Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA

Boston Bombings demonstrate that all cities need to deploy city wide (emergency) wi fi

2013-04-21T10:40:00.000-07:00

Given the fact that many people in Boston after the bombings last week were left without any way of communicating with loved ones due to either cell phone system overload (and or the now likely inaccurate rumor that the system was switched off for fear of it being used to trigger other bombs), it has become quite apparent that a realistic wi-fi strategy is needed so that people could at least text and or use social networking sites like twitter or facebook to stay in touch with loved ones (and emergency responders) after a catastrophe. In many cases with the right applications people with smartphones can also make calls on wifi using their smartphone. The point is the time has come for cities to take this issue seriously and get the ball rolling now well before our next disaster. LAAG is not the only one to call for this. We looked up "wi-fi" on the Lakewood website and as we figured there was absolutely nothing on the Lakewood website about it. We would be encouraged if we saw some minutes or agenda items on this but alas nothing.

The reason we are so disappointed is that Lakewood spends millions of taxpayer dollars on LASD stations being remodeled (and over $9 million a year for the services themselves) and we even spent tons of taxpayer dollars on an LASD "motor home" that is supposed to act as some sort of a command center in an emergency but is likely now just used at LASD picnics. The State, county and cities have also upgraded communications at all levels for first responders, but alas nothing for you little unimportant taxpayers. We also have one councilmember who is a high ranking LASD official and a new council member that works for Calif Emergency Management Agency (state version of FEMA) (Cal EMA's "mission" is to protect lives and property by effectively preparing for, preventing, responding to and recovering from all threats, crimes, hazards, and emergencies.") So one would think that they had thought of the wifi issue. But alas no sign of such thoughts. Isn't this what we pay these people (very well) for? To think about things like disasters? God knows they heap enough praise, taxpayer money and telecommunications equipment on LASD regarding these "issues". I think its time for Lakewood city council think about the rest of us who likely will need to rely on (communicating with) loved ones to get us through a disaster (like a large earthquake). And there are many ways to get this done.

So its time to get moving on this now! And yes Lakewood has the money! We just spent $750,000.00 (you read right) to resurface the Lakewood swimming pool! (only one bid by the way..so much for competitive bidding!)

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Last Chance to Protest the Los Angeles County Clean Water, Clean Beaches hearing March 12, 2013

2013-03-08T11:33:00.002-08:00

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors will hear comments on the proposed Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure on Tuesday, March 12, at 9:30am. The hearing will take place during the Board's regular meeting in the Board Hearing Room at the Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration, 500 West Temple St. Los Angeles, 90012. The Board meeting will be webcast live via the LA County website at www.LACounty.info. Requests to address the Board on this item must be submitted in person to the Executive Officer of the Board prior to the item being called.

If you live in Knabe's district just email their office before the hearing and they will likely make sure you end up on the speakers list; or better yet just email your written protest to their office (AskDon@lacbos.org) and WQFI.Info@dpw.lacounty.gov as well as the scanned form available here. Actually all you need to do is send in that scanned form to effectively register your protest vote. To be counted, protest forms must be received by the end of the public hearing period on March 12 and include the parcel's site address, Assessor's Parcel Number, the name of the parcel owner, as well as the signature of the parcel owner or an authorized representative. Only scanned or photographed email protests with a handwritten signature will be accepted.

This is likely your last chance. The Board is likely going to "punt" at this hearing and make a decision on what to do with this mess that LA County Dept of Public Works dumped in their lap. The "no" votes are still no where near the 50% of all parcels needed to stop this under the very poorly drafted Proposition 218 (Its quite frankly amazing that the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn drafted 218 with such horrible anti taxpayer provisions) Really the only way this can be stopped at this point is for the Board to do away with the attempt to use the Prop. 218 method of "voting" and put this to a general election. Otherwise the taxpayers have no chance. Very sad day for LA County Taxpayers. We are about to get fleeced so get your wallets ready. This is actually worse than the FEMA imposed flood insurance mandates (that heavily hit residents in Lakewood and Long Beach) in the early 1990's. That flood insurance mandate only affected 1/10th of the residents this new measure will affect. And the FEMA insurance deal was temporary. This new tax will last forever.

For more on Prop 218 and the rest of this saga read our prior post

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Observations from the Clean Water Clean Beaches tax protest hearing at LA County Board of Superviors Jan 15, 2013

2013-01-15T18:43:00.000-08:00

Our prior post on this topic

The meeting filled just about every seat (video clip) in the massive Hall of Administration Board of Supervisors main hearing room in Downtown Los Angeles. There was overflow seating set up. Everyone was accommodated. The agenda item 40 hearing went from 11 am to 430pm.

link to see full video of the hearing (posted in next 5 days)

link to read transcript of entire hearing (posted in next 5 days)

However that's not to say that it was an "easy" process. We were rather frustrated with the screening and searching process just to get into the hearing room. They are far more tedious (slow) than when you get on on airplane or go to court across the street from the Hall of Admin. We were quite perturbed to learn that although we assumed you could not eat in the "Great Hall" you also could not bring food in (this "no food" sign was not visible until you got to the front of a very long line eagerly awaiting their airport style examination). And of course there would be no break for lunch and if you did go to lunch you would loose your place in line or at the hearing. So you could either go home, throw your food out or stack it in a big heap with other peoples food. How nice. Good way to catch the flu.

Most of the comments were quite boring and usual pedestrian stuff of voters complaining about how much the tax would set them back. But there were a few more eloquent people and a few choice quotes. One was from a math professor who said the "measure was 'polluted' with bullsh_t". Others we liked were: "God has given us rain and you have figured out a way to tax it." The other was "We are drowning in fees not stormwater" Those two comments garnered praise by "meeting chair" Mark Ridley Thomas. Thomas also admonished attendees numerous times not to applaud speakers which quite frankly no one paid any attention to, causing Thomas to state that the taxpayer revolt group was honoring Martin Luther King's memory by invoking "civil disobedience". Oy Vey.

Over arching themes in all the protest comments were no "sunset provision" (the tax will last forever) and it was "Alice in Wonderland" like to be taxing other public entities. There were also lots of complaints about the "mailer" which no one realized was a "ballot" and threw it out. Also lots of complaints about the fact that there was not specificity at all about any projects that would be built with this money and or how effective they would be in preventing the pollution of the ocean.

LAAG's position was simply that this Prop 218 "voting mechanism" was not feasible and really was against the drafter's intent. We know the large protest meetings are all dramatic and "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" like but really they need to work out an on line protest form for under Prop 218 (as some people have to work) or better just go to a 2/3 regular vote (outside of the prop 218 structure). The problem with 218 is people that don't vote are counted as "yes" votes in essence as you have to have over 50% of all parcel owners vote "no" and that seldom happens especially when the "ballot" looks like "government junk mail". This prop 218 thing is way more complicated that a "regular" (2/3 vote required) election but it sure does favor the entity that wants to get a tax passed .[ As a late note we add in some info from our friends over at LBReport.com: "County staff said that roughly 95,000 written protests were received (roughly 4% of property subject to the proposed parcel property fee) and said that protests submitted via the internet wouldn't be counted"]

So if you need to mail in the form here it is again Download a new copy.

Locate your Assessor ID Number

Even LAUSD came out against the tax and would be voting "no" for all their 3764 parcels on which they paid property tax. Holy cow that's a lot of property. Remind me to break up that district into smaller chunks. Thomas was quite good at cutting off people that went over a minute, even the "electeds" got cut short. The one minute time limit for all speakers ("elected" or not) was clearly needed given the vast numbers of people there. But this along with the room ambiance, the throngs of people, the Board sitting up there, It just had the appearance of the "little people" (to borrow a phrase from Leona Helmsley) coming to make / plead their poverty/tax case to King Louis XVI at the Palace of Versailles.

The result of the hearing was a good one for taxpayers. Clearly rooms full of protestors has an affect on the "electeds". Late on Jan 15 after the hearing we recived this good news:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Contact: Cheryl Burnett

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVES KNABE’S CALL FOR EXTENSION OF PROTEST PERIOD FOR CLEAN WATER MEASURE

Los Angeles, January 15, 2013 – Following the conclusion of the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure Public Hearing and the testimony of hundreds of concerned stakeholders, the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved a motion by Supervisor Don Knabe to allow for more time for protesting the proposed parcel tax.

“We continued to hear complaints from residents, businesses, school districts, churches and non-profits that this process has not been open and transparent,” said Supervisor Knabe. “Even as the Board was hearing testimonies at the public hearing, my office was receiving emails and phone calls from residents asking where they could get a protest form and how they could protest the measure.”

Supervisor Knabe’s motion, the public hearing and protest process would be extended for an additional 60 days and address several key issues in the process including the feasibility of an online protest option and addressing the concern of double taxation for those that are already capturing and treating storm water.

“Many property owners and businesses are already doing the things the parcel fees is meant to achieve; this is a double tax for them,” said Knabe. “Renters should have a voice as an increase in parcel fees would likely be passed on to them. Everyone wants clean water – put this to the voters so they can decide if this fee is how they want to try to achieve that.”

Supervisor Knabe’s motion also instructed the Department of Public Works to provide a process for placing the initiative on a general election ballot, define a specific list of clean water projects, determine a possible sunset date for the measure and develop a potential alternative method of funding storm water quality projects. # # #

agenda item 40 (at issue in the Jan 15, 2013 hearing) below:

Public Hearing
40. Hearing on the proposed Clean Water, Clean Beaches Fee; acting as the
Governing Body of the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, consider
all protests against the proposed Clean Water, Clean Beaches Fee made
by owners of parcels upon which the fee is proposed for imposition; instruct
the Director of Public Works, in her capacity as the Chief Engineer, of the
County Flood Control District to return to the Board with a final tabulation of
written protests; if there is no majority protest, instruct the Chief Engineer to
return to the Board at a future date with a recommendation as to the type of
election to conduct on the Clean Water Clean Beaches Fee; if there is a
majority protest, refer the matter back to the Department of Public Works.
(Department of Public Works) (12-5638)

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Unanswered questions at the Los Angeles County Clean Water, Clean Beaches protest hearing January 15, 2013

2013-01-15T09:54:00.001-08:00

Read our prior story on this subject

These are the questions that we are taking to the Los Angeles Board of Supervisors meeting on January 15, 2013, to the so called Clean Water, Clean Beaches "protest hearing", 11 a.m. January 15, 2013, 500 W. Temple St. in downtown Los Angeles.

We will amend this article and these questions (and hopefully add answers) as time goes by so keep checking back. We are posting it before the hearing and sending it to the supervisors so they can look it over. Each citizen will only be given about one minute to speak at this meeting so clearly that is not enough time to even read this post aloud or let alone get any real answer to these questions below. But we do want these questions answered and we expert the Board to get these answers for us.

The County is attempting to get this stormwater run off tax passed by using Proposition 218. This Proposition 218 is very tricky. This is the 1996 initiative that was used to try to prevent government entities from assessing property owners with new fees and trying to escape election requirements. Amazingly the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Assn put this measure on the 1996 ballot. Proposition 218's very specific liberal construction provision mandates that the provisions of 218 "shall be liberally construed to effectuate its purposes of limiting local government revenue and enhancing taxpayer consent." But it made things even more murky. It is not at all clear who gets to vote on on the property held by government entities or property with multiple owners or how renters fare in all this. Not resolved at this time as far as we know. We also know that its government or commercial property (at least in inner city areas) that pollutes the most as most of it is paved unlike residential lots. This gets even more tricky as the ballots have to be "weighed" in proportion to the amount of the assessment each property owner would pay. (For example, if homeowner Jones would pay twice as much assessment as homeowner Smith, homeowner Jones' vote would "count" twice as much as homeowner Smith's vote.). Of course this "weighting" gets even trickier with the phoney ways in which they can total up the "run off" and thus assessment on each lot. The assessment may be imposed only if 50 percent or more of the weighted ballots support the assessment.This of course favors those voting for the large government properties. We suspect most government entities will vote in favor of the tax, especially if the schools are given a free pass on this.

The 50% requirement really is laughable as a regular vote for a tax (not using this silly Prop 218 mechanism passed in 1996) is a 2/3 yes vote requirement in order to pass. Also we are still looking into this problem which is even a bigger scam; if Knabe is correct and most people just threw their ballots out as junk mail (we almost did) then the vast majority of private landowners will not be voting. That means the yes (pass the tax) votes automatically win. To defeat the tax we think it has to be 50% of all properties, not just those that vote.

There are many other questions we have which are not answered at all or adequately at this time:

Can homeowners test their own run off volume and chemicals in that water? And if less than what the county shows in its "formulas" can we get a new assessment as is done for property tax assessments?

Formulas are allegedly used to determine impervious land area. We would like to see the report on this particularly as to what the rate will be per square foot on each lot (residential, commercial, and government owned) and exactly how it is that the County will determine "the amount of impervious area on the property". What about water from impermeable areas that drains to permeable areas? how is that accounted for? We see a fiasco there and a whole new "appeals" process for homeowners disagreeing with the result or people that "capture" run off (very few residents currently but more likely after this). According to what we were told by the County Dept of Public works on this: "The amount average impervious is determined by using nationally accepted data for residential , commercial and industrial land use..." Accepted by who?

