Video of Councilman Huizar's Listgate comments, plus update on CLARTSgate

A whole lot of $taffers to support their councilman's re-election efforts. Thanks to "an early morning poster", we bring you the salaries of those who rate your loyalty (to Councilman Jose "Charro Huizzy Corleone" Huizar) and community influence.
Ana Cubas, Chief of Staff $142,735.68. Jessica Wethington McLean, Executive Director $121,939.21. Francine Godoy, Deputy Chief of Staff $109,41.20. Paul Habib, Public Projects and Transportation Director $91,065.77. Eric Sanjurjo, Director of Policy $89,099.40. Tara Devine, Director, Planning and Economic Development $86,714.64. Rick Coca, Director of Communications $75,460.72. Arturo Gonzalez, Downtown Area Director $71,451.36. Zenay Loera, Northeast Area Director $60,656.40. Jesse Leon, Boyle Heights Area Director $60,656.40. Jennifer Martinez, Field Deputy and Event Director $52,970.47. Liberty Meza, Field Deputy $51,552.72. Daniel Andalon, Field Deputy $51,552.72, Cecelia Alatorre, Field Deputy $51,552.72. Erick Martell, Field Deputy $43,868.88. David Miranda, Field Deputy $43,868.88. Andrea Sotelo, Executive Assistant & Scheduler $38,295.75. Tricia Robbins, Field Deputy $36,059.76. Rocio Hernandez, Field Deputy $36,059.76. Pauline Medina, Administrative Assistant $39,059.76. George Esparza, Field Deputy $32,364.00
+ $178,789 for Councilman Charro Huizzy Corleone = $1,156,185.37 in total yearly salaries.
The numbers above are consistent with the past reporting of LA Weekly's Patrick Range McDonald, Thus, the fact that Councilman Huizar needed to transfer $1 million + more from the CLARTS Fund for salaries, is only going to reinforce the need to further scrutinize Councilman Huizar's staff expenditures.
** The Rudy Martinez Campaign have released a video of Councilman Charro Huizzy Corleone's smug demeaner as he attempts to joke away a question pertaining to the growing Listgate Scandal. One must wonder how "community saint" Father Boyle feels about his "-2" rating? But the facial expressions and the audience reaction in the video are telling. Additionally, NELA Lives Blogger Tony Butka gives his review of the respective candidates performances at the same Glassell Park event.
Monday Listgate Update: Last week's edition of the Eastern Group Publication's newspaper featured a "blow by blow story" on the the major issues in the CD 14 campaign including CLARTSgate and Listgate. EGP noted in their story that they had reviewed the "Boyle Heights" and "Northeast" lists, but for whatever reason they did not review the "El Sereno" list. (** Maybe the Huizar Campaign did not provide them with that list?)
If EGP had been supplied with the El Sereno list, maybe they would have notice some of the names and organizations references that would dispute Councilman Huizar's claims on Listgate, as stated to EGP and the Los Angeles Times.
In further reviewing the El Sereno list, the following reinforces the fact that the list was updated in 2010.
Angie De La Torre (3 and 2) and Melissa Cinchilla (2 and 2) of the El Sereno Farmers Market, did not start their Farmer Market endeavors to until May of 2010. Rudy Torres (3 and 2) President of the El Sereno Chamber of Commerce, did not assumed the position to until December of 2009. Likewise Enrique Aguilera ( 3 and 2) of the El Sereno Chamber was a "Member at Large", in December of 2009. Julio Torres (3 and 5), did not publish the first edition of his El Sereno Our Town Magazine, to until January of 2010. Hector Salazar, Director of the El Sereno Senior Center, did not start working at the facility to until the Summer of 2010.
Someone might want to call the El Sereno Field Office (323) 226-1646 and ask Field Office Director Arturo Gonzalez to verify these facts.
Your thoughts................
Scott Johnson in CD 14

Labels: , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said:

Great video.

I live in Eagle Rock and I got it in the morning, since then it has already been forwarded to me by 3 other people.

