Judge Orders Ballot Measure Title To Be Changed

Judge Orders Ballot Measure Title To Be Changed
(CBS) LOS ANGELES A judge who agreed the title of a ballot measure that would allow City Council members to serve three terms instead of two was misleading, Thursday ordered that the measure be changed.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Robert H. O'Brien directed the city clerk to change Proposition R's title from "Councilmember Limits of Three Terms" to "Lengthening Councilmember Term Limits to Three Terms."

The League of Women Voters is a leading sponsor of Proposition R, which also includes new lobbyist restrictions. The measure on the Nov. 7 ballot is also endorsed by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce.

Dan Pasley, a Los Angeles voter, sued the city Aug. 22, claiming the title of the proposition and some of the written arguments in favor of it were false or misleading.

In addition to ordering the title changed, O'Brien ruled that the words "no travel junkets" and "appointed commissioners, board members and high-level employees" should be deleted from the ballot argument in favor of Proposition R.

Both phrases pertained to the part of Proposition R that would change regulations concerning lobbying. O'Brien said the word "junket" is slang and has no legal meaning.
.
"We're very happy the judge acted to clarify the matters," Pasley said outside the courtroom.

In a separate lawsuit filed by Liza White, president of the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles, the judge also ordered that wording in the anti-Proposition R ballot argument be changed from "written by lobbyists, for lobbyists" to "written by lobbyists."

However, a third lawsuit, filed by West Los Angeles resident Neal A. Donner, is asking that Proposition R be removed from the ballot entirely for improperly addressing two unrelated issues -- term limits and lobbying restrictions.

O'Brien will rule on that lawsuit Wednesday.

Term-limits suit may cost L.A. big bucks
Outside attorneys possible
BY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

After failing to heed warnings that a City Council term limits/ethics reform measure could face legal challenges, the city is faced with spending thousands of dollars to hire lawyers to defend the plan.
West Los Angeles resident Neil Donner filed a lawsuit Monday in Los Angeles Superior Court, seeking to remove the measure - which would give council members a third four-year term - from the Nov. 7 ballot.

The suit says the measure violates the California Constitution because it combines two issues - a term-limit extension and ethics reform - in a single ballot measure.

City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo had warned the council that the measure would leave the city vulnerable to legal challenges, and the suit would have put him in the position of defending the city against the very sort of action he had warned of.

But City Attorney's Office spokesman Nick Velasquez said Delgadillo is considering hiring outside counsel to defend the measure because specialized help is needed.

"The city attorney shared his office's thoughts on this matter. At this juncture, following the council's and mayor's approval of the measure, the city attorney is now charged with defending the city in court and that's what he intends to do," Velasquez said.

Officials could not estimate the cost of defending the measure. Proposition R opponents said they don't want to see taxpayer money used - especially because the public had little input before it was put on the ballot.

"We are extremely concerned that the City Council rejected the legal advice of the city attorney - who was hired by the people to represent our interests - and now the city must spend thousands and thousands of dollars of taxpayer money to defend this ill-conceived, dishonest measure," said Jason Lyon of the Silver Lake Neighborhood Council and the Not Prop R campaign.

The City Council, which fast-tracked the term-limits measure, would have to approve the hiring of an outside law firm to handle the case.

The court will consider a request to remove Proposition R from the ballot on Sept. 6 - two days before the city's deadline for printing the voter-information guides.

Proposition R would allow City Council members to run for a third term and would change a number of the city's lobbying and campaign finance disclosure requirements. The measure was proposed by the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and League of Women Voters, and quickly approved to go on the ballot by the City Council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa.

Critics have complained that the measure was rushed through with no input from residents, neighborhood councils or the Ethics Commission.

Supporters have said they hurried to put Proposition R on the November general election ballot, which is expected to have a large turnout, so more people could weigh in on the issue of ethics reform and term-limit extensions.

Supporters and opponents of Proposition R are already facing off in court over the language in each side's ballot arguments. The lawsuit filed by Donner seeks to remove Proposition R from the ballot altogether.

Donner volunteered to put his name on the lawsuit, which was filed by the firm of Bell, McAndrews & Hiltachk, at the request of Paul Jacob, president of the group U.S. Term Limits.

"This ballot measure is a cruel trick on the voters. They take some minor ethical reforms, some of which are questionable reforms to begin with, and glom onto a term-limit extension," Jacob said.

