Whistleblower hotline: (213) 785-6098

Friday, September 08, 2006

Shady Politicans Wasting City Money, Get "R" Back On, For Now...

ZD's FEATURED COMMENT (FROM ANONYMOUS POST): Let's face it folks- Measure R isn't about Council Members being able to find the water fountain in City Hall in four years- it's about PENSIONS. With 10 years of City service, doesn't one get a pension? Two terms equals 8 years, but a third term equals pension. We the taxpayers are tired of being fleeced. People in City Hall need to know that the residents of this city are not going to let their government walk all over them. We are fighting back! September 09, 2006 1:19 AM

FROM LA DAILY NEWS: Proposition R back on November Ballot
By Kerry Cavanaugh, Staff Writer

An appeals court cleared the way today for Proposition R, the Los Angeles City Council's term limits/ethics reform measure, to remain on the November ballot.

The ruling by the 2nd District Court of Appeals halted a Los Angeles' Superior Court judge's order Thursday to remove Proposition R from the ballot.

The decision by the three-judge panel directs the Los Angeles County Registrar — which faced a ballot-printing deadline of today — to include Proposition R on the Nov. 7 ballot.

But the appellate court also set an Oct. 3 hearing to consider the merits of the case, including whether the proposition violates the state Constitution's requirement that ballot measures only address one subject.

By that date, however, it would be too late to remove Proposition R from the sample ballot and voter information guide. [So what if it's on the ballot, if it's thrown out after ballot is printed, just don't count the votes, y'all.]

ZUMA DOGG SAYS: "Look how the shady, corrupt politicans have endless funding (of City Taxpayers' money), to keep fighting two decisions (already ruled against it) from a Judge -- as they fight to extend their own terms from two to three. AND, there's NO WAY this thing has any chance of making it through a vote of the people, at this point. Can't you just accept The Judge's and The People's decision and start campaging for higher office?" (That's what The Mayor/Your Boss is saying LAUSD should do.)

And, I can't wait to hear how much it's gonna cost the City of Los Angeles to fight this losing court and public opinion battle...And for what? To extend their own terms from two (four year terms) to three (four year terms) so they can get their pensions and all the extra money that'll roll in. Wendy Greuel stands to gain over $1 million in added financial whatnot (according to Daily News). So keep fighting the good fight, City Council -- and we'll keep fighting ours. See you all Tuesday, fools...yeah, yeah! City TV 35 (T, W, F, Sun: 10:00a, 7:30p, 12m)



Anonymous Anonymous said:

Now THAT's deception (this blog).

When I saw the headline "Shady, Corrupt Politicans Wasting City Money..." I was sure your were talking about the few loudmouth NC "leaders" who have had 2-3 years of $50K each and still can't get the attention of 1 percent of their stakeholders.

September 08, 2006 5:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

5:08pm sounds like some sour former Mayor Hahn staffer.

If you don't like NC's- then perhaps we should break up the city of angels: secession!

September 08, 2006 5:11 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Um, there wouldn't have been ANY money wasted if out-of-town interests hadn't stepped in to keep a "precedent" from being set, or if out-of-touch wannabe CMs who pretend to runs NCs hadn't taken this all to court in the first place.

Why are they so afraid to let the people decide?

If it's "war" then why are the fake NC leaders all trying to flee the "draft" so they don't actually have to fight.

Because they have no "troops" - they have no real "weapons" except "you cheated" BS - and their motives are becoming more and more apparent.

Clear the field, so they can take the CMs' jobs.

September 08, 2006 5:16 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

5:11 sounds like someone with no rebuttal techniques (and is).

Try addressing the issue and stop trying to undress the poster.

September 08, 2006 5:17 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Squawk... "Wark the plank, mateys, shiver my timbers"

yada yada

September 08, 2006 5:19 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I am a taxpayer. I am a voter. I am tired of being on the losing end of backdoor deals. I don't like being bamboozled. I don't like the way the Mayor and the City Council sneak things past the general public. I am through with being treated like a moron, because I'm not.

You can laugh if you want. You can badmouth NC's. But you can't sweep corruption like this under the rug. At the end of the day, it all comes down to whether or not the voting public will allow you, your bosses and those who line your pockets with $$$$ to continue.

Remember, YOU work for ME. There are a hell of a lot more of me then there are of you. And I have to agree with the pirate on that.