January 24, 2011 11:12 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What an idiot, was Huizar not saying at some point that the lists don't exist?

January 24, 2011 11:14 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

For field deputies, with degrees, etc. those are not exactly high salaries.

Hate 'em if you like, but 45-55K with, probably MS degrees in some cases, is about 30-40 percent lower than like salaries in the private sector. If they're more experienced, the gap is even bigger.

Then if you furlough them 10 days or more, that's dropping them another 5 percent or so in compensation.

And if you bitch about the sheer number of them, which communities are you gonna tell that they don't need a field deputy concentrating on their requests? One of the constant complaints seems to be that they don't attend enough community meetings, or get back to everybody soon enough.

Hell, they can't all be staffing photo-ops for the boss... most of the media are still chasing Antonio around watching him stammer and stutter though his lame-duck years.

Just the sheer number of people listed on the "enemies" lists released means those are all people in some regular contact with council offices, with requests, needs for their communities, projects to complete that require steering through the City.

January 24, 2011 11:23 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

That Eric Martell - staring a hole in the photographer - is an elegant piece of work, isn't he?

Shows up dressed like a skidrow bum.

OKAY, so you want to prove it's your day off, and your not on company time... Would it kill you to put on a pair of pants without holes in the knees?

Maybe this is some kind of clue, like the Beatles Abbey Road cover, where Paul being barefooted was supposed to reveal that McCartney was dead.

(I hear if you play the audio for the debate BACKWARDS, you can distinctly hear Rudy Martinez saying, "Eric is the Mole; but I'm firing him anyway if I win!")

January 24, 2011 11:30 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hey, Red Spot. You're beating a dead horse.

EVERYONE agrees now that the ES lists are more up-to-date than the others... So what?

They ALSO have no "enemies" listed, by your warped definition, so doesn't that also put a hole in your arguments (but you have NEVER once reported that... NO "negative" numbers on the only list updated in teh last 3 years).

AND, ES contains even newer additions - people who have become active the last year, that have NO ratings whatsoever.

You ALWAYS fail to mention the more GLARING facts that show you're full of shinola. Do you think no one will look at these for themselves, and notice what you've LEFT OUT, that debunks your posts.

If the NEGATIVES are gone, and the NEWEST people have no ratings, that can ONLY mean to a rational mind, that the lists WERE no longer being used for the original purposes that some are so upset about.


Add to that, the ES lists have e-mail and phone number contacts - NOT on any other lists, ANOTHER indication they had been adapted for more general uses.

Huizar ALSO told the Times the ES list didn't look familiar - probably because he HADN'T been involved in updating it for some years. His staff continued to use it for other contact purposes.

Okay, now you gone back over this multiple times making the same assertions you make over a week ago, but you've failed to even recognize items that are no longer in contention (except in your mind), and you won't even acknowledge other's rational explanations... because you have NO rebuttal for them.

You're a one-man, two-way debate.

The rest of us have moved on, you're still trying to get John McCain elected president.

January 24, 2011 11:42 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Huizar needs a "Hire no Erics" rule.

January 24, 2011 11:43 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hector Salazar, your most recent example, has no ratings. That makes Huizar's explanation that they stopped using these some time ago much more plausible.

If the lists has been ongoing, wouldn't the person who removed them from Huizar's offices, Martinez's mother - who worked there until the middle of 2010 - have had the easiest access to the most updated Northeast list (that one was confirmed in other press reports to be at least 3 years out of date).

Sounds like Huizar's explanations have more sound footings than his opponents characterizations.

January 24, 2011 11:52 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Huizar's people have always thought that Eric was the mole in the office.

January 24, 2011 11:58 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

It's no surprise that Huizar doesn't want to talke about the lists - they have proved to be somewhat embarrassing, but the facts remain, there's nothing illegal or unethical about using them, especially is he wised up and trashed them - in at least two field offices, early in his first full term.

As one community member succinctly said to me this weekend after I tried to explain what both sides were saying about them:

"Was it illegal to prepare them?"

