David Slays Goliath at SOHA Forum

At the SOHA forum Wednesday night, the $400,000 candidate took on the $8,000 neighborhood activist.

The activist won.

Chris Essel directed what appeared to be a scripted question to Pete Sanchez regarding how he would handle a proposed  Sherman Oaks development project (by the way, thank you Mike Cohen for the video link).

I assume it was scripted because there is no way Chris Essel could have been familiar with a specific neighborhood issue without being briefed.  This is the first time Essel had mentioned any specific neighborhood issue involving CD2.

It was definitely set up as a “gotcha” question.

However, the only one who got “gotchaed” was Chris.

Peter had a straightforward answer.  He drew from his experience in Valley Village. He recounted how he dealt with the Stevens Nursery project adjacent to Gelson’s at Riverside and Laurel Canyon.

Peter, as President of the Neighborhood Council Valley Village, organized a hearing that brought all of the stakeholders together to consider the options: one concept in violation of the strict height standards of the Valley Village Specific Plan; the other within. 

As I recall, Peter was determined to give the alternative concepts a fair hearing. He considered density, traffic and the sustainability of a scaled down nursery as part of a mixed-used complex.

About four-hundred people attended.  It was clear that the stakeholders of Valley Village were adamant about adhering to the Specific Plan.  The Plan was developed many years before in response to the gross over-development along Riverside Drive.  At that time the residents of Valley Village, through their homeowners association, decided enough was enough.

The people overwhelmingly opted for the concept that honored the Specific Plan. This sentiment was supported by both the Neighborhood Council Valley Village and the Valley Village Homeowners Association.

The important thing to take from this is the openness with which the deliberations were conducted. Peter was fair and open.

That is how he would approach any proposed project, whether in Sherman Oaks or any other community in CD2.

By the expression on her face, Chris appeared deflated after his response.

Score one for the Grassroots team. Deduct one from the Big Money conglomerate.

Read Full Post »

Final Forum Thoughts and Candidate Impressions

Rather than replicate the coverage for the final forum, for which I was absent, I decided to review all of my prior forum posts and reflect on the development of the issues and the candidates.

I will cover one important aspect of the SOHA event in a separate post.  Thank you, Michael Cohen, for the complete video.

I am not including Kevin James’ excellent forums, only because the format and setting were dramatically different.  I would like to see more of his type of coverage in future elections.

After flipping through printouts, what caught my eye was the increase in pages from the first through the fourth event. There were fewer than two pages for Sunland Tujunga to almost four pages devoted to SONC’s forum.  That is considerable growth.  It can be attributed to the depth of the candidates’ answers, which in part was due to the nature of the questions.

It was a natural progression.  As you might expect, both the forum sponsors and the candidates learned from all of the preceding events.  Questions became more specific to encourage deeper answers; formats were modified to cover more ground and foster interactivity among the candidates.

Despite the time limits that were necessary to allow participation by all ten candidates, the organizers, who were all volunteers, deserve much credit and our respect for embodying the essence of civic responsibility.

I only wish that the 85% of citizens who do not bother to vote in local elections had a fraction of the spirit and commitment shown by these people.

How did the candidates themselves evolve?

At first, it was the better known names touting their public stands, fairly or otherwise, while the grassroots candidates had to devote considerable energy just to stake out their positions.

It did not take long for that to change. 

The second forum became more combative. Essel, who was the only real target in the first forum for her public stance on SB1818, got some company with Krekorian and Galatzan absorbing criticism for inaction in the Assembly and the LAUSD’s performance, respectively.  Even Wendy Greuel, who in my view is the surrogate for Chris Essel, was pasted in no uncertain terms.

More specifics started to emerge by the third forum.

The DWP and the city’s infrastructure were targeted –and that was before the rash of water main failures.  Krekorian had sharp exchanges with Benson and Sheftel.  The former concerning Krekorian’s carpetbagger status and the latter regarding the prison release bill that was before the Assembly.   Krekorian unjustly called Sheftel a liar when Frank accused him of wanting to support a bill to release many thousands of prisoners.   In fact, such a bill was before the Assembly; Krekorian, as is typical of a professional politician, was cagey about his stand on it.

Krekorian also dodged an important question about the unfunded pension liability, no doubt because he did not want to risk the ire of the SEIU, one of his top institutional supporters.

There were also heated exchanges among Benson, Sheftel and Zuma Dogg, showing that the grassroots candidates were anything but a coalition.

The fourth forum also delved more into the budget crisis with several candidates offering specific ideas to cut spending while Krekorian blamed everything but politicians for the present mess.  His proposal about restoring cuts when the economic cycle turned around was further evidence of his union connection. 

His arrogance also became increasingly evident when he put down the others as amateurs.

Chris Essel impressed only a handful of those in attendance.  She could never shake off the public position she took in favor of SB1818 nor could she detach herself from the flood of campaign cash and endorsements from over the hill.  Her attempts to display herself as a “valley girl” were, to be frank, lame. If anything, they were met with derision.

Will money be enough to offset the poor perception of her in key segments of the district?  As Augusto Bisani would say, “I don’t know.”

Tamar Galatzan was consistently aggressive throughout all of the forums and displayed enough passion without going over the top.  Certainly, she is a strong contender.

Peter Sanchez grew in stature.  His progress really became evident on his home turf in Valley Village and carried forward from there.  He just might be the strongest of the grassroots group at this time. That would make him a contender for a runoff slot.

Frank Sheftel started strong, but never really capitalized on it.  However, he does appear to have the most established organization of the grassroots candidates.  For that reason, he could be in the mix for a chance at the runoff.

Mary Benson’s message failed to go much beyond land use.  That will hurt her chances.

Joe Essavi was too stuck on the Council salary issue.

Michael McCue was up and down through the forum series.  He made good use of slogans, which in formats with 30 to 60 seconds allotted to deliver your message is an effective strategy.  However, he did not know when to tone his passion down.  That could work against him.