18% of my prop tax bill is "voted indebtedness" or "direct assessments" on top of my "property tax" assessed amount for the "general tax levy". The general tax levy is the only part subject to Prop 13. The other 18% not subject to prop 13. If this measure passes 21% of my tax bill will be for "voted indebtedness" or "direct assessments" which never end and are never subject to Prop 13. There are three "direct assessments" on my bill that also currently go to county flood districts or county water treatment districts. These assessments alone are currently 8.4% of my overall tax bill. Also these direct assessments are not based on a percentage of the property tax bill. So if you are older and have been in your house a long time and pay low tax rates under prop 13, these assessments are a big deal and consume a larger and larger share of your tax bill the longer you have been in the house.

It is reported that the measure would raise about $295 million for building storm water treatment projects. That's great but what is the calculated total of the projects currently ready to go into construction that will help address this issue? What specific projects have been proposed? Cost? Budgeted?

Are businesses that have oil and other hazardous elements on the property going to be charged more? Or people with leaky oily cars that leave oil on the pavement? Apparently not.

Who is going to determine if a project is to be funded by the "runoff tax"? What is the criteria? We saw millions spent on a recent project in the San Gabriel River that was a total waste of taxpayer dollars. Who on the taxpayer side is going to over see this to make sure that the funds are spent for run off and not other projects that should be built with general funds? Or state or federal funds? Will state or federal funds be available for some of these runoff projects? If not why not? Who is going to watch over all the funds given to cities on this issue?

How was the tax rate determined? did the County just work backwards from numbers it wanted to hit? set an amount it needed and look at total surface area? what are the estimates of total funds needed to fix the runoff problem?

What percentage of the "run off tax" budget will be spent on "educating the public" not to throw trash in the river or pour oil in the storm drains? Don't we already do that now with current budget money?

What if the County or a city violates the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit? Is the state or the Federal Govt. going to fine the county? That's laughable. The law requiring this run off tax was created by the state so it can be delayed or modified by the state especially if they see its not passed in a popular vote (not a Prop 218 shenaigan)

As this was fed/state mandate ( the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)) why don't we get funds from the federal or state government to pay for it? (unfunded mandates problem)

Are all the other local counties subject to the same permits and proposed taxes? If not why not? What are they doing in response? How are they doing it?

What if the fix or the projects (which we know very little about now in terms of cost or efficacy) end up costing less that the taxes bring in? Or what if they cost much more than the tax brings in? Or what if the projects do not have the intended effect?

Can the asessment be lessened each year and varied based on the budgeted items or projects that are "shovel ready"? Who determines this?

What if the run off tax does not pass? then what? is there a set aside in the general fund for these so called stormwater run off projects? A "rainy day fund?" (no pun intended)

If you have your own questions please pass them along to us at updates@laag.us

from earlier reports of the tax in May 2012:

http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_20719204/new-los-angeles-county-parcel-tax-storm-water

05/26/2012

The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors is expected to vote this week on a proposal to tax homeowners an average of $54 per parcel to raise funds to treat polluted storm water before it reaches local lakes and beaches. If the supervisors decide to move forward with the Water Quality Funding Initiative at their June 6 meeting, it must be approved by a majority of voters. Voting would take place in a 45-day mail-in ballot election between next March and May, according to county documents. The proposal, in the works for five years, would raise as much as $273 million to clean the San Gabriel and Los Angeles rivers by assessing property by parcel size and the amount of impervious area on the property, according to the proposal. The more impervious area that water cannot easily penetrate - such as blacktop - the higher the assessment. Urban run-off consists of storm water from rainfall that picks up animal feces, bacteria, lead, arsenic, waste oil from automobiles and other hazardous chemicals from lawn fertilizers and household pesticides as it makes its way along washes, creeks, streams and rivers to the ocean. When carried down the Arroyo Seco in Pasadena and South Pasadena, or the Rio Hondo and San Gabriel rivers, the toxic stew pollutes local lakes - such as Legg Lake in Whittier Narrows, Peck Road Park's lake on the border of south Arcadia and El Monte - and ocean beaches in Seal Beach and Long Beach, county officials said. Cash-poor cities are responsible for cleaning up this pollution but don't have the money to pay for cleanup projects. State legislation passed in 2010 enabled the county to begin collecting parcel fees to take care of the problem. The annual parcel tax, as proposed, would vary from $8 to $83 per year. Single family parcels would account for 75 percent of the properties, according to Kerjon Lee, a spokesman for the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. Every property in L.A. County would be assessed, except in the Antelope Valley. That includes 2.1 million parcels in nine watersheds stretching across the county: Ballona Creek, Dominguez Channel, Upper Los Angeles River, Lower Los Angeles River, Rio Hondo River, Upper San Gabriel River, Lower San Gabriel River, Santa Clara River and Santa Monica Bay. About 40 percent of the money would be distributed to 85 cities in the county, 50 percent would go to watershed groups made up of cities and unincorporated county communities, and 10 percent would go to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for administrative costs, according to county documents. The county supervisors were supposed to vote on the proposal last fall, but the city of Los Angeles objected to the distribution formulas and wanted more time to tweak the proposal, Lee said. Indeed, the supervisors were scheduled to vote on the measure Tuesday, but pushed it back again eight days.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Getting ready to protest the Los Angeles County Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure on January 15, 2013

2013-01-07T15:42:00.000-08:00

LAAG does plan on protesting this "tax" at the Public Hearing on January 15, 2013. There are many questions we have that have not been sufficiently answered. This is clearly a case of "lets get the tax money first and see if we can solve the problem later" type of deal from the county. Amazing. Also doing it as a property owner only type of vote may hurt it more than a popular vote as people that don't own property (but use water) like to vote in indebtedness to those "wealthy landowners". What a mess.

The info below is from Supervisor Knabe's website:

Many county residents have been receiving letters in the mail regarding a Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure. I am here to tell you that I strongly oppose this Measure, and believe that the way the process is being managed is a sneaky attempt to get it passed. This is a two-step process. What you received is the first step, a Notice of a Public Hearing and Protest Form, which was sent to all residential, business and public parcel owners in Los Angeles County. If you oppose the Measure, please be sure to fill out and mail in the Protest Form that is attached to the Notice. At the Public Hearing on January 15, 2013 if a majority protest of the parcel owners throughout the County has been received, then the item will be rejected. If the protest fails, the Measure is currently scheduled to go to the second step, which could be a mail-in ballot next Spring. The special election mail-in ballot would be sent only to property owners. It is being done this way because polls show that if a ballot measure went to all registered voters, the initiative would be much less likely to pass. While this process is in line with the letter of the law, it is not in the spirit of the law. I see this as an underhanded attempt to pass this initiative and am strongly against this taxpayer rip-off. This Measure is a proposed fee on parcel owners that will generate funding to complete projects that protect public health, and increase drinking water supplies, by cleaning up our rivers, lakes, bays, beaches and coastal waters. I have consistently supported clean water projects throughout the County, and remain committed to improving water quality. However, I believe that every voter in the County should have the opportunity to decide on this fee, through an open and transparent initiative process, which should be putting it before the voters and not in a mailing. The Public Hearing for this Measure is scheduled for Tuesday, January 15, 2013 in the Board of Supervisors Hearing Room. At that time, if there is no majority protest, then I will again push for a Regular Ballot on an election day. I will not support the item if it is a Special Election by mail and only for property owners. If you have any questions on the specifics of the Measure itself, please call (800) 218-0018 or visit www.lacountycleanwater.org.

Lost your notice of public hearing? Download a new copy.

Locate your Assessor ID Number

SURVEY: Will you protest the Clean Water, Clean Beaches Measure?

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Get ready for more property taxes related to storm water runoff

2012-11-09T09:14:00.001-08:00

Now that Lakewood homeowners have dodged a bullet on the "flood tax" (FEMA imposed flood insurance in Lakewood where it is not needed) we have a new "parcel tax" to worry about. The County has secretly been working on this for some time. The new water "run off" regulations are out now per the story below and it is going to be very interesting how the County assess each parcel owner with this new property tax. This "election" will be next year and will be very low key. The county will not want you property owners to pay much attention to it but you should. We will pass along more information as we learn it as to when this so called "election" will take place in 2013. We have previously asked the County for information about this election but were rebuffed.

We believe the only persons entitled to vote will be property owners so again it will not be a "typical" election of all registered voters like we just had. Voting could take place in a 45-day mail-in ballot election between March and May 2013, according to county documents. Depending on the size of your lot you could be looking at a $50.00 to $100.00 per year (or more) additional fee on your property tax bill forever. This will highly depend on the size and configuration of your lot and likely how it is zoned.Of course the issue will be whether the County should pay for this out of its General Fund or asses a new "tax" for it. About 40 percent of the money would be distributed to 85 cities in the county, 50 percent would go to watershed groups made up of cities and unincorporated county communities, and 10 percent would go to the Los Angeles County Flood Control District for administrative costs, according to county documents. Recall of course you just rejected Measure J in LA County on November 6, 2012. (that was to extend the "temporary 1/2 cent sales tax hike in LA County to 2069) Take a look at all the current assessments on your property tax bill. There are many hundreds of dollars of "fees" and "assessments"on there and for some people may even be higher than the property tax bill itself.

So once again what have you seen from the city of Lakewood on this? Nothing. Dont bother looking at the website. Nothing there. What are they going to do about it? Apparently nothing. It does not appear that any representatives from Lakewood even spoke at the Nov 8, 2012 meeting (unlike other local cities) As usual, the City Council is keeping you in the dark. Now that we have posted something perhaps they will bring it up as they love to do that just like they did with the FEMA problem.

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-storm-water-20121109,0,4497794.story latimes.com

New storm water runoff rules could cost cities billions The regional water board regulations place restrictions on 33 pollutants.

By Bettina Boxall, Los Angeles Times
November 9, 2012

Cities in Los Angeles County face spending billions of dollars to clean up the dirty urban runoff that washes pollution into drains and coastal waters under storm water regulations approved Thursday night by the regional water board. Despite more than two decades of regulation, runoff remains the leading cause of water pollution in Southern California, prompting beach closures and bans on eating fish caught in Santa Monica Bay. The runoff — whether from heavy winter rains or sprinkler water spilling down the gutter — is tainted by a host of contaminants from thousands of different places: bacteria from pet waste, copper from auto brake pads, toxics from industrial areas, pesticides and fertilizer from lawns. "Municipal wastewater treatment has made incredible strides over the past 20 or 30 years, and other sources of pollution have been well controlled," said John Kemmerer, regional associate water director for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, which oversees the Clean Water Act. "It really comes down now to urban runoff."

The regulations, which the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board adopted after a daylong hearing, place limits on 33 pollutants ranging from coliform bacteria to hydrocarbons and lead. "This is the only way to move forward," said board member Madelyn Glickfeld. Environmental groups countered that the regulations contain provisions that weaken enforcement. "We're extremely disappointed with this decision," said Kirsten James, water quality director for Heal the Bay. "At the end of the day [the cities] don't have that stick waiting for them. That's very disconcerting." The requirements, in the form of a pollution permit, are an overdue renewal of storm water regulations adopted in 2001 that failed to reap hoped-for improvements in water quality. The permit applies to most cities in the county as well as the county flood control district and unincorporated areas. Over the last few years, other regions in the state have adopted similar storm water regulations. But none address as many pollutants as the Los Angeles rules, which cover 3,000 square miles containing about 500 miles of open drainage channels and 3,500 miles of subterranean drains.

The Los Angeles provision seeks to reduce storm water flows to the ocean in ways that would replenish aquifers, thus boosting local water supplies.

Municipal officials say they will pursue a variety of tactics to meet the regulations, ranging from better street sweeping to collaborating on the construction of large infiltration basins that will capture storm water and let it seep into the ground to recharge groundwater. They also plan to adopt low-impact development ordinances similar to one approved in the city of Los Angeles that require new, larger construction projects to use parking lot and landscape designs that would retain a certain amount of runoff on site. Building "green infrastructure" to capture the runoff is more cost-efficient than trying to treat it at thousands of small sources, Kemmerer said. Parking lots at public buildings such as schools could be converted to permeable paving. Street curbs could be altered to send road runoff to plant beds rather than storm drains. Small pocket parks could be created with plantings to hold and filter rainwater. "This takes a different approach" that gives cities flexibility to meet the pollution standards "in the most economical way possible," said Charles Stringer, the board's vice chairman.

The cost of complying with regulations has been a top concern for cities — although environmentalists say municipalities are exaggerating the expense. Shahram Kharaghani, watershed protection division manager for Los Angeles, estimated it will cost $5 billion to $8 billion to meet the storm water standards for the city over the next two decades. But the projects won't just improve water quality, he said, they will recharge groundwater supplies, create wildlife habitat and create green jobs. "This is no longer put the water in the pipe and get it out to the ocean," he said. The county flood control district is preparing a ballot proposal for next year that would impose a parcel fee to pay for the runoff controls. At $54 for an average residential parcel, the fee would raise about $275 million a year, Kharaghani said. But what the cities view as needed flexibility, environmental groups describe as offramps that will let municipalities off the compliance hook. "It is going to be the public that suffers, the water quality that suffers," warned Noah Garrison, an attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. Environmentalists objected in particular to a provision they interpret as saying that if municipalities adopt a watershed plan approved by the board and implement it, they will be considered in compliance, even if the pollution limits are exceeded. The water board staff, which has worked for several years on the new regulations, rebutted that contention, saying the requirements were much more stringent than earlier permits.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Update on FEMA's flood "tax"

2012-06-25T15:10:00.003-07:00

this is the latest update from LBReport.com:

UPDATE: June 25, 2012, 2:15 p.m., Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid began making a series of motions re amendments and procedures related to the flood insurance bill. Sen. Jon Tester (D., MT) then spoke urging swift approval of the bill. The federal flood insurance bill which includes a section that could require homeowners and commercial property owners (whose properties carry federally backed loans) to purchase flood insurance if they're now protected by levees and dams. A vote on another bill is scheduled for 2:30 p.m. Tomorrow, the Senate may take up the flood insurance bill again. If the "residual flood risk" verbiage isn't removed from the Senate version of the bill (as it was last year in the House version), it could require tens of thousands of homeowners and commercial property owners in shaded areas on maps below to buy federally-run "flood insurance" each year. On passage, the Senate bill will go to a House-Senate conference committee (a handful of House and Senate members). If the Committee doesn't remove the "residual risk" language [Congress has a fiscal incentive to leave it in the final bill], the resulting legislation could require LB and southeast LA County homeowners with federally backed loans in the shaded areas below to pay federal flood insurance premiums each year [precise amount unspecified in bill and left to FEMA, we speculate several hundred dollars annually]. See coverage on LBReport.com for up to the minute details....