And, as I explained, probably not - and not according to the City Attorney.

If someone can prove they were for campaign purposes (and there was no election going on when most of these were updated last) then possibly.

If someone can prove that City services were handed out to supporters and not to non-supporters, and even Martinez's campaign isn't pretending they have that smoking gun somewhere. Maybe this is to try and fish something out, but even that's going to be difficult by definition.

"Non-supporters" tend to always feel they're being slighted by the current council staff, even when their complaints actually use up more staff time and resources. Some (not all), are like the unruly kids in a large classroom. They use up much more of the teacher's time than those who are there to learn, and profit less from it.

January 24, 2011 12:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I don't smell a "mole" in the El Sereno office, but I try to stay away from the "rat" in question.

You know how they say you can tell when a politician is lying ("his lips are moving").

That one tells lies when he isn't even speaking!

If I was on the "negatives" portion of that list that got removed, it's 100 percent due to dealings with that certain rodent. Otherwise, I'd be listed as "pro" Huizar.

If he really does jump ship to Rudy, well, count me out there, for sure!

January 24, 2011 12:06 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Red Spot, you really come across as a fool. Calling something a scandal and adding "gate" to end of it don't make it so. There are probably very real scandals and gates involving Huizar, but we'll never know because (as the other poster said) you keep beating the dead horse. Not only that, but were a real scandal to fall in your lap, half the readers wouldn't believe it coming from you. You've cried wolf too many times and I won't even get into the Mike Gatto situation. (Jeezus, talk about a scandal.) Anyway, I know my words will fall on deaf ears so go and keep trying to get McCain elected. Just don't go around saying noone tried to help you because we did.

January 24, 2011 12:10 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If the CLARTS funds total much more than the CM's other amenities account, then it makes sense that it takes more staff time to administer them, coordinate the projects, get them through City departments.

Since even Rudy told the press that "CLARTS can be spent for anything" (not excluding salaries), what's the point here?

You seem to be defeating your own arguments. CLARTS are special funds only CD14 has. Is the same sized staff as other districts supposed to administer (what?) 5-10 times as much in amenities funds?


The more you post, the less I believe you. This is way past circular logic. It's in a downward death spiral all of its own.

January 24, 2011 12:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Wow, Scott... linking to ZUMA DOGG's site to prove your point.

That's really desparate.

January 24, 2011 12:14 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Didn't you already report all this about one of the lists being current, very early on?

Is there something new here? I can't see it.

January 24, 2011 12:15 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If Ana Cubas makes 142.735.68 yearly. Buy yourself a brush.

January 24, 2011 12:26 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Since RS linked to it -- THANK YOU, Tony Butka....

"Mr Martinez did not escape pointed questions either. He was asked about the matter of his “Police Badge”. His response was that he had answered the question conclusively before, his position is on his website, he’s always been a strong supporter of the LAPD, and let’s move on. For the record, I went to Mr Martinez’ website on January 22nd and could find no statement directly having to do with anything about a Police Badge."

WHAT I SAID HERE, last week.

"Mr. TRANSPARENT" -- quite simply ISN'T, not by a long shot, and certainly not about anything that might embarrass him. (Being "transparent" about someone else's warts is pretty easy, and sleazy).

He has never provided an answer to this to anyone on the Eastside. When cornered by LA Weekly online (not exactly a CD14 mainstay) weeks ago, he offered some lame explanation that was immediately, on the same blog site, countered by someone who seemed to have quite extensive and extremely incriminating details about how Pasadena PD ended up with that illegally acquired badge. Details that to anyone paying attention sounded 1000 times more plausible than Rudy's lame sob story.

LAPD also said the "way" Rudy said he acquired it in the first place was 100 percent outside policy. (The LAPD spokesperson stopped just short of calling him a liar.)

January 24, 2011 12:27 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Giving out funds for community improvements, from whatever council funds they came from, without having someone in a position and with the time to keep them moving through City Hall would be like giving away electronic toys to poor orphans and not providing the batteries to make them run. A "Bad Santa" trick at the very least.