So go ahead and have a good laugh at the taxpayers and voters expense. It will be the last laugh you'll have at my expense. I intend to vote NO on Measure R and I intend to vote NO on anything and everyone that the Mayor and the City Council endorse. And we'll see who has the last laugh.

September 08, 2006 5:35 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I'm personally in favor of term limits: one term of six years, then out they go!

I would also be in favor of cutting all City officials' (be they either elected or appointed) salaries retroactive to 1956 levels, and only allow their salary increases to match the Federal Government's annual cost of living index for those corresponding 50 years.

Additionally, prohibiting them to vote themselves salary increases would probably be a wise move, and any future annual salary increases would correspond only to the aforementioned Federal cost of living index.

Reaction, anyone?

Stephen C. Foster

September 08, 2006 6:00 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Let's go to the City Council meeting on Tuesday during Public Comment time and tell the City Council what you think about their decision to appeal Judge O'Brien's decision. Ask how much money is being spend on this.

Then watch for the Budget and Finance Committee to take up the matter of paying the outside law firm on Sept. 11 (yikes!) at 1 p.m. It will be in closed session, but you can still speak on it.

This hasn't been added to the committee's agenda yet, but in the finest tradition of the City Council, expect it to be added at the last minute so that nobody will have an opportunity to know about it.

September 08, 2006 6:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

That's 1.

Anyone keeping count??

P.S. This "backdoor deal" was televised citywide, and the "deal" isn't a deal, until the taxpayers (the buyers) approve it. Which is pretty much how most "deals" work.

Opponents have had a month to hammer it to death, and they have another two months, to go.

So, (to recap, in case you're having trouble keeping up. . .), NOT backdoor, and not YET a deal!

Other than a vein throbbing in your forward, and probably rising blood pressure, you got bupkus -- irate 1 in 4 million.

Total bupkus.

September 08, 2006 6:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

... throbbing in your forehead . . .

September 08, 2006 6:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Dirty, corrupt assholes is what people citywide are sending via e-mail. Shame on Rocky!!!!! This should have never been appealed.

NC's have a grass root movement and people are really angry today. Lots of voters say this was the dirtiest thing coming out of city council in years. Now watch the people use action to let the Clowncil members know they need to all be booted OUT. WE can all see the council staffers still posting and being negative against NC's cause they are still afraid to lose their jobs.

September 08, 2006 6:06 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

I am a taxpayer, and a voter, and I am SICK AND TIRED of everyone always being SICK AND TIRED.

Why can't anyone just be SICK, or just TIRED, or SICK, then later TIRED or vice versa. Why must they always be SICK AND TIRED.

(with apologies to Steve Allen).

September 08, 2006 6:07 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

People need to know that a multimillion dollar company AEG was the one who PAID for the fake polling that League of Woman Voters did. Also, don't forget the Prop R measure was written up by a law firm who's clients are mostly lobbysists. Remember that city council NEVER ALLOWED THE ETHICS COMMISSION TO WEIGH IN ON THE MEASURE. Don't forget ERIC GARCETTI AND HIS DAD were cohorts to make sure Gil wasn't available to make a quroum when Ethic Commission was suppose to vote on this, therefore no meeting took place. AND ROCKY TOLD THE ASSHOLES THIS WAS GOING TO OPEN UP LAWSUITS AND TWO MEASURE SHOULDN'T BE ON ONE BALLOT......

September 08, 2006 6:12 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


How many million of e-mails have you received about this?

I'm on an NC board, and the only e-mail I got was from one of the screaming unmandated loudmouth wannabe-CMs on another mini-board 30 miles away, who's afraid his elected CM won't be termed out soon enough for him to run for City Council himself (and he KNOWS he can't beat him one-on-one).

Not a single person in my NC area has sent me one e-mail about any of this to me? No one's mentioned it an neighborhood gatherings, no one is picketing, no one is storming the council office, no one is calling (and I get a TON of calls and e-mails about other NC stuff).

Forward me a few thousand of your citywide e-mails, so I can check them out. I'd like to see a small portion of this HUGE groundswell of angry voters.

September 08, 2006 6:12 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:


DAMN, I wish I could have said it that good. Thanks!

6:01PM, 6:00PM and everyone else...way to F-ing go. I'm just smart and clever enough to get to pot the BASIC story, and let y'all take it to the next level.

When I lived in Vegas, and would score a dub sack on The Strip, sometimes a thug would try and hit me up with a $10 sack, instead of a dub ($20/gram of Chronic Weed).