Augusto Bisani was the “man on the street” candidate, evoking memories of comic Steve Allen’s old routine. He was a sharp contrast to everyone else; for that alone he deserves credit.  However, it will not translate into very many votes.

Finally, Zuma Dogg was everything everyone expected.  No more, no less.

He can best be described as the political equivalent of rock band Rage Against the Machine, whose album, the Battle of Los Angeles, should be the soundtrack for this campaign.

Read Full Post »

McCue Announces Endorsement from Station Fire Victims

I received this from the McCue Campaign.

Press Release:  Town Hall Honorees Endorse Michael McCue                                            September 15, 2009

Last night (09/14) the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council hosted a Town Hall Forum for the Candidates in the special election for Council District 2 coming up on September 22.  Former Assemblyman Richard Katz moderated and introduced as Guests of Honor, Mr. and Mrs. Fury, whose home had been destroyed in the Station Fire. 

Jean and Ben Fury received a standing ovation in recognition of their courage and dedication to our community, and for staying involved in the special election despite their recent, devastating loss.

The Town Hall was a lively event with the candidates exchanging views on our local and city-wide issues.

At meeting’s end Mr. & Mrs. Fury approached candidate Michael McCue to endorse him.

Jean & Ben Fury said:

“You are our candidate.  We both fell in love with you at the same time.  We recognized you as the person we support out of all the candidates.  It’s your passion, sincerity, and integrity, Michael.   We want someone to speak for the people.”

“As community members, we worked with Joel Wachs, who gave CD2 great representation.  You remind us of Joel.  You are another person of his high quality.”

McCue has been deeply and positively moved by their heartfelt involvement and endorsement, saying, “When Mr. and Mrs. Fury spoke with me after the town hall to let me know how enthusiastically they would support our campaign, I felt like a winner already!”   

“Our CD 2 voters have gone through so much.   We have faced so many challenges since we’ve been without representation at City Council— with outsiders and political machine opportunists trying to take advantage of our communities.   This endorsement comes from a courageous and lovely couple, who have lost everything and are facing the biggest challenge of their lives.  Jean & Ben’s support has great depth of meaning for me personally.   I wish for Mr. and Mrs. Fury a full, quick recovery.   I am very mindful of critical needs faced by all fire & flood victims.   As a Council Member, I will be an advocate for improved City fire protection services, including environmentally sensitive and economically sensible programs.  We must act quickly and responsibly to avoid this type of disaster from happening again!”

“Our campaign has found the support of voters of all political stripes including Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Independents and especially Greens who have officially endorsed my candidacy.”   

“There is a major shift in voters’ attitudes towards City Council and political machine’s politics-as-usual.   Voters are not supporting “machine” opportunists, carpetbaggers or job-hopping career politicians, who are strangers to our neighborhoods.  Polls are showing that voters want to elect a local, grass-roots candidate who is a responsible, proven, community leader to City Council.  As Jean Fury said, “Michael will speak for the people.”

Please visit www.McQuefor2.com

Read Full Post »

A Summer Night in Sherman Oaks: Home Stretch for the Forums

A near capacity crowd greeted the ten candidates at the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council candidate forum held at the Sherman Oaks Elementary School.

The weather was comfortable, but the candidates added some stormy turbulence.

Former Assembly Member Richard Katz handled the moderating honors with aplomb.

The opening statements were by now almost automatic, but some new information trickled in.

Peter Sanchez got right to details when he mentioned his efforts to fight SB1818 developments and mansionization in Valley Village.

Paul Krekorian qualified the extent of his involvement in CD2, stating that he represented about one-third of the District in the Assembly.  I will credit him for being transparent on that point.

Joe Essavi, the big guy, received strong applause when he stated he would take a $90,000 cut in salary and turn it over to the Neighborhood Council system. 

The first question related to the fiscal crisis, which is always my personal favorite. 

What would the candidates do to balance the budget?

There were several worthwhile suggestions.

Tamar Galatzan emphasized prioritization and provided an explicit example of a cut – a commission with seventeen members.

Chris Essel supported employees contributing more to their retirement plans.

Michael McCue recommended terminating the costly elephant enclosure project at the LA Zoo, also stating that the animal has been driven out of his mind.  I might add that elephant has plenty of company in that regard.

Joe Essavi came up with the most revolutionary idea.  He suggested making “job-hopping candidates” pay for the cost of the special elections required to backfill their seats.

Zuma Dogg supported eliminating whole departments if they were deemed to be low on the priority scale and a 10% cutback in compensation.  “10% of something is better than a 100% of nothing,” he proclaimed.

Referring to Chris Essel’s call for a rainy day fund, he stated there would not be any money for it if the city continued with its present spending pattern.

Augusto Bisani faulted the city for wasting money on celebrations, such as $5 million on a recent heritage event.  “We should not celebrate anything if we do not have the money.”

Peter Sanchez cited his experience as a claims auditor, which entails looking for efficiencies.  He favored programmatic cuts rather than general ones.

He provided an excellent example of waste in government.  It concerned Wendy Greuel’s former council staff cleaning out her office files.  “There were boxes of countless brochures, printed by the city at taxpayers’ expense.”  It got a good laugh from the crowd.

Mary Benson pointed to the 80% share of operating expenses represented by compensation as a major reason for our deficit.  She called for an end of transfers from special purpose funds to the general fund.  “We must stop shuffling money!”  

Frank Sheftel said if he ran his business like the city, he would be bankrupt. 

Paul Krekorian said painful cuts would occur.  However, he blamed the financial crisis on the global economic meltdown.  “It was not due to unsustainability,” he stated.

He also said he would restore the cuts when the economy turned around and recommended selling surplus property to bridge the hard times.

The subject moved on to the concept of “Smart Growth” and the proposal to significantly increase the size of Fashion Square.

Without exception, there was no support for the Fashion Square project. 

Michael McCue insisted on “infrastructure first!”

Peter Sanchez said “responsible growth must entail either improving the infrastructure to support any development, or downsize development to the existing capacity.”