Our NC has encountered this several times. They approve the funds, but without someone from the district office to make the efforts move through the various City departments, they bog down, people get tired of hitting their heads against the wall, and sometimes even leave the board before the money can actually be spent. And then it's never used for that purpose.

And, if you read the CLARTS regulations, from City Maven, they also said that if unused after a certain point (12 months?), they role into the general fund anyway - no longer available for CD14 use exclusively -- just like NC money has been taken back and not rolled over when it couldn't be spent in time.

If there are staff members in CD14 field offices that can keep that from happening, and can keep volunteers from becoming even more frustrated by the bureaucracy to the point that they simply give up (that's happened, too), then it's worth having some of those CLARTS funds used to offset that staff time, and perhaps even keep staff in place that would have otherwise been let go.

It may make the difference between projects, community events, etc, happening or not happening.

(In the interest of full disclosure -- I'm billing $6.37 cents of my personal time to CM Huizar for blogging on this subject just now, since some people seem to feel that only paid people support the incumbent on Mayor Sam's).

Where do I sent the bill, and will there be anyone in the field office to process the payments?

January 24, 2011 12:40 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


You miss the point.

Every argument you make seems within reasonable bounds and Huizar should have made them in five motions transparently transferring the money into his salaries account instead of playing "hide and seek" with the transfers by BURYING them in CAO reports.

Plus, how much extra work is there to cut a check to a community group doing a project in the district, especially when the City Clerk already disclosed that they handle the paperwork for these funds.

You can defend the use of these funds all day, after the fact, but it still raises the question of "why are we having to defend this after the fact", why didn't Huizar just put all these arguments in front of the transfers, geez it was only five transfers for $950,000.00 dollars!??

Maybe he didn't because he really doesn't believe the transfers would be accepted ( swallowed) by his constituents, except of course you would swallow them, and hence the secrecy. Hmmm.

January 24, 2011 12:55 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


15% admin fee for CLARTS projects = $1.04 million dollars.

So show me the roughly $9.0 million dollars of CLARTS FUNDS being spent and used for community amenities on a " project by project" basis.

Doesn't exist because the fund hasn't generated that much money and Huizar hasn't allocated that much of CLARTS FUNDS tom the community, instead he has secretly moved it into his salaries account.

January 24, 2011 1:03 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


I didn't miss the point, I'm not buying the "premise" of the obviously hardcore Huizar haters that post these messages daily... that (as you repeat) that there was some conspiratorial "hide and seek" game going on, or that anyone was intentionally "BURYING" anything.

As I've said before here, I view CC agendas almost daily, and scan for CD14 things, for the very same concern some of the bashers post here about. I don't want things slipping through (but I'm more a believer in "incompetence" than "conspiracy". I saw these transfers, I knew enough about CLARTS from previous CMs to know the basics of the fund, and had heard before that these transfers sped up to expenditures -- ALL expenditures, to benefit the district.

Because others aren't watching the same things, doesn't mean someones trying to hide anything.

But, don't think for a second that all that's involved with amenities expenditures is having someone "cut a check to a community group." That's one of the most naive things I've read posted here. Many of these expenditures are for events, projects, beautification, art, etc. that have to jump through several departmental hoops before the city will even release the funds.

If the group requesting them isn't, for example, a registered 501c3, then all hell breaks loose in terms of bureaucratic nightmares. I know groups in my surrounding areas with minimal budgets of their own that fronted money for the City only to wait a year or more to get paid - strangling their other efforts the whole time.

And that was WITH Council staff assistance.

Finally, you ask "why are we having to defend this after the fact."

Simple... as someone else posted here recently -- because it's election time. No DUH!

There's an established opponent, who thinks he can get votes by painting all this as corrupt and sinister. That's why it's in play, even though City officials have said it's all kosher, and that's why it'll dither into the dust in a couple months.

Just like Alvin Parra's "VACATION-DAY-gate" of four years ago, and every other manufactured controversy during every other election cycle in City history.

January 24, 2011 1:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Once again, bad premise:

You can't make up your own facts...