"This is a classic illustration of why single-subject requirements make sense. They want to put a few things voters like with another thing that voters don't like."

The lawsuit references Delgadillo's concerns expressed in a July 28 report that was sent to the City Council before it voted to put Proposition R on the ballot.

"Combining charter amendments and ordinance provisions in the same ballot question has not been the city's prior practice and could be subject to legal challenge."

kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com

(213) 978-0390

language is designed to deceive

Word games
Council's Measure R language is designed to deceive

LA Daily News

MEMBERS of the Los Angeles City Council used every sleazy political trick in the book to put their dream of weakened term limits on the November ballot. So we shouldn't be surprised - just disgusted - that in formulating the ballot language, they were every bit as dishonest.

Unless a court intervenes first, when L.A. voters go to the polls they will see Measure R, titled, "Councilmember term limits of three terms; city lobbying, campaign finance and ethics laws. Charter amendment and ordinance proposition."

Note the first deception: "Council term limits of three terms."

Almost sounds like a pro-term-limits measure, doesn't it? Vote yes to impose term limits on the City Council!

Except that council members are already limited to two terms. The effect of Measure R would be to give incumbents a third term, thereby letting them hang around even longer. But city pols are hoping that uninformed voters - who sometimes don't read past a proposition's title before deciding how to vote - won't figure that out.

Then there's the wording of the question itself, which begins, "Shall the Charter be amended and ordinance adopted to: change Councilmember term limits to three terms"?

"Change" is a conveniently ambiguous word. It neglects to inform the uninitiated that the limits are being "changed" to make them weaker.

"Lengthening" was the more accurate term that City Attorney Rocky Delgadillo's staff chose when it wrote up the measure's original language. But the council voted to alter the wording in favor of the new, deceptive language that doesn't actually tell voters what the measure would do.

Nice, huh?

About what we'd expect from a council that packaged the plan with a bunch of faux ethics reforms drawn up by lobbyists, all in the hopes of confusing the public into thinking the measure has something to do with cleaning up government - which it doesn't.

On Thursday, a Superior Court judge will decide on a motion filed by opponents who argue that the more honest language should be restored. Let's hope the judge does the right thing and smacks the council down for its lack of integrity.

Then let's hope that voters do the same in November.
****************************************************
No More Years! Send the class of 2001 home to get a real job.

David Hernandez

three terms of office as member of the City Council

“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act” 1
The proposed amendments to the City Charter and
Municipal Code read as follows:

“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and
Ethics Reform Act”

[New language added to the Charter or the
Municipal Code is shown in boldface type; deleted
language is shown in strikeout type.]

Section 1. Subsection (c) of Section 470 of the
Charter of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended by adding a new subdivision (11) thereto
to read as follows: “No City official or candidate
for elected City office, or committee acting on
behalf of the candidate, shall solicit or accept
any contribution to his or her campaign for City
office, or to one of his or her controlled
committees, from any person required to be
registered by ordinance as a lobbyist or
lobbying firm registered to lobby the City office
for which the candidate is seeking election, or
the City office, department, bureau or agency of
the official. No person required to be registered
by ordinance as a lobbyist or lobbying firm shall
make any contribution to any City official or
candidate for his or her campaign for City office,
or to one of his or her controlled committees, if
the lobbyist or lobbying firm is required to be
registered by ordinance to lobby the City office
for which the candidate is seeking election, or
the City office, department, bureau or agency of
the official.”

Section 2. Subsection (d) of Section 501 of the
Charter of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Qualifications. (1) No person shall be appointed to
a Charter created commission who is not a
registered voter of the City. This requirement shall
also apply to standing commissions created by
ordinance that are advisory to a department or
office.

This requirement does not apply to
commissioners who are elected or who serve ex
officio. (2) No person who is required by
ordinance to be registered as a lobbyist shall be
appointed to a commission whose members are
required to file financial disclosure statements
pursuant to the California Political Reform Act.”
Section 3. Section 206 of the Charter of the City of
Los Angeles is hereby amended to read as follows:
“No person may serve more than two terms of office
as Mayor. No person may serve more than two
terms of office as City Attorney. No person may
serve more than two terms of office as
Controller. No person may serve more than two
three terms of office as member of the City
Council. These limitations on the number of
terms of office shall apply only to terms of office
which begin on or after July 1, 1993. These
limitations on the number of terms of office shall not
apply to any unexpired term to which a person is
elected or appointed if the remainder of the term is
less than one-half of the full term of office.”