Augusto Bisani said “We cannot stop development. Don’t even dream it can stop.”  He added, “Any development must be directed by the community.”

Paul Krekorian said the practice of changing the rules to accommodate developers must stop.  “Do not assume people will use public transit,” referring to a common assumption used by the Planning Department to justify higher density.

Tamar Galatzan complained how Planning seems to define a transit corridor as a “single bus stop.”

Mr. Katz reminded the candidates that the CD2 Member would sit on the Education and Neighborhoods Committee.  As a committee member, would any of them support the use of the recently designed neighborhood council disclosure form.

No one supported the use of the form, although Chris Essel suggested the need for NC members to disclose any interest in a proposed development up for a vote.

Michael McCue received applause when he called for the need “to elect one of our own.”

“As the Neighborhood Councils grow in influence, the City Council tries to reduce their power,” he added.

Tamar Galatzan promised to meet with representatives of all NCs to discuss all projects being considered for the entire district “so we all learn about them at the same time.”

Paul Krekorian said the city should view NCs as a “gift” and a means to break the power of centralization.

“Disclosure is bullying,” he stated.

He went on to claim he had more NC leader endorsements than there were candidates from the NCs.

Mary Benson chided him for that claim indicating that the city had discouraged NC members from publicly supporting one of their own.

Mary also recounted how the Mayor threatened to reduce NC budgets if they did not participate in budget survey.  She recommended the appointment of an ex officio NC member as a nonvoting representative on the City Council.  This person would be the liaison between the Council and the NCs.

Frank Sheftel reminded everyone that the City is threatening to eliminate the NC budget rollover.

Pete Sanchez cited his considerable experience as a NC and HA President.  He recalled the frustration of having to rewrite the by-laws of NC Valley Village at the insistence of the city even though he had used the approved template.

The next question really did not make it out of the gate.  It concerned what commissions the candidates would eliminate.  No information was supplied about the size and costs associated with each; Mr. Katz caught an earful about it.

In any event, Tamar Galatzan was the most prepared to deal with it.  She knew the size of some of them and recommended the elimination of the seventeen-member Human Relations Commission. She also noted that the Quality and Productivity Commission has offered little or nothing in the way of improvements.

Disaster planning was next on the agenda.

There was general agreement concerning the need for communication of city emergency responders with NCs.  Mary Benson, who volunteered considerable time and effort in assisting with animal rescue during the Station Fire, complained of very poor coordination by the city.

Augusto Bisani praised Mary for her tireless efforts during the fire.

Peter Sanchez pointed to the ongoing CERT training program in Valley Village.  Three groups have already been trained by the FDLA.

There were a few questions submitted by the SO stakeholders.

Tamar was asked why she would want to leave the LAUSD soon after she supported the recently approved charterization program.

She replied that as a City Council Member, she could do more to influence advancement in education than as a LAUSD Board Member.  Her knowledge of the schools would be extremely useful as a member of the Council’s Neighborhoods and Education Committee.

Michael McCue was asked about his position on election reform.  He proudly expressed his ongoing support for clean money campaigns- “clean money makes all solutions possible.”

If elected, he would reactivate the Council File on clean money.

All candidates were asked about the qualities each wanted to see in a new police chief.  Almost everyone said they wanted someone from the department.  Peter Sanchez referred to a conversation he had with a friend who is a LAPD officer.  The officer told him “competence was the primary quality, whether the chief was an internal or external pick.”

Both Krekorian and Essel were asked about their campaign contributions.  Given the extent of cash received from special interests and sources outside of CD2, how can the stakeholders trust them to work in their best interests.

Both denied their funds came from special interests.  Krekorian said he is accustomed to saying “no” to friends.  Essel said “the people in her community know she is committed to the Valley.”

The closing remarks included some of the most lively I have heard at any forum.

Mary Benson urged people to vote for a grassroots candidate.  “It is not a wasted vote. Don’t simply vote for someone because you think he or she could win.”

Augusto Bisani said “I’m one of you guys.  Don’t be seduced by the professionals.”

Joe Essavi said “Don’t send a pro; you will be disappointed later.  This is America.  Anything can happen.”

Chris Essel recited her experience in finance and operations at Paramount.

Tamar Galatzan noted experience working on quality of life issues in CD2 as a neighborhood prosecutor.  She was proud to stand up to the Mayor and the very powerful SEIU.

Paul Krekorian said it is an honor to serve; he delivers. 

“This is not a time for amateurs,” he boasted.

Michael McCue said the Daily News stated that around half the voters were still undecided.  He emphatically disagreed with Krekorian  -“it will take an amateur,” he countered.

Michael also went on to mention me and quoted one of my blog posts where I urged the voters to repudiate the established politicians. 

Since I was quoted, it is only correct that I address it in a separate post.  Please go here.

Zuma Dogg was, well, Zuma Dogg.  He was electric.

He rebuked Paul Krekorian as a tool of Karen Bass in the Assembly.  “He has not delivered.”

He said Tamar wants to walk away from the LAUSD.

He referred to Chris Essel’s  network of contributors and stated “she would need to win the election just so she could pay them off.”

Pete Sanchez delivered the best quip of the evening: “I seem soft-spoken to some, but that is only because I usually follow Zuma Dogg at these forums.”

He told of a friend of his that emigrated from Mexico (legally).  She gave as her reason the inability of her native country to change.

He does not accept that as an answer.  It is the duty of citizens to make change.

 “I can be the voice for change.”

Peter referred to the Daily News endorsement he received where he was characterized as being “a welcome addition to the council horseshoe.”

The Los Angeles Times credited him with an extensive knowledge of the city.

Frank Sheftel quoted from his characterization in the Los Angeles Times as one who “brings a disarming candor.”

He next held up a handful of campaign mailers from Essel and Krekorian and said “we need to recycle trash; not candidates.”

Closing note from me:  Due to another commitment, I will not be able to cover Wednesday night’s forum. 

Too bad for me, the format looks interesting because it allows a limited number of questions among the candidates themselves.