"15% admin fee for CLARTS projects = $1.04 million dollars."

That's a bogus equation, because the breakdown used for salaries has never been reported as being $1-million plus.

Check back when you have some actual facts, not opposition campaign BS.

January 24, 2011 2:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Scott, you really haven't posted anything on this in weeks that someone hasn't completely debunked within minutes.

How's that feel? Knowing that the only people you can possibly convince here are Rudy's Martinez's lurking friends and family members.

How hard is that "sale" to make.

It may be time to turn off the "comments" again. You're getting swamped in the undertow of people who can actually read to charts, view the (full) vidoes or who actually attended the events, interpret the spreadsheets, council motions, CLARTS regulations, and the other media that you ever so prejudicially pull insta-quotes out of context from and present as being anti-Huizar (when most are - unlike this place - pretty balanced).

Although some have been pretty Anti-Huizar, so far none of the links you've made to other media points have been "pro" Rudy Martinez.

What's that tell you about what'll happen on March 8?

It isn't ever enough to trash the incumbent. There has to be a trustworthy alternative.

There's not; so most folks with stick with what they know. (But, I think you know that already. You're just enjoying the trashing for trashing's sake).

January 24, 2011 2:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Now I know you are just a straight liar.

You couldn't have seen the CLARTS transfers from reading the agendas.

1:57 said, "As I've said before here, I view CC agendas almost daily, and scan for CD14 things, for the very same concern some of the bashers post here about. I don't want things slipping through (but I'm more a believer in "incompetence" than "conspiracy". I saw these transfers, I knew enough about CLARTS from previous CMs to know the basics of the fund, and had heard before that these transfers sped up to expenditures -- ALL expenditures, to benefit the district."

The CAO reports are NOT PART of the Agendas. The Agenda simply states that the council is approving budget mid-year adjustments and in one example, dated 1/29/10 the CAO report is titled "MID-YEAR FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT AND THREE-YEAR PLAN TO FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY" (this report is 271 pages including the attachments and the CLARTS transfer is on page 32 and attachment 6).

You can find the report here,

The fact that you would lie and try to convince everyone that this entire report was part of the Agenda demonstrates that you don't have a clue about what you are talking about and you are a dishonest person.

No wonder you are such an avid Huizar supporter, lying comes natural to you, too.


January 24, 2011 2:29 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Here are your facts,

Council File Amount Doc. Date
07-3534 $40,000.00 Motion October 31, 2007
08-0100 $50,000.00 Motion January 15, 2008
08-0600-S27 $250,000.00 CAO Report: Att. 7 October 24, 2008
08-0600-S54 $150,000.00 CAO Report: Att. 6 March 2, 2009
08-0600-S70 $200,000.00 CAO Report: Att 6 June 4, 2009
09-0600-S151 $150,000.00 CAO Report: Pg. 10 November 13, 2009
09-0600-S159 $200,000.00 CAO Report: Pg. 32 January 29, 2010


All these transfers went into Huizar's salaries account.

Now do your homework before you say anything else.

Now that you have the facts, try to find out what Huizar did with that $1M in salaries.

Good luck.

January 24, 2011 2:44 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

2:29 p.m.

Do I need to go back and dig out 2 years of CC agendas approving the transfers, or can you manage that yourself? I can't say I saw all of them - I didn't say that - and I do have a "day" job, but I saw enough of them to know that funds were being moved across for use at CD14's discretion... not one-by-one for each community group.

I didn't call you a liar, thanks for "playing nice".

(Also very telling that that was the only thing you could find fault with in that entire piece-by-piece rebuttal to your paranoia.)

I'm sorry my rational responses were so measured and accurate that they moved you to anger.

That's says something about your motives for believing the worst, too.

January 24, 2011 2:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


It is clear that a number of motions allocating approximately $1.7 million dollars of CLARTS funds were transparent through council motions and you surely saw those transfers. This amount also includes about $500 into the GCP account that is vague but at least for General City Purposes and not salaries.