Section 4. Subsection (l) of Section 470 of the
Charter of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended to read as follows:
(l) Campaign Expenditures – Uncontrolled by
Candidate or Committee. Persons or organizations
not subject to the control of a candidate or
committee but who make independent expenditures
for or against a candidate or committee shall
indicate clearly on any material published, displayed
or broadcast that it was not authorized by a
candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate
comply with the applicable disclaimer
requirements established by ordinance.

Section 5. Subdivision (4) of subsection (A) to
Section 49.5.10 of the Municipal Code of the City of
Los Angeles is hereby amended to read as follows:
“No lobbyist or lobbying firm shall make, and no City
official shall accept, any gift from a lobbyist or
lobbying firm which is a restricted source as to that
official.

The prohibition of this subdivision shall not
apply to gifts of office or other hospitality, or other
gifts of nominal value, so long as the cumulative
value of such gifts from a single source does not
exceed $25 during any calendar year.

Section 6. Paragraph 19 of Section 48.02 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Lobbying firm’ means any entity, including an
individual lobbyist, which receives or becomes
entitled to receive $4,000 $1,000 or more in
monetary or in-kind compensation for engaging in
lobbying activities (either personally or through its
agents) during a calendar quarter any consecutive
three month period, for the purpose of attempting
to influence municipal legislation on behalf of any
other person, provided any partner, owner,
shareholder, officer or employee of the entity
“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act” 2
qualifies as a lobbyist. Compensation does not
include reimbursement of or payment for reasonable
travel expenses. An entity receives compensation
within the meaning of this definition whether or not
the compensation is received solely for activities
regulated by this article or is received for other
activities as well; however, only that portion of
compensation received for the lobbying activities
shall count toward the qualification threshold. An
entity ‘becomes entitled to receive compensation’
when the entity agrees to provide services regulated
by this article, or performs those services, whether
or not payment is contingent on the accomplishment
of the client’s purposes.”

Paragraph 20 of Section 48.02 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby amended
to read as follows:
“‘Lobbyist’ means any individual who receives or
becomes entitled to receive at least $4,000 in
monetary or in-kind compensation for is
compensated to spend 30 or more hours in any
consecutive three-month period engaging
engaged in lobbying activities which include at least
one direct communication with a City official or
employee, conducted either personally or through
agents, for the purpose of attempting to influence
municipal legislation on behalf of any other person,
during any calendar quarter.”

Section 7. The Municipal Code of the City of Los
Angeles is hereby amended by adding Section
49.5.18 to read as follows:
“All City Officials are required to participate in
an ethics training no less than once every two
years conducted by the City Ethics Commission,
in partnership with the Office of the City
Attorney. These training sessions shall be
structured to assure that each participant has
the knowledge to comply fully with all of the
relevant ethics laws governing their service to
the City of Los Angeles.”

Section 8. Subsection (D) of Section 49.5.11 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“For one year two years after leaving City service,
no former elected City officer, member of the City
Ethics Commission or other former high level official
shall, for compensation, engage in direct
communication with any agency for the purpose of
attempting to influence any action or decision on
any matter pending before an agency on behalf of
any person other than an agency. This section
shall only apply to City officers and officials who
leave City service after the effective date of the
ordinance.”

Subsection (E) of Section 49.5.11 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby amended
to read as follows:
“For one year two years after leaving City service,
no former City official shall for compensation,
engage in direct communication with any agency in
which he or she served during the twelve month
period preceding his or her departure from City
service, for the purpose of attempting to influence
any action or decision on any matter pending before
that agency on behalf of any person other than an
agency.

For purposes of this subsection, the agency
of a City Council office employee means his or her
former Council office and the Council member of
that district. This section shall only apply to City
officers who leave City service after the effective
date of the ordinance.”