But, he was more powerful than I (he could knock me out with one punch) and was backed by higher connections (his gang of homies standing behind him...like your panel of three judges).

So I took paid $20 for $10 of weed...But, I said to the corrupt Councilmmbers, I mean Vegas Strip Weed Slangers, "You BEAT me, but you didn't FOOL me."

And from that day on, he never got my vote, I mean business, ever again.

Zuma Dogg
Straight Hustler for Real, Dough

September 08, 2006 6:20 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Poor 6:12pm the fact that no one is sending you e-mails is sad. You should take that personally. This whole mess has people finally talking to eachother, wanting to get involved in the politics of this city and really angry that the Clowncil members would be so damn arrogant and bold to deceive the public. Many community meetings going on tomorrow to discuss this issue. You can bet the Clowncil are scrambling making sure their wannabe little clowns try and make some of them to hear what's going on. YOU'RE NOT INVITED.

September 08, 2006 7:17 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To 5:17pm

Funny that you ask me to address the issue and not undress the poster. I often make that complaint of other posters. So here's a real rebuttal:

The Measure R issue is not about Neighborhood Council funding, it's about public participation in our city government and allowing for the public to comment (which it was not able to do) on Measure R before the City Council placed it on the ballot. The City Attorney correctly advised the Mayor and Council to not mix the term limits issues and ethics issues as one ballot measure. The Council and Mayor disregarded his advice and now we taxpayers are paying for a second lawsuit- the first to defend the unconstitutional (State Constitution) action of the Council and Mayor and the second to try to appeal the unconstitutional action that was correctly thrown off the ballot by Judge Robert O'Brien. I don't what merit the two Appeals Court judges saw in taking the case, but hopefully after reviewing it they will dump Measure R on the ashheap of history.

All taxpayers should demand that those Council Members who voted to place Measure R on the ballot personally pay out of their own pockets for the legal expenses on defending Measure R in court.

September 08, 2006 7:46 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

NIMBYs just don't get the point.

City Council put out a ballot measure that was borderline unethical, but still legal.

Written by top-notch political attorneys.

City Attorney warned Council that measure would be challenged, but Rocktard endorsed measure becuase he was aware that all legal challanges would be defeated.

Measure will be on ballot in November.

With words like "Ethics Reform" on title, measure can't lose.

NIMBYs then will go back to regular issues, like no Home Depot in Sunland-Tujunga.

Are short, concise sentences helping you dumb-fuck NIMBY Council members understand? You're going against an opponent you possible cannot beat. Lower your standars, and realize that if ANY of you cunts was destined to become REAL elected official one day, you would not be wastin your time $50,000 of taxpayer money a year on NIMBY-ism. Get a life. Better yet, get new, different aspirations.

September 08, 2006 7:59 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:


You say, "You're going against an opponent you possible cannot beat. Lower your standards."

I know, isn't it a shame the people have to lower their standards because of the actions/misrepresentation/unethical/diversonary tactics of our elected officials, hired to represent our voices?

(Tom Lebong stadium announcer voice):

"Today, is truly a TERRIBLE day for not only the City's Democratic process, but for the entire constituency of he City of Los Aneles!"


September 08, 2006 8:10 PM  

Blogger Ahmed Mohammed said:

Don't worry Zuma-doggie-breath. When people say "lower your standards" they're not addressing you... not someone who makes a political illustration using examples of purchasing narcotics on the street.

No one expects you to go ANY lower; some things just ain't possible.

(By the way, the the Nation of Islam called, and they're filing suit against you for trying to pretend you're black!)

You're giving the "so-called negro" race a negative image.

September 08, 2006 9:41 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


. . . it's about public participation in our city government and allowing for the public to comment (which it was not able to do) on Measure R before the City Council placed it on the ballot . . .

Well shazam, Sherlock, I guess you learn something every day. And here after years of studying politics formally and informally, I was just ABSOLUTELY certain that the way you allowed "the public" to weigh in on. . . well, anything in a democracy WAS to put it on the ballot and let them VOTE.

Now you've schooled me... the NEW way in the post-charter era in L.A. to handle public "comment" is to let tiny groups, of under-elected, often self-selected (because they have YET to tell most of their neighborhoods that they exist), and primarily WHITE MIDDLE CLASS-to-WEALTHY, MOSTLY MEN that make up the majority of the NC boards in this city typify "public comment" and PRE-SCREEN what the ACTUAL MASSES can and should vote on in the end.