Update from LAAG on June 25:

We checked the text of Councilman Van Nostran's 2012 'State of the City" address given on January 5, 2012 and guess what. Not one mention of this "tax" or FEMA or flooding or anything else giving Lakewood homeowners a heads up about this and other really important things that will affect your family budget drastically. So either Lakewood is asleep at the helm or they decided to hide it from you. This bill has been in the works since December 2011 (when S. 1940 was introduced in the US Senate)

Lakewood city council should have alerted residents to this months ago and urged residents to write to the elected officials in Washington to seek a legislative "fix" to this problem before it hit this current crisis mode. Now there is very little time for a realistic legislative solution and the issue will likely we left to the bureaucrats at FEMA to decide our fate. Not very comforting as the FEMA folks are NOT ELECTED.

LAAG's Prior FEMA flood tax Post here

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

FEMA is once again getting ready to fleece homeowners in Lakewood with the help of Congress

2012-06-23T17:44:00.000-07:00

June 25th Update here

Once again FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) via the NFIP (National Flood Insurance Plan) and of course your pals in Congress are trying to stick it to you again. Homeowners in Lakewood may once again be stuck with hundreds of dollars a year in flood insurance premiums as they once were in the 1990's up thru 2001 or thereabouts. In a nutshell what congress is doing is acknowledging that we (Thanks to then Congressman Steve Horn) fixed the levees on the LA River to be certified to protect against a "100 year flood". What congress is doing now is upping that to 500 year storm protection which basically means you will never be free from being forced to buy flood insurance (by NFIP) for your federally insured mortgage. And yes this little scheme is being pushed by both Democrats and Republicans (Likely to pay for all the hurricane and disaster relief that FEMA did in other states these past few years) Oh but wait its not a "tax" its just a mandatory insurance requirement for something that is less likely to occur than a direct asteroid strike in Lakewood. And the best part it does not increase the deficit (because YOU are going to pay for 100% of the costs of the program.... until you pay off your mortgage) There is a vote on this bill in the senate on Monday (June 25, 2012) at about 10 am PST. Unfortunately due to some maneuverings in congress were were caught short on this notice (Congress likes to do things that way so you pesky voters don't have time to call them or email them and tell them how angry your are).

If you are wondering what our "gold plated" city management team (with paid lobbyists) was doing on this bill for the last year that is a good question for them come next election cycle. We have seen nothing on this from Lakewood city council. Thanks guys. LAAG had to bring it to the attention of Lakewood voters first once again. All the city has on its website is the old 2008 FEMA info (see this link) and on the home page this weekend (June 23) some info about the July 4 block party (see this link) There will be no reason to celebrate if this bill passes. So once again while the city council parties you get hit with a big insurance bill.

Please take a look at this article and this one done by our good friends over at LBReport.com. Again thanks to them for helping out on this. We will keep this story updated as we learn more information.

But we suggest you contact Sen Boxer here and Sen. Feinstein here and tell them what you think about this little back door "tax" increase. Mention Senate Bill 1940.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

We could not have said this better ourselves

2011-06-13T15:14:00.000-07:00

If you want to learn about pro sports, yesterdays weather, police chases, lost pets, car accidents, fires and other headline catching news (all delivered by very sexy looking "script readers") then by all means watch local TV news. The type of news gathering that exposed the city of Bell and the other pension crisis issues in local government is not going to be on the local TV news. Well not until long after it is headline news on blogs and in newsprint. In fact even smallish newspapers like the press telegram don't cover this stuff. It takes "real" "investigative journalism". Not regurgitating press releases by the local government news machine like some "local" news papers are happy to do. In fact that was one of the uglier parts of the CIA leak case during the Bush years. Even the national media and government work hand in hand to promote each other. Its a dirty business but in some cases its the only way to get a story. The media does not have the time nor resources to "dig" by hand for everything they print daily.

This was a very good program highlighting the problem. Of course it was on PBS and advocated doing what we did in the late 1700's and early 1800's and that was using public funding structure to promote investigative journalism (sort of like what we do with PBS). The Founding Fathers made the First Amendment first as I think they realized that without a non governmental "check" on government we would have a real problem long term with our government. Just look at the countries that repress true and open journalism and see how well they pass the democracy test. The problem we have now is the "blogopshere" has taken over journalism so its really hard to know who to trust. Government or the bloggers.

Here at LAAG we wish we had a full time staff like the NY Times or LA Times just to dig around over at city hall. I am sure we would find some embarrassing stuff. But we don't have the staff the city does (nor the tax dollars). They can bury it a lot faster than we can dig it up.

Oh and in case you were wondering, still no "details" from the Lakewood City Council on how they are going to be more "transparent" in 2011. First I think Larry Van Nostran has to look the word up in the dictionary.

FCC report on media warns of decline in quality local news
June 9, 2011 | 3:21 pm
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/2011/06/fcc-report-on-media-warns-of-decline-in-quality-local-news-.html

A new report from the Federal Communications Commission warned that the "independent watchdog function that the founding fathers envisioned for journalism" is at risk in local communities across the country.

In a 475-page report released Thursday titled, "The Information Needs of Communities: The Changing Media Landscape in a Broadband Age," the government regulatory agency, which has oversight over television and radio as well as certain aspects of the Internet, said there is a "shortage of local, professional, accountability reporting" that could lead to "more government waste, more local corruption," "less effective schools" and other problems.

"The less quality reporting we have, the less likely we are to learn about government misdeeds,” said FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski in a statement released with the report.

A topic of discussion in the report is the Los Angeles Times' coverage of the abuses by the city administration in Bell. Although the Pulitzer-Prize winning efforts of The Times exposed the corruption, it went on for years before getting noticed.

“A lot of residents tried to get the media’s attention, but it was impossible,” community activist and teacher Christina Garcia told the FCC. “The city of Bell doesn’t even have a local paper; no local media of any sort.”

Indeed, the FCC noted that The Times covers almost 100 municipalities and 10 million residents. David Lauter, Metro editor of The Times, is quoted as saying that his staff is “spread thinner and there are fewer people on any given area.... We’re not there every day, or even every week or every month. Unfortunately, nobody else is either.”

Local TV is singled out in the report for not covering important issues enough. Although the number of hours of local news has increased over the last few years, too few stations "are investing in more reporting on critical local issues," the report said. Furthermore, the report said that although stations may be adding newscasts, they are doing it with fewer reporters.

Even with the additional newscasts, the stories often focus on crime and the reason for that has more to do with how cheap it is to cover crime stories than it does viewer demand.

While the report, which was originally to be titled "The Future of Media," said there has been an explosion of media platforms because of the growth of digital platforms, at the same time there has been a decline in quality as a result of the same technology boom.

"As technology offered consumers new choices, it upended traditional news industry business models, resulting in massive job losses," the FCC said.

The result has been "gaps in coverage that even the fast-growing digital world has yet to fill." Although the digital media may someday fill the void left by diminishing traditional media, "at this moment the media deficits in many communities are consequential."

-- Joe Flint

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Crime mapping in Lakewood gets a facelift (once it comes on line)

2011-04-29T13:51:00.000-07:00

We of course were not surprised when the Sheriff's dept. (LASD) managed to once again drop the ball on crime reporting. We applaud the LASD in trying to find a cheaper (not sure how much cheaper or if better) alternative to crimereports.com which they have been using for some time as we reported. What bothers us the most is that the city of Lakewood NEVER even mentioned crimereports.com on their website or in any other literature we can find. Why? The Press Telegram did not even mention this safu below with the transition to crimemapping.com. We mentioned crimereports.com when we first happened upon it by accident in January 2009. Only time will tell if crimemapping.com gives us better detail and more customization than crimereports.com. In addition, one must remember that these third party privately run websites are only as good and as timely as the data supplied by LASD. One must also remember that these are only incidents that are reported AND where a report is taken or an incident number is assigned. In most cases people don't even bother to report stuff to Lakewood LASD as nothing good ever comes of it. And none of us will ever know how much of that crime goes unreported. (in speaking with some recent victims of Lakewood burglaries we were told by the victims that reporting it to Lakewood LASD was a total waste of time)

When we recently heard of a rash of residential Lakewood burglaries in March and April 2011 we became even more interested in the realtime crime data. Also we learned that the LASD Cerritos substation puts out a weekly crime related email with maps and a very nice one page summary of significant crime trends (and some insight) for residents to keep on the lookout for. Now what puzzled us is why is Cerritos substation putting out these weekly crime reports when Lakewood is not? Could it be that Cerritos has more crime than Lakewood? Hardly. They also have the same Sheriff service Lakewood does. Cerritos LASD also still uses crimereports.com and will be using crimemapping.com in addition to the email summaries they are sending out unlike Lakewood LASD. Its key to note that the emailed reports come from the CITY of Cerritos (crime_information@cerritos.us), not LASD (lasd.org). So there you have it. The difference is that the Cerritos city council acknowledges that crime exists in their city and they want their residents to be aware of an uptick etc in crime or abnormal pattern and the types of crime as well as where the hotspots are. Now on the other hand the Lakewood city council (which happens to have a Sheriff sitting on it) does not want to even acknowledge that there is any crime in Lakewood as this hurts reelection. So the best way to pretend there is no crime in Lakewood is to make sure the city never officially acknowledges any (by sending out crime reports like Cerritos) other than to say at the end of the year "crime is down..." Oh great. What about the rash of burglaries in North Lakewood. Oh well those just get merged into the overall yearly rate. Problem Solved. If you want to dig a little deeper you are on your own. The city of Lakewood is not going to help you and they are not going to ask LASD to help you either. Again as we said before there are lies, damn lies and statistics. Denial is not just a river folks. Again lack of transparency is very "apparent" when you take even a little bit of a closer look at what is going on in this city.

Sheriff's online crime data unavailable as department switches software
By Brian Day, Staff Writer
Posted: 04/28/2011
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_17952798

LOS ANGELES COUNTY - Online public crime information from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department is temporarily unavailable as the agency switches to a new crime reporting software, officials said.

For more than a year, the sheriff's department has provided limited information about the type, time and locations of crimes reported to the department via the website Crimereports.com. Several other Los Angeles County agencies, including the Baldwin Park, Covina and Whittier police, also provide crime information to the public via Crimereports.com.

The department has elected to start using a new system, effective this weekend, officials said, and the process has had the unintended consequence of no online crime information being posted on Crimereports.com since April 18.

"We don't know what the glitch was, but we're going to get it fixed," Los Angeles County sheriff's Capt. Michael Parker said.

"It was supposed to be seamless," Parker added of the transition between crime reporting systems.

The sheriff's department has paid for services from Crimereports.com through Saturday, Parker said, so it was unclear why crime data is no longer being updated. Once informed of the issue, authorities began looking into it.

Starting this weekend, Parker said, sheriff's officials will post crime data on the website Crimemapping.com, which is already used by agencies including Pasadena, Los Angeles, Arcadia and Sab Gabriel police.

When sheriff's data begins to show up on Crimemapping.com this weekend, Parker said, it will likely take a week or two to work out all the bugs.

"We expect glitches, because that's what happens when you do a big transition," he said.

Once in place, Crimamapping.com will retroactively pull all crime data from the previous six months

The switch is designed to provide better information to the public at a reduced cost to the sheriff's department, Parker said.

"We have changed systems because we found a system that was less expensive and was able to provide more information to public," he said.

Read more: http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_17952798#ixzz1KwU1TI7F

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Here we go again?

2011-04-21T14:59:00.000-07:00

This is starting to become a problem. Now that city budgets are getting tight in the downturn the ugly truth is coming out: mismanagement or worse, fraud and deception. Again like with City of Bell we keep saying this is due to lack of transparency and voters and media that just dont want to take the time to scrutinize what is going on a local level and everyone is so obsessed with state and national political circus played out every day. Well this is where the news channels needs to focus their energy. Real investigative reporting at the local level. With all the media we have today there is more than enough to cover local politics properly. Without the drama and party bickering that overtakes state and national politics. But if the media does not shine the light on this type of stuff then voters will never see it. Quite frankly the two reporters that broke the City of Bell story last year deserve the Pulitzer.

State controller orders audit of city of Montebello, saying there's evidence of false financial reports
April 21, 2011
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/04/allegation-of-fake-financial-reports-prompts-outside-audit-of-troubled-montebello.html

The state controller took the unusual step Thursday of ordering an outside audit of the struggling city of Montebello, saying there is evidence the city produced false financial reports dating back several years.

The action, which marks the first time officials have launched a full city audit since examining wrongdoing in Bell last year, marks an ominous turn for Montebello, which is in danger of running out of money later this year.