What isn't transparent is the $950 thousand that was buried in CAO reports for the Council office's salaries.

Huizar did write two motions for $90 thousand in salaries and then abandoned this practice for the remaining $950 thousand in salaries for a total of $1.04 million in "salaries" transfers.

Why would he abandon a transparent process (i.e., motions) for a buried approach (i.e., CAO reports)?

The 2:44 post shows the paper trail of transfers.

And, once again, you are not being honest if you say that the CAO reports can be seen through the Agendas.

When the agenda item is "MID-YEAR FINANCIAL STATUS REPORT AND THREE-YEAR PLAN TO FISCAL SUSTAINABILITY", I don't think you can say with a straight face that you know a CLARTS transfer is buried in this 271 page report.


January 24, 2011 3:21 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

2:44 p.m.

Where does that say "went into salaries"

OH, wait, "YOU" said that.

That's not in the report is it.

Yeah, that makes me want to believe . . . (Tell me another story, mommy!)


January 24, 2011 3:22 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

2:44 - I see the total "from" CLARTS but not the "to" - your dots don't connect.

I hope you don't do your taxes that way this year.

Just tell the IRS you "think" you spent most of the money on deductible amounts.

Better yet, Red Spot verified it.

(Now that's funny!)

January 24, 2011 3:25 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Do not mess with General Sanjurjo or Madman Martell. I once got slushied just for trying to talk to them. They are hardcore.

January 24, 2011 3:32 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

All these amateur bookkeepers trying to unravel the mysteries that we pay City employees millions to keep track of.

It's "cute". Really, I'd laugh, except I think they each think they've really discovered some smoking gun by adding up a column of figures from the front end of a transfer column.

And it really won't matter how many City controllers, auditors, bookkeepers, etc. - all note employed by Huizar - tell them that everything was spent in keeping with the provisions of the CLARTS fund regulations and City practices.

That'll just be more evidence of a "conspiracy".

Cute, very cute.

This is how Roswell got to be a tourist attraction.

January 24, 2011 4:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This is a really lousy sequel:

All the Councilman's Staffers

Starring Red Spot as "Dip Froat"...

"Follow the consituent service requesteds" he says.

Ah, I think I'll wait and pick the DVD up at the 99 cent store in a couple months.

January 24, 2011 4:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


If you bothered to read the reports you would see it yourself but since you don't it is easy for you to get lost and not connect the dots.

Just as an example here is the language from one of the reports:

"Council District No 14 has requested new appropriations of $205,000 from the Central Los Angeles and Transfer Station (CLARTS) and Street Furniture Revenue Funds ($200,000 and
$5,000, respectively) and a transfer of $70,000 from the Council District 14 Real Property Trust Fund to the Department's Salaries, As-Needed Account for Council District 14 salaries."

This is from page 32 of the 1/29/10 report, which can be found here for your educational benefit,


And if you have a second you can see all the reports languages which show "Salaries" and connect the dots here,


Don't worry you won't all of a sudden become a Martinez supporter if you look at the actual language in the reports showing the CLARTS to Salaries account of CD14.

P.S.: This report actually transferred $275K to Salaries (CLARTS $200k, Transit $5k, Real Property $70k).


January 24, 2011 4:18 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

So the point of the forensic accountants posting here is that if a financial report has a lot of pages, that you have to work through, then it's intended to deceive, bury, hide and fool constituents about how money is spent.

If 271 pages is an indication of "corruption" - just how many pages in a detailed number-crunching document is "innocent" - is 100 too many? 50 pages?

Is there a particular color of paper thats' okay, or would it help if they used smaller type to fit more on less pages.

(Or would that be further proof of conspiratorial intent, as well? Maybe it's intended to keep Rudy Martinez's 100 or so nursing home endorsers of record from seeing the truth - because their eyesight is failing.)

The balls in your court, you can paint this as a RICO violation any number of ways.

Indict the entire City government.

January 24, 2011 4:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Still hedging, still dodging, just like Rudy.