We're back to the good-old-boy network, smoke-filled room private deals. Except now instead of 12-15 councilmembers elected by tens of thousands cutting deals in the backroom in private, they have to now let a couple hundred more "good old little boys" weigh in, and they have to pretend they don't know that their new "partners" in neo non-democracy have NO mandate in their own neighborhoods, and most likely just represent their own interests.

I didn't know all that, but if the City Council members can pull off this "cut them in" dealmaking and keep a straight face, they all deserve Academy Awards.

September 08, 2006 9:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Yo, 6:12 chickenshit....tell us your name and we can all forward emails. Clever how you made a challenegt hat couldn't be responded to...jackass.

September 08, 2006 10:04 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

REPORT NO. R O 6 - O 3 1 8
SEP Q 5 20J6

The Honorable Budget & Finance Committee
of the City of Los Angeles
Room 1010, City Hall
200 North Spring Street
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Honorable Members:
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.9(a), the City Attorney's Office wishes to meet in closed session to discuss the status and funding of the contract with the law firm of Mayer Brown Rowe & Maw LLP as outside counsel in Donner v. City of Los Angeles.

We ask that the matter be placed on the Budget and Finance Committee's closed session agenda for it's meeting of September 11, 2006.


September 08, 2006 10:08 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Ask yourself...why would the city spend taxpayer dollars to appeal the ballot title unless they knew it would kill their chances to win this thing? This is crazy.

September 08, 2006 10:20 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Dockweiler_Mutt-tt=Ulysses Sanchez

September 08, 2006 11:01 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Corrupt no, self serving yes. Slandering our City Council is not helpful. Mayor Sam give Zuma Dog a bottle and put him back in his crib. He is not ready for prime time.

September 08, 2006 11:21 PM  

Blogger Zuma Dogg said:

Is weed a narcotic?

If you need some examples of how City Council is "corrupt", maybe I can start listing documented examples from public record requests...But it's still kinda early this election season to do that. I'm trying to give some people a little slack, but if you keep poppin off at the mouth, I can start printing some of the "shady, corrupt" people have send me documentation of.

Feel free to call me on my cell phone (number listed on my website) and I can start reading some things off, and you can tell me if these things are corrupt, or not.

Lemme know!


September 09, 2006 12:39 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Ummm Zuma, it was 1 judge.

Before you run at the mouth GET YOUR FUCKING FACTS STRAIGHT!

Your 15 minutes were just about up... then MS fucked up and gave you a microphone.

Time for the dog to go back to the pound.

September 09, 2006 12:40 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it.

PS, somebody tell Vanilla Ice to shut the hell up!

September 09, 2006 1:18 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To 9:56pm

You can't stand public comment- whether or not it comes from Joe or Jose Citizen or a neighborhood council board member. If you like a dictatorship, then there's a nice four letter island in the Caribbean waiting for you to move in. It's spelled C-U-B-A.

If the City Council didn't follow the State Constitution for single subject ballot measures, which they probably have sworn to uphold, then Measure R should be dropped from the ballot. The Appeals Court should uphold Judge O'Brien's ruling.

Term limits and ethics reform are very important issues. Why didn't the City Council hold hearings on these issues? Why wasn't the City Ethics Commission consulted, considering that they are the ones that will have to enforce the ethics rules? The use of a third party in the form of the L.A. Chamber of Commerce (which has becoming less and less of a good neighbor to many L.A. residents) and the League of Women Voters (the same folks who endorsed City Proposition F in 1990 that gave City Council Members a 40% pay increase when Council pay was tied to that of Superior Court judges) and the short time that the Council mishandled this matter demonstrates that Measure R was a bad idea from the start.

Let's face it folks- Measure R isn't about Council Members being able to find the water fountain in City Hall in four years- it's about PENSIONS. With 10 years of City service, doesn't one get a pension? Two terms equals 8 years and if a former Council Member does not want to become a Council staffer to get the extra 2 years for pension, a third term seems reasonable. We the taxpayers are tired of being fleeced. We're made as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. Call us NIMBY's, but people in City Hall need to know that the residents of this city are not going to let their government walk all over them. We are fighting back. NIMBY POWER!