The working-class city east of downtown L.A. has been mired in budget problems and allegations of mismanagement and missing money for months. Last week, the city manager brought in to clean up the mess abruptly resigned. Peter Cosentini warned councilmembers that former city officials for years had used accounting tricks to hide the true nature of the city’s financial picture, making it seem as though the city had more money than it actually did.

Montebello officials discovered more than $1 million in two off-the-book bank accounts. That prompted a probe by Los Angeles County prosecutors that is still ongoing. Last month, Montebello officials said they solved the mystery, claiming the money went to a local developer as part of a complex loan to build a restaurant in the city.

In a letter to Montebello announcing the audit, state Controller John Chiang said the city was out of compliance with state laws because it had not submitted annual audits and financial reports to the state. Chiang also cited comments made by several city officials to The Times and others that financial reports might be inaccurate and included false information.

“I have concluded that there is reason to believe that the Annual Report of Financial Transactions … [is] false, incomplete or incorrect,” Chiang wrote.

Montebello Councilwoman Christina Cortez, a critic of the city’s past financial dealings, said she welcomed the audit.

“It’s unfortunate that nobody in the city understood the severity and seriousness of all the illegal activities that have been going on,” she said. “I’m glad we are finally getting a third party to investigate.”

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Wonder where your law enforcement tax dollars are going?

2011-04-20T11:34:00.000-07:00

Well when it comes to the LA County Sheriff's department it's not going to enforcement and keeping you safe, but to lawsuit payoffs. This Blake Dupree case was settled very quietly 2 months ago and we just recently came upon one article that just mentioned it. The only reason we mention it is because the incident happened at the Lakewood Sheriff substation in 2008. From the LA times story on yet another settlement for bad behavior:

"Lyznick's settlement comes less than two months after the county agreed to pay $4.25 million and other costs [so its even more money?] to Blake Dupree, a man who was paralyzed from the chest down after a sheriff's deputy Tasered him, causing him to fall from the top bunk of his jail bed. Dupree, who had been refusing to leave his cell, was then carried out to the station's fingerprint area and dumped on the floor, according to his lawsuit. Much of the 2007 [we understand it was 2008] incident was caught on tape." (keep those iPhones rolling!)

You ask yourself why the county settles these? Its because they cant take them to trial as it would be so obvious to a jury that LASD screwed up (per the LASD defense attorneys) and the jury would likely award a lot more money that then settlement. Also don't forget we still have this little gem yet to be "resolved". The LASD is very good at keeping these settlements out of the press as they dont want you to know where your tax dollars are really going. The Dupree settlement is almost half of he Lakewood LASD budget for a year! Like we said before, the Deputies that are causing these problems need to go. To never be hired again by another agency. Oh but wait the LASD union is in the way preventing us from getting rid of the "lawsuit magnets"....

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

justice really slows down when the criminal is a deputy sheriff

2011-04-08T15:43:00.000-07:00

This story below just popped up today on the news wires and in the interest in thoroughness (unlike some media) we wanted to post a follow up as we had posted on this years ago. A few things the nice little news article below does mention. First this first surfaced in October 2008 as we first noted and that was for a crime going back to 2001! And just now Deputy Dyer is pleading no contest..in April 2011... two and half years later? Are you kidding me? For a no contest plea? What took so long? There was no trial. The no contest plea is used when the criminal wants to avoid the plea from being used against him in any later civil action. It is good to see that he is paying the money back. Ill bet he serves no jail time on this regardless of the three year potential. I also note he is apparently paying the money back with no interest? Nice. I guess the taxpayers can foot that bill as all the cities are hurting right now (many due to paying guys like Dyer). Also he must have a really sweet pension from LASD as a reward for all his good years of thievery in order to cough up $550,000 so fast. (44k in back taxes likely means you have a substantial income). I see he paid for the investigation costs. But was he given a free defense attorney via the LASD union (ALADS) which in the end comes out of your pockets? One final note. In a way its a good thing Lakewood never tows any cars...we would just have this to worry about as well.

Retired deputy pleads no contest to embezzling $450,000
From wire service reports
Posted: 04/08/2011 07:28:42 AM PDT
http://www.dailybreeze.com/latestnews/ci_17801387

A retired Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy pleaded no contest Thursday to a felony count for embezzling about $450,000 in towing fees that were intended for the city of La Puente.

Joseph Dyer, 56, pleaded no contest to one count of a public officer crime, according to Deputy District Attorney Amy Pellman Pentz.

Dyer is facing three years in state prison when sentenced May 31 by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Stephen Marcus.

Dyer supervised the impound program at the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department's Industry Station and collected towing fees from residents between June 2001 and December 2007 that should have been paid to the city of La Puente, according to the District Attorney's Office.

Dyer's wife, Lydia, 47, pleaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge of filing a false tax return and was immediately sentenced to one year of probation.

The couple repaid the sheriff's department $554,588, which included the loss along with $100,000 toward the costs of the investigation, according to the District Attorney's Office.

They also paid just over $44,000 in back taxes to the state's Franchise Tax Board, according to the District Attorney's Office.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Transparency and Open Government in Lakewood: Larry Van Nostran does not get it

2011-04-07T11:53:00.000-07:00

The only thing that happened to LAAG's transparency pledge we sent to all candidates (including Larry Van Nostran) on 2/17/11 was that they used it for campaign fodder/spin but did not learn anything from it apparently (or heaven forbid agree to take the pledge, with the exception of candidate Marisa Perez). We watched the 3/22/11 city council meeting (first one after the 3/8/11 election) with interest and Larry Van Nostran did not disappoint. Larry’s quote from the 3/22/11 meeting: “Recently transparency has become a great buzzword and well Lakewood has for more than 30 years has communicated with the residents about all aspects of civic life, in the newsletter, on cable TV, through direct mail and public meetings and now on line”. As my third promise to you we will continue to listen to your ideas on improving transparency and we will explore this year [2011] how we can increase your ability to become involved in city government.”

Form this short quote it is obvious that Larry cant see the difference between "spin" and "transparency" (also known as "open government"). Lakewood Living Newsletters, bill stuffers in the water bill, Lakewood Community News (the free Lakewood Chamber “throw away” paper). Those are all examples of spin. This includes the Lakewood web site. Just look at the nonsense on the home page. Nothing revealing or meaty on the entire site. Just happy talk. Spin. The Press Telegram is hardly news. Its mostly regurgitated press releases from the city council. No investigative journalism there. Just a few tidbits of "news" ...just enough to sell ads. All the foregoing "media" always put the city and the council in a positive light (as this is how you get re-elected) Transparency is explained here (interestingly this granicus.com site is the same one that provides Lakewood council meetings on the web!) and here and how to implement it is set out here.

Larry also made a number of other "promises" that night. His promise number 1 was to prevent blight through code enforcement. Oh yeah they have such a great track record on that. So Lets apply the LAAG transparency “buzzword” to that claim/spin and see what we get. For example where is the listing of all actions taken on all properties in Lakewood under the so called code enforcement? What was done? Where are the before and after pictures of the property? What did it cost us in terms of redevelopment money, interest free loans or staff time to get that one property fixed? See Larry that’s transparency and how it differs from your version of it which is “spin”. Spin means you just say it in a soundbite enough times and magically it becomes gospel.

How did transparency become a great buzzword? LAAG made it so before the election. You did not hear it or see it in any Lakewood publications, or Lakewood's website (word never mentioned once on the entire Lakewood website)

Telling residents about "all aspects of civic life" like how and where to vote, or where the parks are is NOT transparency Larry. Sorry. Getting people involved in your crusades based on your spin is not transparency either. So in other words Larry just because you want to pick a fight with the state like every other city over redevelopment money supported by our taxes, and get the residents to help you, that does not equate with transparency. So how do we apply the LAAG transparency “magnifying glass” once again to Larry's spin claims re the redevelopment money he wants? Well for one lets post how much Lakewood received in each of the last 5 years in terms of redevelopment money, where those funds came from (i.e. state taxes, local taxes etc.. be specific) and then how those funds were actually spent…on “studies” or consultants, meetings, trips, bogus organizations, or real shovels in the ground word to fix the blight? Again show us some before and after pictures of the "redeveloped" property so we can see with our own eyes what OUR tax money did (not private developer money). See Larry that’s the difference between transparency and spin. Spin by definition is not backed up by facts as there is no transparency. That’s what makes it spin.

Also note that Larry said that he (and the council apparently) would continue to LISTEN to OUR ideas on transparency. Not that they would implement any. Just listen to them. See how tricky politicians are? You have to parse their words very carefully. That's why Larry was reading from a script. Need to choose your words very carefully.

Also note how Larry said he wants to "increase our ability to become involved" in city government. What he meant by this is he wants to enlist you in fighting Sacramento and Jerry Brown to keep the city's redevelopment slush fund. (which really needs a transparency magnifying glass focused on it from the looks of this report) That was encoded in the rest of his speech. But again that is NOT transparency. Maybe astroturfing but not transparency.

LAAG is betting that its transparency pledge is not implemented. Simply because the more transparency there is the more questions will be raised. The more questions raised the harder it is for incumbents to get re-elected. So the incumbents have no incentive to create transparency. Get it?

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Posted Comment:

Transparency is NOT a buzzword it IS a policy of honesty and accessibility to our government. It is what taxpayers deserve and voters expect. Unfortunately, it is lacking in or city along with integrity... Lakewood living "released" a residential survey one month before the election and 6 months after it was taken! The "facts" were spun to favor the council and city management. No where does it state the demographics of the 400 residents (registered voters only) mostly white, elderly, working in our city in the upper income brackets, or how many times the same residents have been surveyed(information collected by phone only!) the "newsletter" left OUT a lot of facts like 2% of those surveyed want a dogpark or how many answers related to traffic! and safety or that residents stated "from neighbors" as their second way of finding info about city issues. in other words gossip. Information that a lot of times has no basis in fact. why? because the city and council will NOT allow residents to bring community issues to agenda. Cameras are turned OFF at council meetings so residents issues are never seen and there is no record of issues. The city also will not post important information residents need on their web site although residents have paid for countless computer upgrades! Questions to lakewood one take far too long to answer (keep in mind that the city staff enjoy 2 three day weekends a month more when monday holidays are connected. (that's why no furloughs are necessary) So city staff works part time anyway! so often several days pass! AND the information given depending on the subject matter is often wrong! Council Members have no email links to the city and no responsibility to residents to respond to problems once elected. Mr Van Nostran claimed "we are a safe city" KNOWING he had a serious home burglary situation going on at least a month prior to his re-election. He sat in on meetings promising to deal with the unenforced trucking issue on clark PRIOR to the opening of costco and has refused to acknowledge or deal with the escalating problem ever since breaking his word! Several neighborhoods are plagued with traffic and parking issues that destroy are safety, peace of mind , quality of life, and family budgets, Residents are forced to pay for and deal with situations and issues city policy has created and council refuses to address. Advocates for this city handled themselves admirably during this past election in the best interests of this city . I was one of them. It was hard to stand by and watch as the lines of religion and politics were so badly crossed. If these are the "values that dont change" I want nothing to do with them! I walk my talk and I have taught my children better by EXAMPLE! We will be ready in 2013 because times DO change!

"Sunshine Week" turns out to be rather overcast

2011-03-18T16:27:00.000-07:00

We have to agree with this editorial. Transparency is not hard but some government entities (especially local ones) sure like to make it appear hard. This week was supposed to be the celebration of "Sunshine Week" but as the Illinois editorial below points out things are not so sunny in these United States especially at the local level. Again this only repeats what LAAG has been saying for years now. Make transparency a goal, a basic tenant of local government. And transparency means fully accessible on the web. Not in a filing cabinet in the clerks office at city hall. Well perhaps our new city councilmember will make transparency a goal for 2011. We really liked the "Sunshine Review" website idea and have linked to it before on the links section of our page (right hand side of this page).

Our View: Basic transparency shouldn't be hard for local governments

Posted Mar 18, 2011
http://www.pjstar.com/opinions/ourview/x1664570603/Our-View-Basic-transparency-shouldnt-be-hard-for-local-governments

As newspapers, broadcast stations and websites across the nation mark the annual Sunshine Week focusing on government transparency and accountability, most of the attention goes to the typical themes: open records requests, compliance with open meetings rules, the various attempts by politicians to neuter the laws governing both.

On that last score, it's worth noting that despite a promise by President Obama to boost transparency, his administration faced more requests for documents over the last year but responded to fewer than the year before, according to an Associated Press analysis, with responses taking longer than in years past.

Meanwhile, Illinois' central clearinghouse for public data celebrated its one-year anniversary at www2.illinois.gov/sunshine, offering quick links to a treasure trove of information on state spending and oversight matters and sometimes laying bare the dysfunction of state government. Some local governments still don't quite get the Open Meetings Act - the most recent being the Midland School Board, which had to re-vote on a lawsuit settlement last month after trying to handle the matter behind closed doors. And last week we detailed in this space the latest effort by Illinois lawmakers to limit the queries some people can make for government data.

But the end-all, be-all of transparency isn't just Freedom of Information Act requests and compliance with the Open Meetings Act. What matters just as much on a daily basis are the common things that, if a municipality takes the time to establish and maintain a website, ought to be included there. That information would include meeting agendas, archives of minutes from past meetings, and the names, phone numbers and/or e-mail addresses of current board members.

To be sure, taxpayers interested in what their officials are doing in their name and with their money can already go to government offices to get meeting agendas and minutes. But it's far easier to have such information just a few keystrokes away. Absolutely, elected officials should make it easy for constituents to become informed. Representing people means being accessible to them.