Where's the "$1+ million" that ALL went to salaries (over 3 fiscal years, apparently).

Ahhh, I see. When Huizar supposedly said "find it yourself" THAT was evasion. But now, it's just "believe me (an anonymous poster), it's ALL there.

January 24, 2011 4:49 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"And it really won't matter how many City controllers, auditors, bookkeepers, etc. - all note employed by Huizar - tell them that everything was spent in keeping with the provisions of the CLARTS fund regulations and City practices."

I have seen this before on other blogs, does anyone have any proof of this available to us constituents, like a copy of a letter or report on CLARTS????

Thanks to all.

January 24, 2011 4:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


The "it's all kosher" messages from Controller where quoted in the earlier article about this.

(Those are the parts of the quotes from other media points that "Reed Sput" always manages to leave out... funny, huh!)

What's that tell ya?

January 24, 2011 5:07 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


I think 4:18 is not saying believe me.

She/he is saying don't believe me read it in black and white yourself. Copy and paste the links and you will see it with your own two eyes.

The one example in the post is very clear that the money went from CLARTS ($200,000.00) to Salaries.

I took a look at the one report and it is clear and I do think you are right the million was over three years.

January 24, 2011 5:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


It tells me that Red Spot is a lousy reporter.

Can you point me in the right direction in terms of which articles or website???

Thanks a bunch.

January 24, 2011 5:20 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


This moving part of the motion below is good government. It is clear, concise and informs everyone what is going on with the CLARTS fund in this instance.

Motion 07-3534 dated 0ct. 31, 2007 and introduced by Huizar.

"I THEREFORE MOVE that, subject to the approval of the Mayor, $40,000 in the Central Los Angeles Recycling and Transfer Station (CLARTS) Community Amenities Trust Fund No. 47S, Department 14, be transferred to the Council District 14 portion of the Council Fund No. 100-28, Account No. 1010 (Salaries - General) to provide funding for
Council District 14 support of community programs and amenities in Council District Fourteen."

Anything short of this is subject to being perceived as "hide and seek" politics, which in my opinion is bad government.

I prefer my elected officials to practice good, clear acts in government as opposed to including a $200,000.00 CLARTS transfer on page 32 of a 271 page document.

With all apologies to Steve Martin, "excuuuse meee, for wanting good clean government"

It has been said before, maybe none of this is illegal, but what's wrong with expecting our politicians to act with some sort of openness about what they are doing, especially after they behaved in this manner two times before going down the path of CAO reports with subject lines that don't even hint that CLARTS is involved in the transfer of funds.

Optimistic in CD 14.

BTW, I am sure Huizar will now write motions to allocate CLARTS funds.

January 24, 2011 5:35 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

12:12 PM

You must never had read the Clarts fund link and neither has Rudy. The money can NOT fund just anything. It's exclusively for "amenities and projects in CD 14"

Please read it before you make comments.

January 24, 2011 7:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Surely there must be a time when Huizar supporters accept that the Council Member disbursed CLARTS money in violation of the CLARTS Fund Ordinance.

January 24, 2011 8:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

¿Rico? ¿Really? ¡Give me a break!

January 24, 2011 9:34 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

If I supported Huizar I would just shut up and let the story die. But no, it seems it's worth screwing their boy if they get the chance to see something they wrote published - even if it's only on Mayor Sam!

January 24, 2011 10:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"amenities and projects in CD14"

What's to say when all all other council districts are having to cut staff, and provide less consituent service, that being able to keep CD14 staff at the same level as before isn't an "amenity".

If we got it, and they ain't, that's "extra" for us. That's an "amenity" - that's above the norm, that's the ability to provide superior service.

Argue that the field deputies didn't "provide superior service" - that's on you. I've had problems with some of them, too -- before and after the budget cuts, but by any definition, in the "country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king."

But some, who mule and puke about any expenditure they diaagree with, would rather have had Huizar cut district staff that help provide basic constituent services, and dedicate all of the CLARKS money to "extras" like block parties, cheerleader uniforms, and fireworks shows.