September 09, 2006 1:19 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


September 09, 2006 1:21 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Division Eight:

Candace Cooper, Presiding Justice
Laurence D. Rubin, Associate Justice
Paul Boland, Associate Justice
Madeleine I. Flier, Associate Justice

Well, now, here's a coincidence; all four justices were appointed by...Gray Davis.

Vote Democratic, so we can get some more of these great thinkers!!!

September 09, 2006 2:48 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Mayor Sam and Zuma Dogg lots of vemon in the posts. Looks like we're really getting to the and they don't like it. I haven't seen such hate filled words in a long time. But this is a good thing cause it shows the Clowncil members are feeling the heat.

The dumbass who said this, "With words like "Ethics Reform" on title, measure can't lose."

You are full of shit. With all the bad publicity and now I'm hearing protests people will know the truth the Clowncil has been trying to hide.

Zuma you're doing the right thing and you have people finally taking notice of the corruption. When they dog you that's flattering because you got their goat. YOU GO!!!!

September 09, 2006 7:19 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

David Hernandez,Jim Alger, Jill Barad, Richard Close we are counting on you to not let this happen in the valley. Let's see what scams the clowncil members do to get support. The fact that Measure R is stuck in court says it all.

.....Valley Industry and Commerce Assn. The business group, based in the San Fernando Valley, is scheduled to decide Sept. 19 whether to support the measure.

September 09, 2006 7:38 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Why hasn't the lazy ass troll reporters gone after Antonio for a quote on the term limit story????

They are nothing but a bunch of kiss ass tabloid journalists who are afraid of the hard hitting facts. David Z of LA Weekly isn't afraid. I hope he goes after it but I doubt Antonio will give a comment. This just goes to show the corruption in our city. Why hasn't Antonio's kiss ass Matt Szabo made a comment? Zuma Dogg go after this and tell all the media you contact to have them ask Antonio to make a comment on term limit story.

September 09, 2006 8:21 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hey, 8:21 a.m., stop being such a doofus! You can demand comments from electeds, but what planet were you on when you demanded that Szabo make a comment about Measure R? He's a Mayoral spokesperson, he's not a friggin' free-lancer who can talk about anything he wants in any way he wants. When the Mayor wants staffers like Szabo to say something on his behalf, it will happen. Until then it won't.

Get a clue.

September 09, 2006 8:41 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

September 09, 2006 7:19 AM,

Hmm, I still beleive the measeure is unbeatable. There is little to no bad publicity on this, and what publicity is out there, the vast majority of voters in the City will never hear. The measure will pass. But put your money where your mouth is, would you like to wager?

September 09, 2006 8:21 AM,

You idiot, you got it twisted. The LA Weekly is actually the tabloid-format.

September 09, 2006 10:48 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Will the Real Slim Shady please stand up? Uhm, we're gonna have a problem here!

They have the, you know, part of the black blood in them and part of the Latino blood in them that together makes it.

September 09, 2006 10:50 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

City Council's Clumsy Job Protection
Extending term limits might be a good idea, but not in the rushed and dishonest way the council placed Measure R on the ballot.
September 9, 2006

TERM LIMITS STINK. THEY DISEMPOWER voters by limiting choice. They produce elected officials who care more about jumping to their next office than earning the right to keep the job they have. They make sure that only lobbyists, labor unions and professional bureaucrats, rather than the peoples' elected

representatives, collect the experience, connections and institutional knowledge of how the process works and how to get things done.

ADVERTISEMENTIn the Los Angeles City Council, the current two-term limit discourages long-term budget planning, prevents members from seeing through large-scale projects from start to finish and, most important, assures that elected officials who might otherwise be held accountable for bad decisions are long gone by the time their actions come home to roost. Limits should at the very least be relaxed to three terms, and it would be hard to imagine a ballot measure along those lines that we would not support.

Or rather, it was hard to imagine before this summer. We clearly underestimated the duplicity of the City Council, which came up with a term-limits extension laden with so many problems that even we were left wondering how we could support it. A judge appeared to have made the question moot Thursday by ordering the proposal, Measure R, off the Nov. 7 ballot. An appeals court revived it Friday. So here we are.

There are substantive legal and practical problems with Measure R. For example, it extends term limits for City Council members but not for the mayor, controller or city attorney. That undermines the voters' decision in adopting a new charter to strengthen the mayor at the City Council's expense.