I have asked a few people to take copious notes.  I will do my best to weave them into a summary on Thursday or Friday.

Read Full Post »

Lost in Translation

It is only appropriate for me to comment when I am quoted in public.

Michael McCue did so tonight at the Sherman Oaks Neighborhood Council forum.  It was an accurate quote:

“The voters in CD2 can at least send a message to City Hall by repudiating the worthless candidates that represent an establishment that has failed us at the local and state levels, and are backed by unions and politicos who have set the table for the toxic finances at the City, LAUSD and Sacramento.”

For the complete article, go here.

However, Michael did draw one conclusion from it that is not accurate.  It is a matter of interpretation, so I am not faulting him.

He used the statement as a segway to criticize Tamar Galatzan’s role in the LAUSD and her decision to run for Council.

I was critical of Tamar’s vote in support of putting the Measure Q school construction bonds on the ballot.  However, I also praised her for showing backbone and standing up to the Mayor and the SEIU on a financially irresponsible, budget-busting proposal.

I have never viewed this race as seven vs. three.  In my view it has been seven vs. two vs. one, with Tamar being the wildcard.

As I stated in an early post about the election:

“Now for the Wild Card candidates.  We owe them our appreciation because they have upset the balance of power in this race.  Both Galatzan and Pugliese, with whom I am both acquainted, are veteran campaigners who are capable of raising adequate funds, although probably measurably less than the Deep Pockets candidates.  Their connections to parents of school children could be a key factor in how the vote splits.  They will peel votes away from Krekorian and Essel, and maybe even a few from the Grassroots group.

Galatzan has served on the LAUSD Board for the last two years.  When she ran, she was on the Mayor’s slate of candidates he organized in an attempt to gain control of the School Board.  However, she has since had something of a falling out with him.  Perhaps voting against a union proposal to extend health benefits to part time school cafeteria employees may have had something to do with it.

Pugliese came within a hair of winning a seat on the LAUSD Board this year, proving he can get votes from a diverse district.

Both of these candidates have practical views on education, but we need to know if they can keep an arm’s length distance from the other members of the City Council that vote in lockstep with the Mayor on key issues.” 

Tamar is apart from Essel and Krekorian. In my view, she is no longer part of the partisan or City Hall machine.

On that basis, she is a viable candidate with neighborhood credentials and should not be dismissed.

She has made strong statements that are in alignment with the core issues expressed by the Grassroots group.

That said, take your pick among the eight, or seven plus one, however you categorize them.

Just take a pass on the two.

Read Full Post »

KRLA Forum: Round Two

Kevin James announced that Paul Krekorian could not participate because he was on the floor of the Assembly where the final bills of the session were being considered. 

Later in the program, Kevin stated he had heard that the session had actually ended prior to the start of the show.  However, he did not believe Krekorian was attempting to duck the broadcast.

He did eventually reach the Assemblyman off the air. Other interview arrangements would be made for another day.

The opening comments were fairly typical with little new information.

Zuma Dogg did say he would allow the Neighborhood Councils to select a staff member and bring in an investigator with media experience to look for corruption.

Augusto Bisani stated the need to bring jobs back to Los Angeles; despite Krekorian’s claim to that effect, there have been no results.

Michael McCue blamed the Democratic Party controlled City Council for the city’s problems and said clean campaign money is the only way to rectify the situation.

The three candidates were presented with the same question regarding infrastructure as was asked last night:  in view of the fires and water main failures, what would you do to start solving the city’s infrastructure problems?

McCue emphasized the need to fund infrastructure before anything else.  It is a matter of safety.  He implied that a 50% cut in Council Member pay would be a gesture, something that Krekorian is not willing to do.

Bisani said the city needs to have a system to inspect infrastructure.  He also claimed the city did not institute evacuations until after 50,000 acres had burned in the Station Fire.

Zuma Dogg indicated that priorities are not properly evaluated.  He used Measure B as an example –why was the Council concerned with solar panels when the infrastructure was aging?

Kevin then asked specific questions of each candidate.

How should a DWP Ratepayer Advocate be funded and under whose authority?

McCue said the position could be funded by the DWP or the City Attorney.  It did not matter to him.

He asked Augusto Bisani if he could be more specific about his claim, as stated in his website, that radical change is needed.

Augusto said restructuring of the budget is needed, but it would take a long time.

Kevin asked Zuma Dogg how he would select and fund the investigator he pledged to hire.

ZD replied he would use his own staff budget to fund the position.  The person would not investigate people, but processes.

There was a general question regarding whether the firefighting budget be exempt from cuts.  All agreed that no cuts should be made.  Augusto made an observation: how can the City Council afford to spend $5 million on an ethnic heritage event when the firefighting budget was stretched?

McCue said it takes civilian deaths before the City Council pays attention to safety.

The next subject involved the ongoing saga of whether the City Controller has the right to audit the offices of elected officials and whether the City Council should press to have the outstanding case settled out of court.

All three agreed that the Controller should have the authority, but with reservations. 

McCue stressed that the autonomy of the City Attorney must be preserved.

Zuma Dogg was concerned that an audit could be used as a retaliatory tool.  He noted that the Controller has the power to perform a financial audit of electeds.  However, it takes a performance audit to determine if the city is receiving value for the money.

This was an astute observation by ZD. However, I am of the opinion that a well designed financial audit could shed light on efficiency and value.  That’s another article for another day.

Kevin recycled his question from the previous night about who each candidate would hire as his chief of staff if the pool were limited to the other nine candidates.

Zuma Dogg went with Augusto, but he did thank Tamar for selecting him.

Augusto picked Zuma Dogg.

McCue thought Benson would be the right person because she had a “get the job done” attitude.

The remaining questions were from callers.

They were asked how we could be sure a Rate Payer Advocate position would have teeth.

Both Augusto and Zuma Dogg said they would select someone from the community.  Augusto added it would be critical to provide the position with legal powers.

McCue said it was important that the person be independent of the unions and government.