I.e., less meat & potatoes, please, extra helping of dessert.

Sorry, not what I'd call a balanced diet that most non-haters would actually tolerate.

January 24, 2011 10:50 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

What's interesting about the lists - and confirms they have been updated until recently - is those names that supported Huizar against Pacheco but now are in the minus column!

No doubt Huizar's failure to back the community on the Southwest Museum issue has lost him many friends in the Mt. Washington area.

January 24, 2011 10:57 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

From what I know, Cubas is the work horse in that office. Visible at community events and all. She goes to the neighborhood council meetings to take the hits for the office.

January 24, 2011 11:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

You don't think Huizar buries things to hide them from the public.

Fiesta Broadway Fee Waivers..... 500,000 person event sent to council buried 3 layers deep in the agenda....the same day the event trucks were showing up.....every year the same strategy.

That is his idea of a public hearing.

In 2008 the item could not be approved on that Friday, so guess what? It came back two days after the event was over to ask permission to close 26 blocks of downtown and give the event promoter $180,000 in fee waivers.

This is how he operates..

January 24, 2011 11:21 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


Ya just haven't been paying attention, or you been under a rock since 2008.

Even Rabid red spot doesn't contend that anything other than the stripped down El Sereno List is any more recent than 2007-08. Most NC Board members listed have change office twice since the last update, and if anyone would have access to the most recent lists for the Northeast office, it would certainly have been the person who walked out with them after she was terminated.

January 25, 2011 1:10 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

11:21 Thanks for the post. Yes, Fiesta Broadway has over 20 Corporate Sponsors but the taxpayers every year end up paying $200,000 and more for special event waiver. Everyone should be questioning the $50,000 Huizar transferred out of the CLARTS FUND to Janice Hahn for a youth center in her area. WHY? Boyle Heights is considered one of the poorest communities in the City and Huizar is giving their money away.

January 25, 2011 7:53 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Fiesta Broadway is nothing more than a publicly funded cash cow for the coke head - Larry Gonzalez. An old dinosaur with ties to Art Torres and the other coke head, Richard Alatorre - this kickback is just more proof of Huizar's ties to the old guard of crooked Latino politicians who are using him - and our community - to get rich.

January 25, 2011 8:35 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I'd like to know more about the Larry Gonzalez connection.... He's obviously a big time criminal, but what is the connection to the Mayor, Huizar, and CD14.

You know he is going to try to get permits for that event again this year......

He keeps telling the Council there will be 120,000 people at Fiesta Broadway, at the same time he tells his sponsors there will be 500,000. He's lying, but to who, his sponsors, or the taxpayers.

A 400% difference between the permit estimates and the sponsor estimates.....Too big to be a mistake.

When this happens year after year it is a deliberate attempt to STEAL from the taxpayers.

What is the real cost to the City? Where does all the money go?????

Larry Gonzalez has got his daughters in the family business now. Soon they will be just like Uncle Alatorre! Living on EASY ST.

January 25, 2011 9:37 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Ana the work horse..... think again! the only reason she goes to meetings is to play her role as a "stupid bimbo" to the tee.... pretending she "does not have the information for the questions being asked and will get back to you".... that shit is getting old. With the money she makes, the least she could do is to do a little research before she goes out and represent her loser boss!

January 25, 2011 11:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

so is this blog also in the business of getting rid of huizar's staffers? i like it! but careful.... just because you don't like jose it does not mean that his staff is not looking to do something good for the community - but then again those who complain and are the staff haters (you know who you are scott, val, tom, jose a., etc) are the same who like to talk and talk, and talk again and complain and complain again without meaningful actions - just love to order the staffers "do the work, your the field deputy" and let me have the credit and spotlight.

January 25, 2011 11:24 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Jose once your out of office and you find out who's the mole, what would you do.

January 26, 2011 1:25 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


January 26, 2011 10:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Tara Devine? USC ALUM?
Mmmmm $85,000+ per year. Need to check the National Student Clearing House for the answer folks.

January 30, 2011 5:04 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home