Section 9. Subsection (A) of Section 49.7.26 of the
Municipal Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby
amended to read as follows:
Disclosure of Payments. Any person that makes or
incurs independent expenditures of $1,000 or more
in support of or in opposition to any City measure,
candidate for elective City office, or one or more
payments for member communications as defined
by this article, totaling $1,000 or more in support of
or in opposition to a candidate for elective City office
or City measure, shall notify the City Ethics
Commission within 24 hours by certified mail or fax
or e-mail each time one or more payments, which
meet this threshold, are made.

Subsection (B) of Section 49.7.26 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby amended
to read as follows:
“Contents of Notice. The notification shall consist of
a declaration specifying each candidate or measure
who was supported or opposed by the expenditure,
the amount spent to support or oppose each
candidate or measure, whether the candidate or
measure was supported or opposed, and that the
expenditure was not behested by the candidate or
candidates who benefitted from the
“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act” 3
expenditure. This declaration shall be made under
penalty of perjury and signed by the person or
officer and the treasurer of the group making the
expenditure. In addition, the date and amount of the
payment, a description of the type of communication
for which the payment was made or incurred, the
name and address of the person making the
payment, the name and address of the payee, and a
copy of the mailing or advertisement, or a copy of
the script or recording of the call, transmission, or
advertisement, shall also be provided to the
Commission.
The notification shall also include
disclosure of all contributions made by the
person to City candidates, their controlled
committees, committees primarily formed to
support or oppose City measures, and City
general purpose recipient committees in the
current calendar year. In the case of
independent expenditures and member
communications made by a City general
purpose recipient committee, the notification
shall also include disclosure of all contributions
received by the committee since the day after
the closing date of the committee’s last
campaign report.”

Subsection (D) of Section 49.7.26 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby amended
deleted:
“Additional Notification Required. Any person that
makes or incurs independent expenditures of more
than $10,000 in support of or opposition to a
candidate for elective City office, and any person
that makes or incurs one or more payments for
member communications as defined by this article,
totaling more than $10,000 in support of or
opposition to a candidate for elective City office
shall notify the City Ethics Commission in
accordance with the reporting schedule for the
primary or general election for which payments are
made, and no later than seven days prior to the
primary or general municipal election, with a closing
date of the previous Friday and covering activities
and payments through that date. For purposes of
this ordinance, the notification shall contain all
information required by Government Code Section
84211, and shall report all contributions received on
or after the date a candidate for City office begins to
fundraise, all expenditures and payments within the
meaning of California Government Code Section
85312 made or incurred on or after the date a
candidate for City office begins to fundraise, in
support of or opposition to candidates for elective
City office.”

Section 10. Section 49.7.26.3 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles is hereby amended
to read as follows:
“DISCLOSURE ON VOTER COMMUNICATIONS
A. Any person or committee that makes an
independent expenditure of $1,000 or more for a
broadcast or mass mailing advertisement that
advocates the election or defeat of a candidate for
City elective office or any ballot measure must
disclose the name of any contributor or $25,000 or
more to the committee in the six months prior to the
date of that payment. This information shall be printed
clearly and legibly in no less than 12-point type and in
a contrasting color to the background on which it
appears in all materials published or displayed. If the
communication is broadcast or otherwise spoken, the
name of any contributor of $25,000 or more to the
committee in the six months prior to the date of that
payment shall be disclosed throughout the
advertisement. Payments of $25,000 or more that are
earmarked for any other candidate or ballot measure
outside of the City of Los Angeles need not be
disclosed.
B. In addition to the requirements set forth in
Charter Section 470(l), an advertisement, call, mailer,
or other communication paid for by a non-candidate
committee shall include the full name of the committee
in all materials published, transmitted, displayed, or
broadcast. If an acronym is used to specify any
committee names, the full names of any sponsoring
organization of the committee shall be printed on print
advertisements, spoken in broadcast advertisements,
or included in the script of a live or recorded telephone
call.

DISCLAIMERS ON CAMPAIGN
COMMUNICATIONS.
A. Any candidate or committee that pays for a
campaign communication shall print, display or
incorporate the following words anywhere
within the communication: “Paid for by”
immediately followed by the name, address and
city of that candidate or committee.