As you can see from the chart included with this piece, our sampling of local government bodies across central Illinois found many are providing at least that information, and in some cases offering plenty more for inquisitive minds. A handful have slipped behind in letting citizens in on the debates held, the decisions made, the spending authorized. If your board met back in February, why aren't those minutes online yet?

To the others absolutely falling down when it comes to the basics - the Dunlap School Board, where voters only have contact information for one of seven board members; the city of Chillicothe and the Marshall County Board, where constituents searching online can't find e-mail addresses or phone numbers for the folks calling the shots in those communities (there are no minutes for anything the Chillicothe council has done so far this year either) - the message is simple: Step it up.

Even open-government advocacy groups like the Illinois Campaign for Political Reform acknowledge that it can be tough for public bodies to determine what documents citizens have an interest in finding online. What we've described above are the bare minimum. Citizens should complain - now and at the ballot box later if these situations aren't remedied - or things will never change. In our experience, a local government that isn't forthcoming about the basics will try to hide far worse, for the worse.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Lakewood City Council election results March 8, 2011

2011-03-08T22:39:00.000-08:00

Update March 23, 2011:

I would not consider 14% of registered voters any sort of a "mandate" or a "seal of approval" for the status quo as some politicians like to claim. Voter apathy is a huge problem not just city wide but nationwide as voters tend to have less and less faith in politicians ability to actually solve problems (as opposed to just complain that one level of government is "taking away" "their" tax money.) The 61 percent of the vote that comes in by mail makes one wonder why all elections are not just done via mail. What a waste of time and money.

Following certification of the official vote canvass by the City Clerk, the candidates received these final totals:

Lawrence H. "Larry" Van Nostran, Incumbent: 3402
Jeff Wood, : 2810
Joy Janes, : 2041
Marc Titel, : 1527
Marisa Perez, : 1263

The above totals represent the final tally for the March 8 election, and include all provisional ballots and Vote By Mail ballots turned in to precincts on election day. There are 45,920 registered voters in Lakewood and 6,328 ballots were cast in the March election. Turnout was 14 percent (well 13.78% actually). Turnout percentages are in line with Lakewood's 2005 and 2007 elections. The city is experiencing an all-time high in the overall number of registered voters. 61 percent of residents voted by mail, with 39 percent of residents going to a polling place to cast their vote.

3/8/11:

Unbelievably the Lakewood "incumbent machine" puts Larry VanNostran back into office. We hope our prediction about Larry was wrong. Jeff Wood wins the open seat, clearly benefiting from the "Esquivel effect" (yet more incumbent bias). Sigh. More later on LAAG regarding the results and what they might mean.

The unofficial vote count includes 22 of 22 total precincts reporting at 9:49 p.m. The total number of precincts includes 11 precinct counts of ballots turned in at polling places and 11 precinct counts of vote-by-mail ballots. Results are unofficial until the canvass of the election by the Lakewood City Clerk is completed.

Larry Van Nostran
Incumbent
3293

Joy Janes
Community Consultant
1961

Jeff Wood
Deputy Emergency Manager
2702

Marisa Perez
Environmental Policy Advisor
1200

Marc Titel
Educator/Businessman
1463

The City Clerk's "official canvass" of the March 8 election will contain the late vote-by-mail votes (ballots turned in at the polling places) and provisional ballots verified by the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters.

The official canvass of the March 8 election will be presented to the City Council during the Tuesday, March 22 city council meeting. Following approval of the canvass, two council members will be sworn in that evening.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Lakewood City Council candidate roundup for the March 8, 2011 City Council election

2011-03-02T16:38:00.000-08:00

Well the day is almost upon us. Make sure you sharpen your pencils and make it to the polls on March 8, 2011 as this year, for a change, we actually have ballot choices (unlike in March 2009)

LAAG is not "endorsing" any of the Lakewood City Council candidates as we really don't believe in "endorsements". If there is one thing Lakewood candidates have plenty of its "endorsements" by their "pals". Quite frankly we think endorsements are not really worth that much. We want facts not facebook friends. LAAG quite frankly is more interested in who does not endorse a candidate (and why) rather than who does.

Elections are important for one reason really. It’s the only time elected officials will really listen (or at least pretend they are listening) to voters/taxpayers. Once elected look out. You just become a constituent that they have to mollify then do what they damn well please as after all they are now “in”, you are not, and they know what’s best for you as they got a "mandate from the 2500 or so people in the city that voted for them". Those small turnouts make it nothing more than a "popularity" contest, not an "issues" contest

The only good thing we can say about local politics is that they are non partisan so we don’t need to hear all the bickering from and regarding the parties. And quite frankly we are saddened that Lakewood voters want to know the party affiliations of the candidates. Without political party nonsense and chatter we can focus on the "issues". Problem is the only issues are "fluff" if you read the campaign “fluff fliers”. The candidates don't really address the "hard" issues adequately. Why should they if voters let them off the hook when they don’t do so? Of course part of the problem is that the hard issues are just that; hard to tackle and if you take a stand on them before an election you could be accused of not following through once elected. Now we wouldn’t want that.

Only one of the 5 candidates (Marisa Perez) took LAAG’s transparency pledge (well about 90% of it) and bothered to fill out our candidate questionnaire which had much tougher questions on it than those put forth at the ”debate”. All had an equal opportunity to do so as we emailed it it to all of them at the same time. Those that wanted to reach out to us did. We can only base our opinions below on what we have seen or have gleaned from public information. Again LAAG is not “endorsing” any candidates.

Larry Van Nostran (incumbent)

Interestingly Larry Van Nostran is running again while his colleague Esquivel is not. It was Van Nostran supported Esquivel and helped him get elected for the first time in 1990 (once again for an open seat). One of the things that came up in the 2011 debates was term limits for City Council (which are hard to do without a city charter or city wide referendum). Only Marisa Perez supported that. Obviously Larry would not (even thought he just taped a political ad for the debate and did not respond to the question). Larry Van Nostran has been on the city council every year since 1975, following a "special election" in 1975. So if he were to finish out the 2011 term he would be in office for over 40 years making him one of, if not the longest, sitting council members in the state. Well LAAG will say in writing what everyone else is afraid to say out loud (or heaven forbid write): Its time to retire. LAAG has nothing against the elderly. We just feel that after 36 years its time to step aside for the good of the city and allow some fresh perspective on the issues of the day. Unfortunately its why we had to institute term limits in Sacramento (term limits are also unpopular in the Middle East we hear)

One of the reasons Larry Van Nostran taped his "debate" speech and thereby ducked all the forum questions was some vague surgery or health problem (as noted in his speech). Again no full disclosure from the candidate from what we have seen on whether this or any other health problems will affect his next 4 year term (leaving him 81). Quite frankly at his age (77 per our research) and his vague health problems, we feel that there is a real issue related to him not finishing his 4 year term. This comes up with all candidates over 70 and most recently in Jerry Brown’s campaign. Again not a big problem in most political offices, however under current law (supported by most city councils of course) the sitting city council is now allowed to appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term and not hold a special election. Of course this is wrong democratically speaking and we all know will lead to even more manipulation of the “buddy system”. It was supposedly done to save money on elections (heaven forbid we don’t want to spend money on those). We all know that once there is an incumbent in Lakewood its hard to run against the "re-election machine". That is what happened in March 2008.

Nothing about transparency in his election materials of course. We don’t even know if he knows the meaning of the word. We tip our hat at his railing against "illegal fireworks" in his campaign material but quite frankly the March 2006 Dunrobin explosion (which gave birth to LAAG) was on his watch and due to the escalation of legal and illegal fireworks use and misuse and Los Angeles County Sheriff (LASD) incompetency, also on his watch. (LAAG wont rehash the whole issue of the LASD’s lapses in failing to prevent the Dunrobin explosion after numerous calls by residents over many years)

So overall Larry Van Nostran stands out as the worse choice for 2011 in LAAG’s opinion. We wish Larry well in his retirement and with his medical issues. We thank him for the years he has served.

Marc Titel (former Lakewood Councilmember)

The biggest questions we have about Marc Titel are not answered in any of his campaign material in our opinion. Why did you leave the council (he was not voted out) before 2001 and why are you trying to get back in NOW? He talks a lot about "experience" but quite frankly we don’t know of any other legal qualifications for the job other than living in the city and being over 18. It takes 2 days a month to do which is not a bad gig given all the perks, heath benefits, and government pension enhancements government employees get from it. Quite frankly it is not at all clear why Marc Titel wants to get back in. Why did he not run in 2009 when we badly needed a candidate? Not willing to run against an incumbent? Is that an unspoken rule in Lakewood? Again lots of unanswered questions.

What did he do in his last 17 year stint on the council that is noteworthy? (Again something specific, not just "supporting" law enforcement and puppies) Again silence. Seventeen years is a long time to serve without some long standing, bold or significant solo achievement. Marc Titel mentions nothing in his campaign materials about transparency. That does not surprise us as we don’t see anything from his campaign materials that speak to what he did to promote it when on the council.

Marc Titel seems to base much of his campaign on his "experience". In our opinion all the candidates are more than "qualified" for the job. Lets not get into the Sarah Palin qualified or not debates over city council. Please. There will be no 3 am calls from generals or nuclear launch codes involved in the job. As far as LAAG is concerned the most important qualifications for the job are being truly independent from special interests, being willing to go against the majority of the council to stand up for taxpayers and what is right, being smart enough to think outside the box, and truly listening to [good] ideas that don’t always come from other elected officials, municipal lobbying groups or city staff (many of which do not live in the city). Yes those of us outside government sometime know a thing or two about budgets and solving problems.

We do like the fact that Marc Titel is the only candidate without a government job or consulting position (at least currently) but that alone is not enough to essentially re-elect him to his 18th year on the council.

In LAAG’s opinion this election really boils down to the three candidates below, which although they can be distinguished from the prior two candidates, it is more difficult to see the fine distinctions between Joy Janes and Jeff Wood (based on what little we know from their campaigns). The problem of course is there are two seats to fill in this election so again it always comes down to choosing candidates which are the “least” bad choices.

Joy Janes (Sitting Chairperson Lakewood Redevelopment Committee)

Joy Janes is a smart person and politically well connected. In our opinion, perhaps too smart and too politically connected. She was one of the earliest to start campaigning (well before the vacancy was publicly announced as per years past in Lakewood) and she has run a very professional style campaign. Her campaign manager for this election has in the past or currently works for congresswoman Linda Sanchez (whose former “district director” now works as Lakewood’s “Public Info officer”) How cozy is that? (not to change the subject but could we eliminate that position or make it part time with and “enhanced version” of our transparency pledge?) Joy Janes also works in the office of State Assemblyman Warren Furutani (D-Lakewood) and before that was Chief of Staff in the 5th District at the City of Long Beach. You get the point. All these people that “work” in government are “lifers” and just get “recycled” from one position to the next either through elections, appointments or getting a “well paid gig”. All her connections to the city are not enumerated here but we are sure there are many given that Joy Janes was appointed many years ago to the “planning and environment” commission by former councilman Bob Wagner, who LAAG respects for the most part.. Again good and bad points about "insiders" with lots of political connections running vs true "outsiders".

We do not like the fact that to run for city council, commissioners who are appointed often get a better chance at winning election simply due to their knowledge of the how things “work” in Lakewood, but I guess that is politics. Based on what we have seen the city council likes commissioners to run as they often are their “pals” and as they have worked with them for a longer time they know where they stand on ensuring the "status quo" the current city council wants. Don’t want to rock the boat if you know what I mean. Outsiders are not given much encouragement.

Again on transparency Joy Janes has said more on her website than other candidates but given that she was aware of LAAG’s proposed legislation on transparency in December 2009 we expected more from her than some “vague commitments” (like: “Joy will work to encourage citizen participation in city government by making it more open and responsive to the needs of residents..” …from her campaign website). As she has been a “city hall insider” for many years we would expect to see more transparency on her own commission (see comments to this article) Did she take LAAG’s transparency pledge? Nope. Comment on it? Nope. Accept some part of it? Nope. So again we see more of the same status quo with Joy Janes on city council. We would like to be pleasantly surprised but we are not too encouraged when candidates wont even MAKE specific campaign promises, let alone break them once elected.

With all the potential loss of redevelopment funds and “name calling” going on between Governor Jerry Brown and the cities I would also have expected more detail from a long term planning commission member to show us just how those funds have been so well spent under her tenure and why cities have a right to that money. Or is it just a slush fund that should be cut?. Again nothing on her website of any substance. I guess that’s the reason Lakewood voters come to our website. Some substance. Some critical questions and analysis.

Jeff Wood (Sitting Commissioner Lakewood Recreation and Community Services Commission)

Jeff Wood’s day job is for the “state version” of FEMA created in Jan. 2009. (You recall FEMA the federal agency that forced us to buy silly flood insurance in the late 1990’s…how could you forget). So again another candidate that is already a government employee.

Same problem here as Joy Janes in terms of already being a city hall "insider". Apparently appointed to the “Recreation and Community Services commission” by Joe Esquivel roughly 10 years after Esquivel was “elevated” to city council. I don’t equate “Parks and Rec” with Planning and environment as the latter usually involves ticking off homeowners by saying “no”. Parks and Rec we assume involves making hard choices like how often to water the lawns and what time to turn off the park lights. We do like the TV show though and assume its not far from real life? But over all, the same issues Joy Janes has as a commissioner, even thought he is not the chairperson. The real purpose we assume of commissioner positions (each council member gets to appoint one) is to “groom” a councilmember successor. That’s how politics work. Now that Esquivel is “retiring” its Jeff’s "turn" to be in the spotlight.