All were against moving public comments at the City Council to the end of the session.

It would be unfair to citizens who must take personal time to attend sessions, according to McCue. 

Bisani was concerned that many of the Council members would leave before the end of the session.

Zuma Dogg claimed that a grand jury might already be investigating the legality of the change based on a complaint filed through the ACLU.

Phil Jennerjahn, who is a poster for some other blog, called in and asked if they thought Paul Krekorian was a “budget destroying socialist?”

McCue described Krekorian as a “budget destroying Democrat.”

Bisani, who described himself as a conservative Democrat, said that he did not know much about him but thought he was probably “on the road to socialism.”

ZD implied that Krekorian is subservient to Speaker Bass and he was interested in protecting the unions.  He will spend us into bankruptcy.

A caller asked why he had not seen any financial reports filed by ZD on the Ethics site.  He replied that it was not until recently that he had received enough money to require disclosure.

All three criticized poor response from Council staffs.

McCue had the best closing statement.  He noted that all of the polls indicated dissatisfaction with the major candidates.  None of them had anything close to a majority.

Read Full Post »

KRLA Candidate Forum: Round One

This was easily one of the best forums of the campaign.  My complements to Kevin James for intelligent questions and moving the discussion along.  

After the customary introductions, Kevin’s first question concerned the city’s infrastructure in wake of fires and water main ruptures.  Everyone expressed disgust with the DWP for its neglect, but no one addressed the issue of allowing development in fire zones. 

Peter Sanchez also mentioned transformers that exploded in last year’s heat wave and the need to halt cash transfers from the DWP to the general fund.  Tamar Galatzan, Frank Sheftel and Joe Essavi also stressed the need to stop the transfers.  Mary Benson talked of her volunteer time to rescue animals in the Station Fire and her support of a DWP rate payer advocate.

Frank Sheftel answered a question about whether his ownership of a medical marijuana dispensary could be viewed as an impediment to supporting the laws of the city.  He said it would not and wants to see stricter controls over dispensaries.

Tamar was asked whether it would be right for her to run given the condition of the LAUSD.  She said the reason she ran for the School Board was to fight the very problems that plagued the system for years.  She mentioned her stand against allowing full time benefits for part time workers, which she viewed as fiscally irresponsible, and putting computers in all of the classrooms in the Valley. 

All of the candidates unequivocally supported Carmen Trutanich’s plan to aggressively prosecute taggers. 

Frank Sheftel suggested cameras at select popular graffiti targets.  Tamar Galatzan said the LAPD would not have the resources to monitor cameras.

Peter Sanchez and Mary Benson stressed the need for community involvement no matter how the city dealt with it.  Peter cited how the parents of Colfax Charter School in Valley Village came together to paint over graffiti immediately after it was discovered on the campus.  Mary Benson cited her experience with working with Sun Valley Graffiti Busters.

The next question was one of the best of the evening.  Kevin James asked each of the candidates what were some of the City Council decisions where they disagreed with the outcomes.

Tamar Galatzan pointed to today’s decision to approve a living wage ordinance.  She was concerned it would drive more business away.

Mary Benson cited counter intuitive land use decisions that did not consider the incremental demands on infrastructure and parking.

Joe Essavi mentioned Measures B and R.

Frank Sheftel agreed with Joe and added the $30 million loan for improvements to the Kodak Center for Cirque du Soleil.  He also criticized Paul Krekorian’s mailer on the subject as incorrect and entirely misleading.

Peter Sanchez expressed disgust with the votes on billboards over the years.

The off the wall question of the night involved which of the other candidates would each hire as a chief of staff if they were the only choices.

Joe Essavi said he could not make a selection.

Mary Benson said she would select Joe Essavi because he would work well with LA County personnel, a skill not often found in City Council staffs.

Frank Sheftel would select Pete Sanchez because of Pete’s empathy for citizens in need.

Tamar Galatzan opted for Zuma Dogg.  She said he would shake up the status quo. 

That was the understatement of the night.  I’m sure ZD has an application form ready.

Peter Sanchez thanked Frank for selecting him. However, Pete would select Augusto Bisani as the two of them were neighbors in Valley Village (Note: That would be great for me as well since I live within two blocks of both of them). 

The next three questions came from callers.

The first dealt with the drain on resources caused by illegal immigration.

Tamar Galatzan was frustrated with the federal Government’s dereliction of responsibility.  The city receives no dollars from the Feds to deal with the problem.

Peter Sanchez suggested a priority approach where the LAPD should check the immigration status of criminals and coordinate with ICE to deport them.  Get rid of the ones that contribute to crime.

Frank Sheftel also mentioned Federal acquiescence.  The solution will not make people happy.

Mary Benson cited that she lived in a neighborhood with a 92% Hispanic population.  She would also target career criminals, but have a program to put some others on an equal footing with citizens.

Joe Essavi said it was time for the Council to deal with the sanctuary city policy.

The next question was concerning the concept of a “citizen legislator” put forth by Joe Essavi.  The point of this question was whether the candidates would be willing to work in a part time council framework used by other states such as Texas.

There was general agreement that they would all accept substantial salary cuts.

Tamar mentioned she is already working in that environment with her regular job as a neighborhood prosecutor and serving as a LAUSD Board Member, a part time position.

Frank Sheftel said he was at Ron Kaye’s SLAP meeting where the concept of the half-off charter amendment was introduced (the amendment calls for a 50% reduction in City Council salaries). He was asked at that meeting whether he would still run if he knew such a proposal was being made.  Frank told the participants he would (I was sitting next to Frank at that meeting and concur with his recollection).

Pete Sanchez said he was guided by the Jeffersonian concept of serving in government: people should not make politics a career and should move back and forth between the private and public sectors.

The final question of the night came from a resident in Studio City who has lived through months of the DWP’s project to replace a water main.  The workers have only managed to complete three blocks in eight months.  He asked if it would make sense to contract out some of the city’s work.