If an acronym is used to specify a committee name,
the full name of any sponsoring organization of
the committee shall be included in the campaign
communication disclaimer required by this
section.
B. (1) Campaign communications funded by an
“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act” 4
independent expenditure supporting or
opposing City candidates shall include the
phrase “Not authorized by a City candidate,”
and shall also include the name of any
contributor of $25,000 or more to a committee
funding the independent expenditure in the six
months prior to the date of that payment in the
phrase “Major Funding Provided By [Name of
Contributor(s)].”
(2) Campaign communications funded by an
independent expenditure supporting or
opposing City measures shall include the name
of any contributor or $25,000 or more to a
committee funding the independent expenditure
in the six months prior to the date of that
payment in the phrase “Major Funding Provided
By [Name of Contributor(s)].”
C. For printed campaign communications, the
requirements of subsections (A) and (B) shall be
satisfied by using a typeface that is easily
legible to an average reader or viewer, but is not
less than 12-point type in contrasting color to
the background on which it appears. For
campaign communications sent through the
mail, the requirements of subsections (A) and
(B) shall be satisfied by printing the required
statement on the outside of the mailer or
envelope.
D. For telephone call or radio advertisement
campaign communications, the requirements of
subsection (A) shall be satisfied by using the
words “on behalf of” immediately followed by
the name of the candidate or committee that
pays for the communication in a clearly audible
manner at the same speed and volume as the
rest of the telephone call or radio advertisement.

The requirements of subsection (B) shall be
satisfied by incorporating the required language
in a clearly audible manner at the same speed
and volume as the rest of the telephone call or
radio advertisement.
E. For purposes of this section, “campaign
communication” means any of the following
items:
1. More than 200 substantially similar pieces of
campaign literature distributed within a calendar
month, including but not limited to mailers,
flyers, pamphlets, door hangers, e-mails,
campaign buttons 10 inches in diameter or
larger, and bumper stickers 60 square inches or
larger.
2. posters, yard or street signs, billboards and
similar items;
3. television, cable, satellite and radio
broadcasts;
4. newspaper, magazine, internet website
banners and similar advertisements;
5. 200 or more substantially similar live or
recorded telephone calls made within a calendar
month.
F. For purposes of this section, “campaign
communication” does not include: pens,
pencils, clothing, mugs, skywriting or other
items on which the statement required by this
section can not be reasonably printed or
displayed in an easily legible typeface;
communications paid for by a newspaper, radio
station, television station or other recognized
news medium; and communications from an
organization to its members.”

Section 11. A new subdivision (3) is hereby added
to subsection (G) of section 48.09 of the Municipal
Code of the City of Los Angeles:
“Any person who submits a written response to
a request for proposals, request for bids,
statement of qualifications or other document
submitted for the purpose of entering into a
procurement, services, or construction contract
with the City that requires approval by the
Council and/or Mayor or is subject to Council
review pursuant to Charter section 245 shall
certify, on a form proscribed by the Ethics
Commission, that the person acknowledges and
agrees to comply with the disclosure
requirements and prohibitions for lobbying
entities established by ordinance. Each
department shall include a copy of Municipal
Code section 48.01 et seq. in each request for
proposals, bids or statements of qualifications
for a contract with the City that requires
approval by the Council and/or Mayor or is
subject to Council review pursuant to Charter
section 245.”

Section 12. The amendments to the Municipal
Code outlined in sections 5 through 12 of this Act
shall become operative only upon the approval of
the amendments to the Charter outlined in sections
1 through 4 by the voters of the City of Los Angeles,
and upon the acceptance and filing of the Charter
Amendments by the Secretary of State.


“City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act” 5

Ethics group members told to watch words

Ethics group members told to watch words

BY KERRY CAVANAUGH, Staff Writer
LA Daily News

Excluded from the race to put a term-limits/ethics reform package on the ballot, the Ethics Commission found itself silenced Tuesday when members finally got a chance to discuss the proposal to change lobbying rules and give the City Council a third term.

Vice President Bill Boyarsky kicked off the discussion by asking how the ethics reform measure on the Nov. 7 ballot would affect the city's existing rules.
"So instead of strengthening the lobby control laws as the proponents of this measure have claimed, could it be said that it actually weakens it?" Boyarsky asked after staffers advised him that some lobbyists might be exempted from registering under the new rules.

But Deputy City Attorney Renee Stadel interrupted him to warn that, because the ethics package has already been placed on the ballot, city employees or public resources cannot be used to support or oppose it.
And that includes using "valuative adjectives" during an Ethics Commission hearing.
"I am concerned that by using words such as `strengthen' or `weaken,' it becomes an advocacy on either side of the issue," Stadel said.
Chastened, Boyarsky continued his technical questions on the measure, choosing his words carefully.