Again the dog park issue has come up in debates and with residents that want one but we don’t see Parks commissioners coming out and taking a bold stand on this. It just gets shoved off to staff (who ever that is), laden with costs and then sent out to pasture as “too costly” (of course we don’t know any details about the city budge but a juvenile colored pie chart…please) Am I missing something? How about creating some park space with all the vacant land laying around or commercial space likely to never be leased this decade? Again no outside the box thinking that we can see. We don’t see anything in his campaign materials that scream “outside the box thinking” either. Maybe its just that parks commission does not offer a true opportunity to shine. Not sure.

On transparency once again Wood at least mentions (almost as an after thought; bottom of one campaign flier) that he supports the “idea” but with no details or pledge its nothing but a hollow promise. We also note that again same problem as with Joy Janes to some extent. If you truly supported transparency all along (as opposed to a “recent convert” to the idea for the campaign as someone else mentioned it) what specific steps have you personally taken to promote transparency in your own commission? Examples please? Silence.

So with Joy Janes and Jeff Wood it’s a tossup really. To close to call.

Marisa Perez (“Environmental Policy Advisor” per the ballot)

Marisa Perez appears to be the only “outsider” running. We say that as she has not been on any Lakewood commissions or been closely aligned with any past or current council members that we can see. No real insider connections to city hall (at least when compared to all the other candidates)

Right off the bat we will say that we are impressed that she completed LAAG’s Candidate Questionnaire and took some if not all of LAAG’s transparency pledge. (her pledge is here) Trust us. This is a good thing. As we said before transparency is the key to everything that goes on in local government. Never forget that. Most voters are learning that lesson too late. There is no investigative journalism going on at the local level and we have the City of Bell debacle as our reward for that.

People already in government, especially those in elected office tend to get the “bubble effect”, which is what Obama feared once inside the Oval Office. That is you only get to hear from staff and “yes men” and the rest of the public’s legitimate ideas are thrown out or never reach you. People in government are also loathe to accept ideas from outside as they often feel as they are elected they somehow are better or smarter than “non electeds/non insiders” and are surrounded with a “cloak of wisdom” once elected. They are not. Again not true of all elected politicians and government bureaucrats but unfortunately we have seen it happen too many times lately. And the reality is the longer in office or in government the more susceptible you are to the “bubble effect”.

So again Marisa Perez does not have the support system that Joy Janes and Jeff Wood have as she is coming from outside the system. That is very rare and can really only happen at the local level. Meg Whitman tried it and you see what it cost her.

In our view Marisa Perez is fully competent, qualified and is a quick study. She is personable and seems committed to the cause. Her background as represented seems more than adequate for the task at hand. Will she know the job inside and out from day one? No. No one could. But that’s why we have the City manager, City Attorney and City Clerk (“the pros”) all sitting there at council meetings holding the councilmember’s hands. Just to make sure all the “formalities” are completed. (wasn’t that why we just couldn’t let Howard Chambers retire...he was too damn good?) The real work is the reading and time that goes into prep for the meeting and the votes. Put it this way, Marisa is more qualified that Larry van Nostran or Joe Esquivel ever were when they were first elected. In fact I would go so far as to say she is better qualified for the job now even as Larry and Joe are at the end of their “reigns”.

She also supports term limits which in a non charter city like Lakewood may be attainable with a city wide vote and we would support that measure as well given that “incumbent bias” in this city is just too strong and voter turnout just too low (in terms of a percentage of votes). Marisa stated that she wanted to limit herself to three terms (12 years) on the council. LAAG applauds that. But then again that is the type of thinking you get from an outsider candidate. Try one. You might be glad you did.

So there you have it. The 2011 candidate roundup. They’re not much but they’re all we have got. So look at all their websites, read the candidate statements but most of all make sure you get out and vote on March 8 2011. City council elections can mean more to your quality of life than an national election can in many ways.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

The need for transparency in local government grows

2011-02-21T12:48:00.000-08:00

See our related post on our proposed candidates transparency pledge

This story from the LA Times is quite timely given our prior post and sort of begs the question. Its hard to know what is going on in a city until you have the transparency. There is virtually no local media doing any investigative real journalism at the local level as they are all focused on state and national politics as that is where the headlines are. The problem is that most people fail to realize that the biggest quality of life issues can be at the city level and the biggest scandals can be there as well simply because there is no transparency or real journalism. It is much easier for Bell like scandals to take place, simply for that reason alone.

Again no one addresses what the down side to more local government transparency is. There is none that we can see when compared to the downside of not paying attention to what may really be going on beneath the surface. Even if there are not "scandals" going on, there simply may be things going on that voters do not agree with. But they will never know that under the current system.

Bell's corruption scandal has boosted scrutiny of other cities
City hall watchdogs are popping up across California to oust officials, scour public documents and organize rallies. But whether residents have rooted out corruption or just imagined it is up for debate.

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lindsay-bell-20110221,0,4945039.story

By Catherine Saillant, Los Angeles Times
February 21, 2011

Reporting from Lindsay, Calif.
Advertisement

Awakened by the salary scandal in Bell, newly engaged citizens are turning out at community meetings and city halls across California, demanding public documents, asking tough questions and pushing for change.

The common theme is suspicion that something underhanded is going on in city government. But whether residents have rooted out corruption or just imagined it is up for debate.

In Hercules, a city of 25,000 north of Berkeley, Mayor Ed Balico stepped down in January after residents threatened to recall him. Balico was seen as being too close to a city manager who had already been pushed out following allegations that his relatives had received $3 million in affordable housing contracts.

Redlands council members considered dismissing City Manager N. Enrique Martinez in November after residents objected to his $231,229 salary, and residents in Chula Vista pressured the City Council to study the salaries of top officials.

Even in leafy, upscale Thousand Oaks, citizens are demanding big cuts to council members' health benefits.

But in the wake of the civic implosion in Bell, some of the strongest tensions between a city hall and its citizens are playing out in Lindsay, a tiny city smack in the middle of the San Joaquin Valley farm belt.

On a recent day, Lindsay's newest activists — two realtors, a corrections officer and a federal data clerk — sat around a dining room table, stacks of city documents in neat piles in front of them.

Six month ago, Yolanda Flores, Lorena Vasquez, Steve Mecum and his wife, Delma, didn't know a general fund from an enterprise account. Now they toss the terms around like budding lobbyists, eager to explain their suspicions of malfeasance at City Hall.

For years, Lindsay has struggled to overcome white flight, rising poverty, vacant storefronts and a 19% unemployment rate. City officials have spent tens of millions trying to reverse the slide, sprucing up walkways in the business core, building a new aquatic center and a sports and entertainment complex, and launching a Mexican-style outdoor market that reflects the city's predominately Latino population.

But some residents, including those gathered at the Mecums' rambling home, see a dark side to the work. The city manager, they say, was overpaid at $214,405 a year and city leaders showed favoritism in awarding grants and contracts. This fall, they rallied hundreds of residents to demand salary cuts, lower water rates and greater transparency at City Hall.

Things got so heated that City Manager Scot Townsend — the man credited with shepherding the redevelopment efforts — resigned after allegedly receiving death threats. Three other officials also quit, including the town's finance director and a City Council member. Allies said the four were weary of being verbally attacked.

Delma Mecum, a realtor, was questioned by the Tulare County Sheriff's Department about a flier left at Townsend's home that allegedly threatened the city manager and his family. Mecum flatly denied that anyone from her group sent the flier. But the Mecums are unapologetic about Townsend's abrupt departure.

"Things happen when no one is looking," said Steve Mecum, a correctional officer at nearby Corcoran State Prison. "And we walked into a big mess."

Angered and in the mood for change, residents in Lindsay enlisted the help of BASTA, the grass-roots activist group that has championed reform in Bell. Lindsay is one of at least five cities in California that have turned to the group.

Tucked against the Sierra Nevada foothills, Lindsay has one main corridor, Honolulu Street, leading into its downtown. Attractive aging brick buildings grace several blocks of a business core that includes an old movie theater with a high neon marquee and a family-run hardware store. The vibe speaks of a Mayberry past, when the city was thriving with two auto dealerships, an olive-packing plant and dozens of agricultural businesses.

Many downtown buildings are now vacant. The surrounding neighborhoods are filled with modest, single-story homes, the kinds that flew up after World War II. The sidewalks are busy with Latino mothers pushing strollers and surrounded by children. The white farming elite still hold many positions of power, but Latinos, who make up 80% of the city's population, increasingly have joined the City Council, business groups and civic associations.

When BASTA leaders arrived in the Tulare County city in October, armed with T-shirts and loads of advice, more than 800 residents turned out to meet them.

Unlike Bell, however, there is no united front among Lindsay's 11,600 residents.

At meetings, pro-City Hall forces sit across the aisle from critics and letters to the editors in the local newspaper rage back and forth between the two sides. Lorena Vasquez said she is sometimes snubbed by acquaintances at the neighborhood grocery store.

"We've been called thugs, a Mexican cartel and rabble-rousers," she said.

Beatrice Robinson, 32, was raised in Lindsay and remembers a tired, crumbling town with few things for young people to do. Now she sees promise.

"The leaders in the community have done so much," she said. "Mr. Townsend spent 20-plus years trying to bring up the people who unfortunately tore him down."

The uprising started in September when the Visalia Times-Delta published the salaries of Lindsay's top officials. Though modest in contrast to the extreme salaries handed out in Bell, the pay of the city manager angered some Lindsay residents.

Others were upset about high water rates charged by a city-owned utility and city documents that they said revealed low-interest home loans being awarded to City Hall insiders. Vasquez, a data clerk, said she was on a waiting list for seven years before she finally gave up and bought a house on her own.

Mayor Ed Murray said the city's critics are simply misinformed. Water rates are higher because Lindsay is unable to draw from polluted local aquifers, and Townsend's salary was higher than administrators in other like-sized cities because he was experienced in leveraging the state and federal dollars that made Lindsay shine, Murray said.

"When we hired him, we knew we were willing to pay more to get Scot to do those jobs, and he's done them well," he said. "But people didn't want to hear about that."

The mayor confirmed critics' assertion that many of the low-income mortgages were being awarded to city employees. The city gives preference to police, firefighters and teachers to encourage them to live in the city where they work, he said.

Murray believes that much of the dissent is based on misinformation, the long shadow of the scandal in Bell and frustration over the slow pace of economic recovery.

"We are not Bell," he said, noting that council members are paid $100 a month and receive no health insurance. "We're not awarding huge salaries and we're not giving the city manager $100,000 loans. Nothing illegal has been done here in Lindsay."

For his part, Townsend said he was disappointed to leave under a cloud but no longer feels bitter. He declined to talk about the alleged death threat.

"We had a great run. I got paid 10% to 20% more than my counterparts," he said. "And the citizens, it's their community and they have a right to ask how much you get paid."

Townsend now works as a real estate consultant and divides his time between Lindsay, where his oldest son is a senior in high school, and Salt Lake City, where the rest of his family settled.

Last month when the Lindsay City Council appointed a new member, they selected a social program case manager at the local school district over nine other candidates, including Steve Mecum, Vasquez and Flores.

Steve Mecum said he wasn't surprised, calling the social worker the hand-picked favorite of the other council members. Undaunted, he and other activists returned to City Hall the next morning to request documents relating to a local low-income housing developer.

"We're not going back to our couch to watch television," Mecum said. "We're going to see this through."

catherine.saillant@latimes.com

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

The Lakewood transparency in local government pledge

2011-02-17T11:54:00.000-08:00

Update: see related post on need for transparency and our Candidate Review

We are asking all Lakewood City Council candidates, and incumbents, to agree in writing (they can just reply to us and we will post their pledge as weak or strong as it is) to the following transparency pledge and to introduce legislation to insure that a city ordinance or section is added to the Lakewood municipal code to address all these issues below. LAAG will be glad to assist in this process in any way feasible.

Some of these ideas can be implemented immediately. Some will take longer but that is no reason for foot dragging. All are very technologically feasible and are already being done by other local government websites. These proposals are all very low cost and quite frankly will cost less than most of what the city has spent so far on technology issues (had the full budget been posted as it should have we would know that figure!!)

Why Lakewood voters/residents need this pledge

"Transparency" is the linchpin to ensuring that the city government does what its supposed to do. Quite frankly it is one of the most important factors to ensure a democracy remains a democracy.

What do China, Iran, Egypt, N. Korea and host of other repressive regimes all have in common? No free press but most of all a total lock down on any information being leaked out other than what the government wants to have leaked out. The best way to insure you win re-election is make sure the voters never find out anything bad might be going on at city hall. The best way to do that is keep all information off line and away from snooping voters. Then when you run for re-election just say you support things like law enforcement, parks, baseball and puppies. Then get 2500 of your friends to vote for you no matter what and you are in. The rest of the voters have no idea what is going on as there is basically no media or investigative journalism going on (unlike in most larger cities) so the vast majority of voters have no real reason to vote...nothing bad is going on right? This is the formula Bell city officials used. Seem familiar to you? If Lakewood voters (all 41,000 of them) really felt strongly in favor of a candidate don't you think they would get more than 6% of the vote (3% of the population)? 2500 votes is not a mandate or an endorsement. Its a glee club.

Elements of this proposal were presented to (now) Candidate Joy Janes in December 2009 as proposed state legislation to be introduced thru Assemblyman Warren T. Furutani (D-Lakewood) but nothing ever came of it (no surprise there) Interestingly Janes re-requested it on 10/26/2010 (likely to use in creating her campaign website!). So it is not really a big surprise that she lifted some of our ideas to add to her current "platform" (of course with no thanks or attribution to LAAG).