It also sugarcoats term-limits extension by adding unrelated ethics reform, a pairing that led a judge to strike the whole thing on grounds that it violated the state Constitution's prohibition on two-pronged ballot initiatives. And even the "ethics" portion makes changes on lobbyist disclosure requirements that are murky at best — and in any case sidestep entirely the city's Ethics Commission, which exists to study and refine rules such as this, yet wasn't even consulted. Why was the City Council in such a rush?

Also shut out of the hasty process were neighborhood councils, which under the charter must get early notice of city actions, and by extension the entire electorate, which had insufficient notice to read, study or comment on the final version.

Measure R is for the moment back on the ballot, but it is tainted. The City Council, which could have won public support for the worthy principle of extending term limits, has instead reminded us why they were popular in the first place. And members may have poisoned the chance for term-limits reform for the foreseeable future.

Which is a shame. Because term limits still stink.

September 09, 2006 7:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

WAHHHH. WAHHHH. WAHHHH, NC's LOST (not really, just the obviously lousy lawyers/CM-wannabes/unrepresentative NC reps with the big mouths... the under 1 percenters - THEY lost), and the real leaders of real mandated, representative NCs never missed a beat, working at home to improve things, fix city services for their stakeholders and HELP their elected officials (not replace them).

Lyonalgbergnelson LOST! Couldn't have happened to a "nicer" virtual law firm.


September 10, 2006 4:08 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

For those of you questioning how the people of Los Angeles feel about the City Council's actions re: Prop R, now you've got the Times criticizing them.

We started off with the City Council billing this thing as a proposal from the people to give them another term, and now look what a mess they've made of it. That's because the neighborhood councils and now the Times agreed that extending term limits isn't so critically important that absolutely any sleezy and costly action is justified.

Imagine if the City Council fought as hard for you as they do for themselves.

Garcetti and Reyes introduced the idea of an exclusionary zoning ordinance (like it or not, at least somebody proposed a piece of legislation), and then quickly ran from it once a few people questioned it or said they didn't like it. That was designed to help lower and middle income people. But they didn't run from the plan that would help them and their lobbyist friends.

September 10, 2006 10:01 AM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

"...the real leaders of real mandated, representative NCs never missed a beat, working at home to improve things, fix city services for their stakeholders and HELP their elected officials (not replace them)."

Heads up, you've done a crappy job by working at home. City services aren't fixed. Elected officials don't listen to NC's anyway and ignore them; so all that working hard has fallen on deaf ears. Oh, you've done a GREAT job in fixing things and responding to the stakeholders. But let me ask you this. Who gave you the mandate to trash other NC's whose stakeholders hold a different opinion than you? C'mon. Throw out a name. I double-dog dare you.

You must be one of the nimrods that are on my NC. My NC doesn't want to take a position on Measure R because its president doesn't want to "make the City Council angry." And then he whines about "we're not doing enough outreach...". Perhaps one has something to do with the other?

Oh, my mistake. It's all about you and the power that you think you wield. I've got news for you...it's the power that NC's together wield. And if you were smart, you would get with the program and actually DO something that MIGHT make a few waves. I guarantee you that you would have more attendance at meetings if you did.

Oh, and take some of the City-paid for CORO training while you're at it. You might find that things get "fixed" faster when you work with other NC's.

September 10, 2006 11:01 AM  

Blogger dgarzila said:

hey there Zuma Dogg,

Do us a favor and when you start back at City Council on Tuesday take a bath or shower or something.

People who think you are great are also complaining about this.

September 10, 2006 3:05 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:


September 10, 2006 3:41 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Hey Zuma-

Did you see the poster telling you to go back to the pound? He must be from the Great Lakes area also and he wants you to go back to the dawg pound!

Go Browns! Oh wait, I quit liking them when they left. Now I say Go Steelers!

But I think the poster meant that dawg pound.

September 10, 2006 7:09 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

To 1:19 AM:

Doesn't anon poster at 9:59 pretend to want to hear public comment? ; )

September 10, 2006 7:14 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

This makes me sick! I will not support this continued corruption. It's time to send another message by NOT passing this stupid measure.

Keep fighting this guys, we are behind you.

September 10, 2006 7:56 PM  

Anonymous Anonymous said:

Not only should we vote down "R", we should work towards politically ruining each of the current council members. They have continuously proven to be self-serving and corrupt. LA will remain a cesspool as long as we all just can't be bothered to do anything about it.

September 11, 2006 1:15 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home