The candidates agreed in general with the concept but warned of the complexities of managing and supervising numerous subcontractors.  Joe Essavi noted there would also be the issue of transferring the risk of lawsuits to the contractors.

I might add it would be worth revisiting what the city did after the Northridge earthquake to repair the Santa Monica freeway.  If I recall, the work was outsourced and had incentive clauses for early completion.  The freeway was up and running in a relatively short time considering the extent of the damage.

The strongest closing statement was from Tamar Galatzan who said she was fed up with the current state of affairs and that the city could face bankruptcy if it did not get its financial house in order.

My final thoughts were that I was generally impressed with the format and the performance of the candidates.

I believe Chris Essel made a huge mistake in turning down the KRLA’s invitation to participate.

Read Full Post »

NC Valley Village Forum Field Report

Please note that not all the candidates were asked the same questions.  In many cases, the format required new questions to be introduced after responses from three candidates.  This allowed more ground to be covered.

 The forum was filmed by a local resource.  It was not a case of runaway production!

 

Some new topics and some confrontations between unlikely foes were in play at the Neighborhood Council Valley Village Candidate Forum tonight.  There was also some flashing!

DWP bills that is.

Tamar Galatzan started the evening by waving her DWP bill, pointing out that despite her energy savings, she paid more than this time last year.  Both Peter Sanchez and Michael McCue flashed their DWP bills later in the evening.

It was only appropriate because there was a question concerning whether the candidates would support the creation of a Rate Payer Advocate by the City Council.  It was one of the few issues where there was unanimity.   All were strongly in favor of establishing the position. 

Mary Benson and Joe Essavi added that the current MOU, which requires input from the neighborhood councils before rate increases can be enacted, is being ignored.  Paul Krekorian said the advocate concept works well for the PUC, so why not adapt it to the DWP.  Peter Sanchez would rather see the RPA position defined by the public rather than the City Council.  Tamar Galatzan said she would fight for a charter amendment authorizing the RPA.  She also criticized Chris Essel for supporting Measure B.

As was the case at last week’s forum at Laurel Hall, a shot crossed the bow early in the proceedings.  Zuma Dogg took issue with a remark by Mary Benson.  Mary had mentioned that although she was an activist she did not have the luxury of time to appear at City Council meetings day after day.  Her work took priority.  Zuma Dogg assumed she was alluding to his lifestyle, one that allows him to appear before the Council frequently.

A Valley Village resident submitted a question concerning the emotional pain she endured when she was evicted from her apartment because it was purchased by a developer.  She moved across the street and now stares at the vacant lot where her building used to be.  To make matters worse, the site will probably remain vacant for a long time.  Lives were disrupted and there were absolutely no mitigating circumstances.

Tamar Galatzan remarked, “This is what happens when plans are violated and developers are welcomed with open arms by the City Council. Older buildings are the true affordable housing.” 

Chris Essel said it was a crime the building was destroyed.  She went on to say that SB1818 “never should have been passed.”  She vowed to build a coalition to undo the effects of the bill.

Paul Krekorian countered a little later saying that he was surprised to hear her even talk about 1818 (Chris Essel’s support of 1818 while Chair of the CCA has dogged her throughout the forums.  Tonight was no exception).  Essel ‘s riposte was equally sarcastic.  She said, “If Paul Krekorian really wanted to fix 1818 (as an Assembly Member) then why hasn’t he done it?”

Mary Benson strongly stated that we need to be creating community plans, not facilitating developers.

One question where I felt the answers were generally disappointing had to do with why the politicos that run the city could not have backed local talent instead of outsiders.  Tamar Galatzan’s answer was slightly better than the others when she reminded everyone that she has lived in CD2 for several years.   

The recent LAUSD vote on allowing fifty schools to migrate to charter status or independent operation was briefly discussed.  This was one question I wish could have been directed at all of the candidates.

Peter Sanchez cited Colfax School, where tonight’s forum was held, as a fine example of what could be achieved by a charter.  Mary Benson stated that it was important to empower parents.  This decision was a move in that direction.

There was general agreement among the three candidates who answered a question about redistricting CD2 so neighborhoods would not be split between CD2 and CD5.  Mary Benson, Tamar Galatzan and Augusto Bisani were on the same page.

The carpetbagger argument came up by accident.  Paul Krekorian made a slip of the tongue (perhaps a Freudian slip) when he said he was “almost out of town” instead of “almost out of time.” It got some laughs, but it touched off an exchange.  Krekorian played off the slip.  He said while he was living in Burbank, he was closer to Colfax School than was Mary Benson and at least did not have to parachute in from the Westside, alluding to Essel.   Benson was quick on her feet saying that Krekorian’s move to his rented unit in Valley Glen was a greater distance than her distance to the school. 

Perhaps the sharpest disagreement of the night was between Frank Sheftel and Paul Krekorian.  Sheftel accused Krekorian of supporting the massive prisoner release being debated in Sacramento,  Krekorain called him a liar.  Sheftel also challenged Krekorian on his bill to cut runaway production claiming it did not include advertising shoots and other specialized productions important to the local economy.

There were two topics covered that each deserves a separate forum:  instant run-off elections and replacing the City Council with boroughs.

Everyone was suspicious of the formulas that an instant run-off would require.  There was also concern about the confusion it could create for the voters.  Mary Benson exclaimed, “How could we depend on Los Angeles to implement an understandable run-off process?”

Good question.

A borough form of government did not receive any support.  Everyone felt NCs could fulfill the objective of a creating a decentralized city government.  As much as I support having strong neighborhood councils, I see value in a borough system, too. 

I will have to address that in another article one day.

There were a series of finance questions I wrote and monitored.  You can view them here.

I already discussed the answers to the rate payer advocate question.

My question about the lack of accountability for gang programs and whether they were worth supporting found the candidates in general agreement.  Tamar Galatzan, who is a neighborhood prosecutor for the City Attorney’s Office, described some of them as being run by gangsters and should be shut down immediately.  Joe Essavi would rather have the money go to the LAPD.  Chris Essel criticized the city for not following up on prior audits in this area.  Frank Sheftel referred to the programs as “extortion” by the criminals who run them.