He later said the council's decision to put the measure on the ballot before seeking Ethics Commission input "took us out of the ballgame."
Critics of the ballot measure complain that the proposals were never vetted or voted on by the Ethics Commission.

The commission was supposed to consider it July 31, just days before it went to the council. But the session was canceled when President Gil Garcetti couldn't make it and there weren't enough members present to legally hold the meeting.
While Boyarsky previously has said he opposed the ethics/term-limits package, Tuesday marked the first time the commission was able to review the proposed legislation with staffers.

Tied to the term-limit extension is a series of proposals to toughen the city's ethics laws, limiting the role of lobbyists in raising campaign contributions and serving on city boards and commissions. It also would extend from one year to two the length of time for which a former official would be prohibited from lobbying a city agency.

Also Tuesday, the commission issued $48,200 in fines for various campaign-contribution violations, including those to former Mayor James Hahn and Councilman Tony Cardenas.

Secretary Dolores Valdez was fined $41,000 for aiding attorney Pierce O'Donnell in soliciting and laundering 21 illegal contributions to Hahn's 2001 campaign.
O'Donnell admitted making $26,500 in contributions under various names and was fined $147,000 by the commission March 14.

Since May, 21 people who agreed to be reimbursed by O'Donnell for making contributions to the Hahn campaign have been fined $500 to $2,000 each. City laws allow a person to make a $1,000 maximum contribution per candidate in each election cycle.

Valdez was the last person to face fines from the commission regarding the matter.
On Feb. 2, O'Donnell pleaded no contest to five misdemeanor charges of improper identification of campaign donors.
O'Donnell was sentenced to three years' probation and ordered to pay $155,200 in fines and penalties.

City News Service contributed to this story.
kerry.cavanaugh@dailynews.com
(213) 978-0390

We call for the entire Ethics Commission to resign

City Hall's fig leaf
City Hall has silenced the Ethics Commission and exposed its own corruption

LA Daily News

THE Los Angeles Ethics Commission has to be feeling totally irrelevant.
First, the five-member panel was excluded from the discussion of the ethics/term-limit expansion package that the Los Angeles City Council voted to put on the November ballot. Half of the ballot measure deals with expanding the terms that City Council members are allowed to serve from two to three. The other half makes changes in the provisions governing lobbyists, something that would seem to fall under the purview of the Ethics Commission.

But Commission President Gil Garcetti scuttled discussion of the proposal before the council voted on it - a convenient occurrence for his son, Council President Eric Garcetti.

Then, on Tuesday, when the commission was finally able to discuss the details of the so-called "reforms" included in the ballot measure, members were barred from saying what they thought about them.

City government took a page out of the totalitarian handbook and invoked its Catch-22 rule that bars city officials from making any comment that could be construed as negative or positive campaigning once a measure is on the ballot.

Understand, the rule doesn't apply to elected officials or city employee unions, only to those who are in a position to actually know what they're talking about - like commissioners and other top advisory officials.

Commission Vice President Bill Boyarsky was chastised when he pointed out that the proposed changes seem to weaken current rules regarding lobbyists.

How convenient that the very people who were appointed to advise on all things ethical are now effectively censured for their honest analysis.

All this makes one wonder why the city even has an Ethics Commission. If it is this easy to thwart the "watchdog" of the politicians, then it seems pointless even to have an agency - especially given its long record of providing cover for City Hall's corruption, rather than exposing it.

A week ago, we said Gil Garcetti should resign from the Ethics Commission because of the appearance of a conflict of interest involving his son.

Now, we call for the entire Ethics Commission to resign so former members can speak freely against this phony measure and lead the campaign for tough ethics laws and an independent commission to enforce them.

Jim Alger on Measure R

Dear Neighbor,



I am, of course, deeply disappointed in the results of the vote on the Council File issue Wednesday. For those who supported us we owe our sincere thanks. A special thank you should go out to Janice Hahn and Dennis Zine, who fought to keep the motion alive by referring it back to committee, but all who spoke for the measure gave a strong and compelling case.