Candidate Jeff Wood stated in one of his his campaign fliers he "support[ed] transparency in local government" but again no details what so ever on his website or anything else we could find on him. Disheartening. But this is typical with candidates. Say as little as possible. Just enough to get elected. Talking points are best. Don't use detailed substantive platforms, just mention your endorsements and that you belong to the YMCA. Who cares! We will discuss the candidates in detail in an upcoming post.

Both Wood and Janes are also long time sitting city commissioners so one has to wonder if they are so "pro" transparency why have they not enacted any of these proposals on their own commissions over the last 5 years. Again talk is cheap and politicians will say anything to get elected. That's why.

On Jan 7, 2011 LAAG sent all the candidates a link to some recent Long Beach proposed ordinances regarding transparency (here and here) so really all the candidates and the sitting council members have had more than ample opportunity to adopt these ideas as a platform but did not. LAAG also has posted numerous articles dealing with transparency over the years. The real question for voters is why have the city council and the two sitting city commissioners Janes and Wood not done more so far? What are they afraid of?What is the excuse they are going to hide behind?

We proposed our state legislation in December 2009. The City of Bell scandal broke in July 2010. Amazing. Again transparency is the key to keeping local government honest and under control. Anyone that fights against transparency is highly suspect as a politician in today's web enabled environment. Again its the appearance of impropriety that is the issue here not actual impropriety. Secretiveness breeds distrust. Oh and don't fall for the line that "all this stuff is out there" as its not. People don't have time to dig thru musty archives are do Public Records Act requests which as costly and time consuming for both the requester AND the city. People are busy with their lives. Government should make it easy for citizens to check up on what their elected leaders are doing. That should be part of what our tax money does. Posting it on the Internet accomplishes that at a very low cost.

This is a work in progress and will will amend this as time goes on as we refine it based on what other comparable cities are doing.Obviously there is lots of detail missing here which we will also try to flesh out as time goes by.

General conditions applicable to all postings:

* All material (material includes documents, photos, video or any other information in any form) must be posted as soon as it is made available to the city or city council. Static documents (like organizational charts) or information must be updated at least quarterly.

* All material must be posted on the web for a minimum of 2 years from date of posting regardless of the date of expiration of the information or notice. City emails should be archived for 5 years.

* All postings must visibly indicate to the viewer the day, month and year of the original date the document or material was first posted to the web;

* All materials posted must be text searchable (this includes pdf documents which can be rendered text searchable before posting)

* All postings to the web must be fully available to the "spiders" and "crawlers" of all major search engines such as google at the time they are posted and at all subsequent times. The material must also allow web search engines to "cache" posted material.

* Any material posted can of course be redacted to exclude private information already excludable from current Public Records Act request responses, such as home addresses, home phone numbers, social security numbers, drivers licences, etc.

* Postings of documents or other material must not require special software that must be purchased to view it. When possible documents should be posted in HTML or in open source formats. Documents or material must be downloadable and able to be saved on a viewers computer.

* If possible documents should have a unique URL or web address for the documents entire existence on the web.

* Any third party hosting site may be used to post documents but it should be a reliable host such as google.com and the city must use the most cost effective posting site and protocol.

* There must not be a user fee or registration requirement for viewing or saving any documents or material.

* Any Sheriff's department (LASD) material or that from any other contractor in city possession is subject to the same rules as the city with respect to posting and Public Records Act requests.

* The city can link to external government websites where such data is already posted so as to avoid duplication.

Material/information to be posted following above guidelines:

* Organizational chart for the entire city by department, listing the functions, duties and areas of responsibility of each department, in addition to all commissions and the city council. Also list the top three persons in each department with a photo, as well as that persons direct extension or phone line as well as their cell phone number, if city funded. This must be updated quarterly. All other employees or contractors working in the department listed by name and title and direct email address (not a general one).

* City email addresses (name@lakewoodcity.org) for all commissioners, elected officials, city attorneys, code enforcement people or any contractors working more than 20 hours per week for the city.

* video of all council and other city public meetings and include all public comments full length (not cut off like now after 30 or 60 mins and public comments intentionally cut off) at all city meetings (timely released on Chanel 31 via Time Warner and Verizon FiOS) and posted on line in an on demand streaming format so that it can be viewed at any time. Link the FULL agenda package and meetings minutes (when completed) with it. example from long beach In addition there should be an online public comment ability so that people can comment in writing via the internet on all agenda items and these comments should be viewable by all and archived.

* all written comments to city council or commissions by any person or entity.

* all so called "press releases" or information provided to local newspapers such as the Press Telegram will be posted to the city website the same day it is sent to any newspapers or publications.

* all information or "notices" required to be (or which generally are) posted in the city clerks office (or publicly posted) or posted in a newspaper of general circulation in the city (even though the City claims Lakewood has no newspaper of general circulation; see Govt. code sections 6000-6159) must be posted on the website at the same time with dates posted and expiration dates and shall remain posted on the site for two years.

* post all rules relating to Public records act requests, costs for copies, time frames and who to write to for such requests (example) Allow non profit groups (or individuals that could prove they were working as a “private attorney general” or for the “common good” sort of speak) to obtain records without cost if provided electronically and less than 10 hrs of government employee time is required to obtain them. Create a maximum number of free requests per year. Create a realistic pricing structure for the cost of providing digital info via email as opposed to paper. See prior bills (2006) SB 1832 and AB 2927 and (2007) AB 1393. Post all requests and responses to public record act requests.

* post links to all salary info posted here (this state site was put up due to calls from LAAG and many others after the Bell scandal broke). Post all other city salary/pay/reimbursements/per diem information not requested by the state controllers office on a quarterly basis.

* Post all sitting council members FPCC filed materials regardless of date or link to them on the FPCC site.

* Post all staff reports and presentations to the council, including photos, power points and video.

* Full agenda packets with the full agenda. example from long beach

* full meeting minutes with all attached followup information referenced or attached and linked to the meeting video. example from long beach

* Detailed City budget in excell or html form. Not only forecast but actual expenditures and check register logs. Update this quarterly. Also log all incoming revenue and source as well as cash surplus.

* The city's checkbook register should be posted online. This information provided should include: The amount of each payment; Date; Check number; To whom the payment was made (including the address); Scan of Invoice or Purchase Order or Check Request (this often provides significant drilldown detail including who approved it); What it was for; Budgetary authority for the expenditure; Functional expenditure category; Sources of funds; Links to the relevant contracts under which the payment was made.

* all FULL survey results paid for or commissioned by the city including information on the approximate geographical location (by street intersection or rounded street address of those polled) and number of resident polled.

* public calendar of all private meetings and public meetings under the Brown Act along with dates times and locations as well as contact persons for the meeting and anticipated attendees or speakers. Similar to what is being done now but in greater detail.

* list all business licences that are current and have expired in the past three years searchable by business name and address within the city

* list all vacant commercial property updated quarterly searchable by address or former tenant (Ironically we saw a city employee walking the streets just today looking at vacant commercial property. When we asked him what he was going he said making a list of all vacant commercial property sites so the city can create a master list...hmmm..so the taxpayers are paying for the collection of the data they just don't get to see it....wonder why...is it foreboding? Does it show how ineffective the city's redevelopment efforts have been vs what we have paid for them?)

* list all redevelopment funds as spent or scheduled to be spent that budget year by address

* City contracts should be made available to the public once they are completed and become final. Placing completed contracts on line - with all private, personal information redacted - would support and demonstrate openness and transparency in government. The Sheriff's Department (LASD) should be included in this requirement.

* adopt as many of the ideas in the two Long Beach proposed ordinances (here and here) as possible to the extent any items were not mentioned in this LAAG proposal or to the extent the Long Beach proposals detail more information.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Comments:

One anonymous poster (likely a plant or one of the candidates...thus the anonymity) was perplexed why we were "blaming" lack of transparency on the sitting commissioners and not the sitting city counsel. We weren't. We are not letting anyone off the hook either, especially those who claim to be campaigning on transparency and also currently sit on city commissions. All we are saying is that there is no "transparency policy" at this time, so there is nothing stopping commissioners from being transparent other than state law. We welcome any information from the commissioners themselves as to how they tried to do things like post full commission agenda packets (not just abbreviated ones), why they did not obtain and or post all their email addresses and info on line etc. The campaigning commissioners apparently have the time to run campaign websites but not enough time to post their own blogs like this ever since they have been on a commission and or post public items or documents from their OWN commissions on their own sites. Nothing illegal about this. I have not seen a case made by the commissioners noted above for holding them blameless for their own lack of transparency on their own commissions or why we should blame the city council for the commissioners own lack of diligence. LAAG is not saying that the commissioners should set policy for the whole city, the city council or the city website. But again we see no indication that transparency talk amongst the commissioners running is anything but campaign fodder.

Why public official city email addresses are important

2011-02-16T10:35:00.000-08:00

The news articles below regarding the continuing saga of the rampant corruption in the City of Bell is a reminder about what LAAG has been saying for some time: City council members using private email to conduct matters related to the city is ripe for abuse. The emails below were likely from public or city official email address used by Rizzo and others at the city. Had these emails not been on the city email server which was readily available to prosecutors (but rather on some private laptop or on a private email server that would require additional legal hurdles to get to) those emails would likely have never been located, even in a criminal investigation. City officials could also have argued that their "unofficial" city email was mixed with their "private" email and as such the entire private email account was off limits in any public records request for a city council person to produce all incoming and outgoing massages from such "private account". This is a huge problem in Lakewood as none of the current city council members have an official city email address (i.e. name@lakewoodcity.org) and in fact two of the current committee members running for city council are also guilty of the same problem most likely (Jeff Wood and Joy Janes). So if Janes and Wood, who have been commissioners in the city for years, dont have city email accounts after serving in the city for years, what are the chances they will do so if elected? You get the point. The other problem of course is unlike most cities, even the people in the city that DO have official city email addresses, they are not posted on the city website for all to see! (surely out of a fear that some angry citizen will contact them in writing and they wont be able to delete the email off the city server it as easily as they can voice mail).

Again the Bell debacle is what results from a lack of transparency. It creates an environment ripe and tempting for abuse and it leads to misinformed voters who really have no sense of what is REALLY going on in the city behind closed doors. It is not that impropriety is always occurring but rather it creates an air of suspicion and an "appearance of impropriety" and this is a huge problem in and of itself. The fact that no current city council member or candidate has put forth a comprehensive transparency pledge or plan, other than just vaguely talking about it in a "talking point" or using the phrase as "window dressing" for the useless campaign fliers littering the mail now, is telling. Buyer beware. Talk is cheap and campaign promises are made to be broken. The only two rules in politics are (according to lobbyists we have talked to): 1. get elected; 2. get re-elected.

Revealing e-mails unveiled in Bell scandal
Monday, February 14, 2011
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7958735&rss=rss-kabc-article-7958735

LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- Explosive evidence was unveiled in court on Monday in the city of Bell's salary scandal. Prosecutors filed documents quoting e-mails between former city officials that they say reveal their actions to hide their exorbitant salaries.

E-mails and other documents from former Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia's computer will show that beginning in 2005 she and former City Manager Robert Rizzo created phony contracts never approved by the City Council that raised their salaries to "outrageous" levels and made it difficult to determine exactly how much they were being paid, according to the 19-page memorandum from District Attorney Steve Cooley.

The e-mails were sent in 2009 by then assistant city manager Angela Spaccia as city officials were preparing to hire Randy Adams as Bell police chief.

Spaccia: "We have crafted our Agreements carefully so we do not draw attention to our pay. The word Pay Period is used and not defined in order to protect you from someone taking the time to add up your salary."

Adams: "I am looking forward to seeing you and taking all of Bell's money?! Okay ... just a share of it!!"

Spaccia: "LOL ... well you can take your share of the pie ... just like us!!! We will all get fat together ... Bob has an expression he likes to use on occasion ... Pigs get Fat ... Hogs get slaughtered!!!! So as long as we're not Hogs ... All is well!"

Rizzo had an annual salary and benefits package of $1.5 million a year when he was fired last year. Spaccia, who was also fired, was making $376,288 a year. Each of the six current and former council members facing charges was making about $100,000 a year.

Adams, who was paid $457,000 a year, was also fired but has not been charged with a crime. Prosecutors say simply accepting a huge salary is not illegal.

A hearing may begin this week to determine if there's enough evidence to try Spaccia and former city manager Robert Rizzo on felony charges of misappropriating public funds.

E-mails show Bell officials sought to conceal their high pay

Originally printed at http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/local/E-mails-show-Bell-officials-sought-to-conceal-their-high-pay-116193539.html
By WIRE SERVICES
February 14, 2011

Prosecutors filed court papers Monday citing e-mails in which Bell’s former assistant city manager wrote that “we have crafted our agreements carefully so we do not draw attention to our pay” and another saying “we will all get fat together.”

In the court filing, Deputy District Attorneys Sean Hassett and Juliet Schmidt argued there is “substantial evidence” that former City Manager Robert Rizzo and former Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia “intentionally concealed their actions that were designed to grant themselves exorbitant pay.”

The filing documents e-mails sent in 2009 by Spaccia to Randy Adams as the city was preparing to hire him as its police chief.

“The word pay period is used and not defined in order to protect you from someone taking the time to add up your salary,” Spaccia wrote in one e-mail cited in the prosecution’s filing.