There was unanimous support for requiring the Chief Administrative Officer to have a CPA and relevant professional accounting and finance experience.  Only one candidate supported requiring the same credentials for the City Controller.  Most agreed that there were a sufficient number of CPAs on the Controller’s staff; leadership was a more important criteria.

The most technical financial question involved the city’s troubled civilian pension plan (LACERS).  Most agreed that the current benefits should be maintained, but increasing the level of employee contributions was a concession that would be necessary to close the huge unfunded pension liability.

Tamar Galatzan, Peter Sanchez and Chris Essel also added that it was unrealistic earnings assumptions that undermined the plan.

Paul Krekorian said it was the job of the Chief Administrative Officer to negotiate with the unions.  Quite frankly, his answer does not wash.  The City Council approves offers to the union, as was done with the controversial Early Retirement Incentive Plan that has been criticized by the manager of LACERS and the actuaries as being unrealistic and unsustainable.

Please note:  I have been very critical of Mr. Krekorian’s lack of action on the Calpers unfunded pension liability.  His answer tonight reaffirmed my concerns over his willingness to deal with this problem –a problem that could bankrupt the city. In my opinion, he is putting the interests of the SEIU, a key supporter of his campaign, over the taxpayers.

The closing remarks also included some parting blows.

Paul Krekorian said it was easy to take cheap shots at those in public office.

Frank Sheftel criticized Krekorian’s characterization of his district as the San Fernando Valley Assembly District, implying it was a deceitful way of glossing over his significant representation of Glendale and Burbank.

Zuma Dogg asked if anyone would vote for him if he owned a marijuana clinic.  That brought a sharp reply from Frank Sheftel who owns a dispensary.

To the best of my knowledge, up until tonight no one has challenged Sheftel on this subject at a forum.

Michael McCue said the City Council will never take the Neighborhood Councils seriously until we elect an NC activist.

Tamar Galatzan said this race is about the future of Los Angeles –we need to elect a person with some backbone.

Read Full Post »

My Finance Questions for the Candidates

Here are the questions I asked of the candidates tonight.  Please see my field notes for the answers.

• Former City Controller Laura Chick was critical of spending for gang prevention programs.  She cited a lack of accountability for these programs.  It appears the problem still exists.  Recently, a key member of Homies Unidos was arrested for racketeering. Another organization (Unity T.W.O) has failed to supply reports concerning its activities.  Will you pledge to authorize and support an independent review of all gang prevention programs and require them to submit specific objectives, business plans and an analysis of their accomplishments and failures before they receive another dime of money from the city?

• By now, most residents have received their DWP bills reflecting the new tiered structure and higher rates.  More increases are coming and important costly decisions must be made concerning replacing infrastructure and sources of energy.  Would you introduce a motion to create an independent Rate Payer Advocate with the authority to examine any DWP data and report on the soundness of the Utility’s recommendations?

• The Los Angeles City Attorney is required to be licensed to practice in all courts of the State for a period of at least five years immediately preceding election to the office (Section 270).  No special qualifications are currently required for the City Controller or the CAO.  Would you introduce a motion to the City Council before the next citywide election that would amend the Charter to require that the Controller and CAO possess both a CPA and professional experience in an industry or government position involving the application of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles?

• Elected officials must make tough, painful decisions in order to manage government finances. As you are aware, an independent actuarial study has raised serious concerns over the efficacy and soundness of the recent Early Retirement offer proposed by the City Council to most of the civilian union employees.  Concerns were also raised over the unfunded pension liability that is projected to range between $2-4 billion, which is equivalent to almost a third to one-half of the current city budget.  Which of the following concessions would you most likely seek from the unions to put LACERS back on a sound footing (no other answers will be allowed):

1. Maintain the current benefits but significantly increase the employees’ contribution rate to the plan.
2. Decrease salaries and use the savings to reduce the pension deficit.
3. Reduce retirement benefits for all current employees.
4. Do not insist on concessions and instead press LACERS’ management to consider using more favorable investment earnings growth assumptions.

Read Full Post »

Candidate Forum Report for Valley Glen, Laurel Grove and Valley Village

Things got testy tonight at the candidate forum sponsored by the homeowner associations of Valley Glen, Valley Village and Laurel Grove.  The barbs were not only exchanged  among the ten candidates, but Wendy Greuel and her former planning deputy Dale Thrush absorbed as much punishment as anyone –and they were not even there!

The introductory remarks reinforced much of what was said at the Sunland/Tujunga Forum with everyone but Augusto Bisani touting their community experience.  He proudly proclaimed he had no background as an activist and viewed issues from the perspective of the man in the street.  Augusto added a sharp contrast to the other nine throughout the evening.

SB1818 was the first topic and it did not take long for the sparks to fly.  Tamar Galatzan took Chris Essel to task for her position in support of SB1818 while she was the Chair of the Central City Association.  Essel held to her prior statement at Sunland/Tujunga that she personally did not support the implementation of the law, but was only reflecting the opinion of her organization.  That drew a few groans from the audience.  Having read Chris’ statement of support for 1818 in the CCA newsletter, I must admit that I cannot accept the rationale she presented.

While stating she would be willing to change the implementation ordinance, Essel also mentioned it would be appropriate to increase density along transit corridors in the Valley.  With that remark she exposed her lack of knowledge on the subject.  The 1818 projects are targeting transit corridors such as Magnolia and Chandler Boulevards.  Perhaps that is not a big deal at her home on the other side of the hill.  She appeared to be reciting from the Mayor’s playbook.

Paul Krekorian showed why he is a politician.  He remarked that he would take another look at the implementation ordinance.  Frank Sheftel jumped on that statement when it was his turn.  He faulted Krekorian and the Assembly for not dealing with it when it became apparent it was creating problems.