While their were a few City Councilmembers who were opposing the measure at this time based on “ethical” concerns, only one City Councilman fired a shot directly at the Neighborhood Councils. Jack Weiss, who according to reports has racked up over 30 ethical violations himself, demanded the City Attorney and DONE bring back to him a report of every complaint alleging ethical violations or conflict of interest of Neighborhood Councils. This aught to be fun. I can think of one Neighborhood Council who has a board member who feels the need to file complaints on every single petty thing that doesn’t go her way. What does this prove? Nothing.

More importantly this is the same City Council that had no problem bypassing the City Ethics Commission when it involved extending their terms. No, that sailed right through council while our right to be heard languishes in committee. As Neighborhood Councils the question inevitably becomes exactly how much more of this are we going to take? How much longer will we be held to higher standards than the City Council? And what are we prepared to do about it?

I think we have taken enough, it needs to end now and we can start by defeating Measure R.

On principle alone I can not support a measure extending the City Council terms that was crafted in a way that bypassed the City Attorney (in fact he advised AGAINST it), and defrauds the voters into believing this is some ethics reform package. Imagine for a moment your Neighborhood Council passing a motion in direct contradiction to the City Attorney’s advice, ignoring input and rammed through on a special meeting. How quickly would your council’s action be challenged or dismissed? If it involved your Neighborhood Councils elections forget it.

Secondly we can and must begin speaking with one voice. Solving our problems internally whenever possible so the City Council can stop pointing to 100 letters from a Neighborhood Council to prove the entire system is a failure (which of course it isn’t) and DONE can stop citing contradicting points from boardmembers at City Council meetings.

Lastly, we need to draw a line in the sand and get the Council File Issue passed. If City Coucilmembers have legitimate concerns as, for example, I believe Greig Smith has, we should sit down with him and find a way to abate those fears. BUT, for those City Councilmembers who wish to change the subject to a discussion of Neighborhood Council’s ethical standards, a word of caution…

We do not seek, nor will we provoke an outright battle with the City Council, but we shall not back down from one either.



Jim Alger

Self- Serving Council

Self-serving council Longer terms, yes; better roads, no
LA Daily News

IF there's an upside to the Los Angeles City Council's recent slide into unabashed arrogance, it's that we now know what really motivates our city leaders.

Late last week, City Councilmen Tony Cardenas and Greig Smith yanked plans to put a $1.5 billion street-paving bond on the November ballot. The reason, they said, was voter fatigue and confusion. On a ballot crammed with state propositions, city measures, tax hikes and bonds of every kind, voters' burnout would doom the chances for street repairs.
Nor did it help matters that when Cardenas and Smith took their idea to the council at large, response was lukewarm at best. The two figured they had little chance of getting the council to sign on, and even less of winning over the public.

And in a sense, they're probably right. When politicians ask the public for too much, the public tends to say no to everything. No one knows this better than the politicians themselves, which is why they're starting to worry whether maybe they've overdone it by putting 10 different tax and bond measures on the November ballot.

What's telling about this is that the council wouldn't put street repairs that affect everyone on the ballot, but did put $1 billion for "affordable" housing on the ballot that affects a narrow class. And it leaped at the chance to ask L.A. voters to water down council members' term limits, something that affects only themselves.
Priorities. Priorities. Priorities.

Far from the frosty reaction that Cardenas and Smith got over their streets plan, the council unanimously backed the bogus "ethics reform" package that's chiefly about giving themselves an extra four years in office. Members crammed that one through even though the city attorney said it's unconstitutional and the Ethics Commission and neighborhood councils never got to look at it. And they did it with next to no public comment or debate.

Los Angeles' roads are crumbling, thanks to a city government that's ignored them for decades while pumping endless cash into unions, developers and other special interests. But for this council, politics isn't about public service, but self-service. Members have made that much abundantly clear.

Time to send the City Council packing

The Los Angeles City Council has given the voters of Los Angeles a great opportunity to speak up and speak out.

This is a bold move given the current actions of the Council in limiting public input, freedom of speech and blatant disregard for the voters.

So now we begin the campaign to defeat Measure R, the self-serving ballot measure put on the November 2006 ballot by the LA City Council. The Measure would extend the Term Limits of the City Council from two four year terms to three four year terms--starting with the people who voted to put the measure on the ballot--thereby changing their employment contract!

I look forward to a great campaign to put these folks back in their place and some of them packing...