The prosecutors said Adams wrote in a separate e-mail, “I am looking forward to seeing you and taking all of Bell’s money?! Okay ... just a share of it,” and that Spaccia responded, “LOL ... well you can take your share of the pie ... just like us. We will all get fat together.”

“Bob has an expression he likes to use on occasion ... pigs get fat ... hogs get slaughtered!!! So as long as we’re not hogs ... all is well,” the document quotes Spaccia as e-mailing.

Rizzo, 57, and Spaccia, 52, are awaiting a hearing — which could begin this week — to determine if there is enough evidence to require them to stand trial on felony charges alleging they misappropriated public funds.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Henry G. Hall is expected to first determine if six current and former Bell City Council members should proceed to trial on similar charges.

Last week, the only current City Council member not criminally charged as a result of the public corruption probe testified that Rizzo virtually ruled the small blue-collar city in southeast Los Angeles County.

“Everything had to go through” Rizzo, Lorenzo Velez testified last Tuesday during the preliminary hearing for Mayor Oscar Hernandez, 63; Vice Mayor Teresa Jacobo, 53; Councilman George Mirabal, 61, and former councilmen Luis Artiga, who turns 50 on Tuesday; George Cole, 61; and Victor Bello, 52.

After finishing the preliminary hearing for the six defendants, Hall is expected to hear evidence against Rizzo and Spaccia, as well as additional charges against Hernandez and Artiga.

Rizzo is also charged with conflict of interest and misappropriation of records in a separate case that is expected to be heard last and to take about a day.

The eight were arrested Sept. 21 on allegations that they bilked taxpayers out of roughly $5.5 million through hefty salaries, benefits and illicit loans of public money.

Rizzo and other top city officials stepped down last July after the salary scandal broke.

The City Council members, who were earning almost $100,000 a year, significantly slashed their pay, but most balked at calls for their resignations. Artiga announced last October that he was leaving his post, saying “it’s in the best interest for the city of Bell that I resign.”

Lawyers for the six current and former Bell City Council members said their clients rejected plea deals that would have brought them two-year prison terms in exchange for admitting guilt and paying back all the money they allegedly looted from the city treasury.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Full length video of the Lakewood city council candidate forum Jan 19, 2011

2011-01-31T23:09:00.000-08:00

Update 4-13-11: We note that the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce has since removed the video link to all the candidates pontificating and promising what they would do on 1/19/11. So now if Jeff Wood or Larry Van Nostran fail to come thru on what they said at the debate you will never know it. See how that works? History vanishes in the blink of an eye! Apparently the video was removed as the internet ran out of space..lol..

1/31/11 orig. post:
We have obtained a link to the video taken of the candidate forum on January 19, 2011. We posted an earlier story here. The link to the two video segments is here. There is a Part 1 (59 minutes long) and a Part 2 (32 minutes long). The quality is good but unfortunately it is Apple Quicktime so you can follow this link to download the Apple Quicktime plug in for your web browser which you will need to view it unless you already use a Mac. We used Firefox 3.6 for windows and it worked fine. Problem is we don't know how long this link will stay up, we have no idea how much bandwidth there is at this site nor what the quality is like for people on slow internet connections. You can pick "tiny, small, medium, or large" file sizes so this likely affects download time. Once we find another place this will be aired (if you cannot watch here) then we will let you know. Again we won't repeat our comments from our last posting on the forum. You be the judge after watching the video and then let us know what you think and which questions you feel remain to be answered (or answered better, or even asked). We are still awaiting the candidates response to the LAAG questionnaire we sent out on January 7, 2011. We feel that will be much more informative than the candidate forum if the candidates give it some thought and give truthful non evasive answers. But again this is politics so lets not expect too much from campaign promises.

Subsequent to the above posting were were also provided the following schedule:

Public Access TV - Time Warner Cable Channel 36 on the following dates and times (LAAG was not given the schedule for Verizon FIOS TV users)

Thurs 2/17 7 - 9:30 pm
Tues 2/22 7 - 9:30 pm
Sun 2/27 2 - 3:30 pm
Thurs 3/3 7 - 9:30 pm
Sun 3/6 2 - 3:30 pm

Cerritos College Radio - 1700 on the AM Radio dial.
or
www.cerritos.edu/wpmd

Go to the website and click on the time to listen online

The Forum will be aired on the radio at the following times:
Every Thursday from 8 - 10 pm
Every Sunday from 2 - 4 pm
until the elections

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Brief report on the Lakewood city council candidate forum Jan 19, 2011

2011-01-20T11:49:00.000-08:00

Update: Please see our Transparency Pledge for Candidates and our Candidate Review

Supposedly there were more than 100 people in attendance last night (not including organizers, staff and other gadflies). I don't know. Barely over 100 maybe. Lots of questions not asked. The questions were being cherry picked for a "mix of softball and hardball" questions and there was a preference for questions that were not multi faceted or hard hitting. The last question was "Who inspires you" I guess they could have also asked what the candidates favorite color was! There were at least 5 people that I heard complaining that their questions were not asked (they all seemed like good pointed questions albeit likely difficult to answer...but that's what we all came for right?)

A number of candidates talked abut experience (as is talked about in national elections) but as it has been said time and time before experience does not often matter as much in these small part time offices. What generally maters more is general "organizational competence" and intelligence, thinking outside the box, being independent and a self starter and not being a sheep and following what the other council members do just because "thats the way it has always been done" Our feeling is that existing council members prefer that candidates serve a long time on the city's commissions (before they run for office) so they can get to know them and see if they will be a "team player" once on the council.

All the candidates were pro-LASD, green initiatives, attracting more business etc. Again this stuff is all easy. Who is against trees? Thanks to LAAG forcing the issue most seemed to be in favor of transparency but talk is cheap on that subject. We see no evidence in the track records of some candidates that they are true promoters of /believers in transparency. LAAG plans on getting all the candidates to sign or agree to a "transparency pledge" before the election. (this includes Mr. Von Nostran) More on that later. I think the city of Bell debacle taught us that lack of transparency and voter complacency/ignorance is a deadly mix. I think we all know from national elections that even IF you get a pledge in writing the candidates still flip flop and weasel out of their commitments. But its better than vague and aloof statements made at a meeting.

The entire program was taped by the Chamber of Commerce staff and we have an email in to them (and all the candidates) asking that the entire video be placed on the web for all to see at their leisure. City representatives stated that they did not want it posted on the city website as it was a political matter. We are waiting for the Chamber's response. Surely they cant be in need of funds.

Once we get back all the candidates questionnaires we will post them online. We hope to have them soon. We then plan on posting a transparency pledge and once the candidates have had time to support that or not we will then make our recommendations for who should fill the two council seats March 8, 2011.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

City Council Candidate forum set for Jan 19, 2011 in Lakewood, CA

2011-01-12T13:38:00.000-08:00

There is a Candidates Forum sponsored or hosted by the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce where you can meet and ask (hopefully meaningful and pertinent) questions of all four "new" Candidates running for Lakewood City Council in the March 8, 2011 election. (Candidate marc Titel is a former councilman and Larry Van Nostran is running for reelection) Before the event we hope to have more info on the candidates responses to LAAG's campaign questionnaire sent out to the candidates last week.

The details posted on the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce site are:
Wednesday January 19, 2011 (date on Chamber site is 2010!)
6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
Sycamore Centre Ballroom 5000 Clark Ave.
Free Admission

Why this was not posted anywhere on the Lakewood City website (including its calendar of all events in the city) is a mystery but we don't think it was merely an oversight given how we know things work over there.

LAAG has also obtained further details about the event (which were/are not posted of course anywhere but on this site so far)

1. Lakewood Chamber of Commerce (LCOC) is taking only written questions from the audience the night of the event. LCOC are providing pens and 6 x 4 blank cards for people to submit their questions that evening.(The LCOC did not indicate a maximum number of questions but we presume it will be limited only by the two hour duration of the event; we hope its not filled up with fluffy speeches)
2. LCOC is taping the entire 2 hr event for submission to public access TV. Broadcast times and lengths are determined by public access TV. (which LAAG understands is controlled by the city)
3. No banners, T-shirts, or campaigning at the event except by the candidates, which will be allowed to have campaign materials on a table provided for anyone to take.
4. Rules of the forum will be explained at the beginning of the event to all present.
5. Format is a rotating question and answer format with each candidate answering the question.

LAAG wishes to add that if you cannot be present you can submit your (hopefully meaningful and pertinent) question(s) to us with your full name, phone and or email address on it so we can submit it for you at the forum (if allowed to do so by the LCOC).

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Calling all Long Beach Cyclists ...The Bridge to Nowhere Update

2011-01-10T14:59:00.000-08:00

LAAG editor note:

This issue is not currently an agenda item. The Coastal commission is aware of this project and the commission staff thought having cyclists present on 1/14/11 would be helpful, especially given the meeting taking place less than a mile from the bridge. The port will be requesting their coastal permit within a month or two. Having this fresh on their minds is important.

Press Release:
Calling all Long Beach Cyclists
The Bridge to Nowhere Update

This Friday, January 14th at 09:00 the California Coastal Commission monthly meeting will be held in Long Beach City Hall Council Chambers. Will the cycling community have access to this new bridge? Will the Port of Long Beach get away with disregarding the needs of cyclists and pedestrians?

A coalition of cycling and walking advocates has lobbied the Port for pedestrian facilities for a Class 1 Bicycle facility and pedestrian walkway on this very important project that will last a hundred years and connect Long Beach to Terminal Island and eventually, San Pedro, in a safe and direct way and allow for workers to get to high paying port jobs in healthy and sustainable ways.

The Coastal Commission can require the Port to include bicycle and pedestrian access in this project. In very short order, the Port will have to apply to the Coastal Commission for the final public approval. While the Commission is supportive of inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian access, they need to see and hear from bicyclists and pedestrians who will use this bridge and who support the project. The Sierra Club and more than a dozen other organizations have endorsed the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian access. BUT WE NEED YOU to attend this hearing and show your support for this bridge to be a bridge to everywhere for everybody.

We need to show the commission that our community is large, diverse and wants equal accommodation in the bridge design construction. It is our right under Federal and California Law, and it is our tax payer dollars funding the construction - nearly a BILLION dollars! Don’t let this opportunity slip away like water under the bridge. Come to City Council Cambers at 9 am on this Friday, January 14th. The public comment is first and you only need to attend until approximately 9:30.

If you really can’t be there in person please return a letter of support to markbixby26@gmail.com

For more bike rider point of view visit this link. The Long Beach Port's bridge project info is here and the DOT point of view is here.

Thank you,

Chris Quint
lci_chris@yahoo.ca
LB Cyclists Co-Founder
League Certified Instructor, LAB

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email

Open Government Proposals..Finally

2011-01-04T22:03:00.000-08:00

Its sad but apparently Long Beach has once again beaten Lakewood to the starting line. This time on "open government" or "transparency" proposals. We proposed state legislation on this two years ago as it affects local government but quite frankly Sacramento has too much on its plate now and is looking to offload more of its burden on to local government but that's another column. We felt the best way to get Lakewood to do something on transparency was to mandate it from the state level. But now perhaps they will be shamed into doing something not to be one upped by Long Beach (something they hate). LAAG knew the city council would never act on their own as transparency is not in the city councils interest. Its better to just put "fluff" on the website so Lakewood residents don't go sniffing around too much.

For some time we have linked (see our "web page links" on the right side of this page) to various open government websites like http://www.sunshineweek.org, http://public.resource.org, the Urban Governance Toolkit and the Sunshine review local government transparency checklist on our site and have requested that the city implement open government type initiatives through our postings on this site and emails. None of these initiatives cost anything but staff time, and from what we have seen the city staff in Lakewood has plenty of idle time on their hands and is quite frankly overpaid for it. Thanks to the city of Bell debacle, the California state auditors office posted its site regarding local government salaries, but not before LAAG had to request the info from the city via a public records request. More and more cities realize that transparency is badly needed at the local level.

Lakewood however does not and does not feel there is a problem. They feel if you need to know something you can ask but quite frankly your questions will be responded to with a polite "Thank you we will look into it" and then the door will be closed in your face and your request will be "lost" especially if you seek something that could put the city or its leaders in a bad light. If you are lucky enough to have the emails of city council members (also well hidden from view) you can ask them about certain issues, but most pawn you off to a "staff person" and the question is never really adequately responded to. The main reason is that if you don't have the time and expertise to to a California Public Records act request and the time to pour over the records, you likely will get no where. But most importantly if it is responded to at all, it is hidden from public view so that other Lakewood voters that have the same question and don't know where or how to get the answer are left in the dark.

Our city leaders of course feel there is no problem as they live "inside the bubble" not outside of it. Most are long time government insiders and know how to shield information from voters in a completely legal fashion. Its not hard. They have the city attorney to help them (who costs us hundreds of thousands per year). We have explained time and time again that its not so much that anything illegal or untoward is going on at city hall but secrecy and opaqueness breeds distrust. Its the "appearance of impropriety", or the potential for it the secrecy breeds, not actual impropriety, that's the problem. But like with Bell no one was the wiser until one of the thieves spilled the beans on the others. (we all know there is no honor among thieves). There really is no downside to openness and transparency at the local level.

For a further look at the Long Beach initiatives click here and here. They are a good "start" (if Long Beach does not "kick the can down the road" and delay their passing, implementation and funding) Both should be combined and could use a lot more fleshing out, detail and refinements. We would be glad to lend our expertise to the City of Lakewood in the endeavor should anyone care to listen over there in the bubble.

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™ click here to receive LAAG posts by email