Zuma Dogg blamed Wendy Greuel and Dale Thrush for the implementation and referred to them as “developer puppets.”  Pete Sanchez added it was not just Wendy and Dale, but the entire City Council.

Wendy and Dale would be mentioned many more times before the night was over.

There was some consensus on medical marijuana.  Most everyone favored the compassionate use of it for people suffering from painful afflictions.  Everyone was critical of the hardship licensing loopholes.  Mary Benson said it was a typical failure by the City Council for not dealing with the spread of collectives until it became an unmanageable problem.  Frank Sheftel emphasized that the hardships exemptions should only have been applied to the existing collectives at the time when the exemption policy was first considered.

The subject of cash contributions from developers came next and created some sparring among a few of the candidates. 

Chris Essel said you have to raise considerable money to run and she has received contributions from unions and developers, but with a $500 per person limit, there is no way anyone could buy her vote.  Zuma Dogg challenged that by saying developers will orchestrate and aggregate the collection of money from many individuals in order to achieve financial leverage with a candidate.  Furthermore, he claimed you do not need big dollars to generate name recognition, citing his own success at publicity as an example.

Zuma Dogg also emphatically stated that he has “turned down millions of dollars from developers.”

Everyone in the audience was relieved by his disclosure.

Tamar Galatzan said she has not and will not accept money from developers.  She also said that most of her contributions were received from within CD 2.  However, I have reviewed the City Ethics reports and it appears only 20% of her donors have addresses in the district.

Peter Sanchez urged all to visit the City Ethics website and drill down by candidate and see where the money is from and how it is spent.  He pointed out that there were large expenditures for consultants and polling.  That is a correct statement- Essel and Krekorian have spent many thousands for those services.  Galatzan has not.

Augusto Bisani said he did not even know a developer and noted that Chris Essel has raised $200,000.

The recent announcement that the LAUSD would raise property taxes because the school district lacked the funds to cover the debt service on school construction bonds produced a lively debate, with several candidates finding fault with Tamar Galatzan who serves on the School Board. Zuma Dogg, Pete Sanchez, Michael McCue, Frank Sheftel and Mary Benson emphasized the lack of due diligence by the LAUSD Board in vetting bond proposals, including measure Q, which was the only bond that was passed in Tamar’s term. 

Benson added that the assumptions for property value appreciation used to support Measure Q were completely unreasonable given the state of the market.  Frank Sheftel said the LAUSD is another example of an agency not doing its job.  He criticized Tamar for focusing on her campaign rather than dealing with the financial crisis at the LAUSD.  He also leveled a similar charge at Krekorian.

Jozef Essavi stated he opposed paying more to the LAUSD.  The voters were duped into supporting Measure Q by the LAUSD. 

The preservation of the Studio City Golf Course was endorsed by all, including Augusto Bisani who claimed he did not know where the property was (Augusto lives in adjacent Valley Village).  He said he is too busy to play golf because of his work, but he supported open space, especially parks for children.

The next segment amounted to a roast of Wendy Greuel.  The candidates were asked what they thought former CD2 Council Member Greuel’s greatest accomplishments and failures were. 

For the most part, there was very little love expressed for Wendy. Only Chris Essel , who was endorsed by Wendy, and Paul Krekorian had kind words for her.  Both of then sited business tax reform and Chris added that Wendy created more open space than any other member of the Council.  Tamar Galatzan mentioned her support of the Senior Center at the Van Nuys/Sherman Oaks Park but was sharply critical of Wendy for the horrible condition of the Valley Plaza project, voting to place Measure B on the ballot and her disdainful treatment of Neighborhood Councils.  Krekorian faulted her for failing to protect affordable housing.

Zuma Dogg said her only accomplishment was getting elected; Dale Thrush and Wendy were the tools of the developers.

Peter Sanchez expressed his disgust for Wendy’s transformation from a community activist to a politician looking for her next job. 

Mary Benson mentioned Wendy’s propensity for taking credit for the success of others, including the defeat of Home Depot.

Augusto Bisani brought the house down when he said “I don’t even know the lady.” He added he had “no clue” of any success attributable to her.

Frank Sheftel was treated to some applause when he said Wendy’s greatest failure was endorsing Chris Essel.

Jozef Essavi got some laughs when he said he wished she were here.  He characterized her as a friend of the Villaraigosa machine.

Michael McCue was disappointed with her constituent service and was pointed out her failure to protect affordable housing.

The candidates were all over the map on what they would do to keep business in Los Angeles.  Among the general comments were the difficulties associated with getting permits.  Augusto Bisani emphasized the difficulty in opening a restaurant (he supplies equipment to restaurants).  He said it is an important industry and claimed there were 10,000 eateries in the city.

Chris Essel promoted her experience in the film industry and feared a continuation of runaway production, although she also stated her husband was in Michigan working on a film project.  There were some boos.

Paul Krekorian claimed credit for chairing the Assembly Committee that authorized incentives to the film industry.

Tamar Galatzan said the City has to stop converting industrial land into housing, an interesting point that should be examined in greater depth, in my opinion.

The closing arguments were mostly general in nature.  Some notable comments included Zuma Dogg saying he has been thanked by the people on the street for his tireless efforts at challenging the City Council,  Pete Sanchez urging the audience to reject big money candidates and Tamar Galatzan stating she had stood up to the Mayor and public unions.

Chris Essel said she was not a shill for anyone.

Mary Benson regretted the loss of all types of businesses to San Bernardino and Riverside and the need for everyone at City Hall to make sacrifices.  She also wants zero-based budgeting by the City.

Frank Sheftel said he is a businessman, not a job hopper.

Augusto Bisani cited his success in opening two businesses with a national reputation in the restaurant industry.  He also noted he is the father of triplets and grandfather of six.

Michael McCue was proud of his work on the “Defeat Measure B” campaign and his fight to increase relocation funds for tenants evicted by developers.

Paul Krekorian was proud of how he has represented his district in the Assembly.

Jozef Essavi told the crowd to vote for “the average Joe.”

Read Full Post »