What’s In It For Them?

Prop R: What’s In It For Them?

Recently, the Los Angeles City council voted to place an initiative on the November ballot that will make changes to the current City Charter regarding ethics reform. This initiative (Proposition R) is known to the voters as the City Government Responsibility, Lobbying and Ethics Reform Act.

Many voters who do not regularly read the opinion section of local newspapers, have only the word of respected organizations like the League of Women Voters and the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce to help them make informative decisions on Election day.

These two organizations supporting this measure are responsible for bringing these changes to the city council earlier this year. Included in the changes is a term limit extension from 2 terms (8 years) to 3 terms (12 years) for city council members.

According to the City Attorney,
“Having reviewed the various proposals…we have concluded that the ethics, lobbying and campaign finance reform proposals can simply be adopted and implemented in their entirety through an ordinance passed by the City Council.”

Simply stated, the issue of ethics reform does not need to go before the voters. The only reason Prop. R is on the November ballot is because of the term limit increase.

So this is our question: Why do the League of Women Voters and LA Area Chamber of Commerce care about city council member terms being increased from 8 years to12 years? What is in it for them?

The mailers that were sent out to over 100,000 likely voters mislead the public in two ways: 1) by claiming that Prop. R will “limit” council members to “three terms (12 years total)” without informing voters that the current charter limits council members to two terms (8 years total) at present. And 2) that it will prevent city officials from swindling city government out of millions of dollars (referring to a case brought before the city council by City Controller, Laura Chick against the LADWP). These mailers suggest that this initiative if passed will prevent these incidents from occurring again and imply that the City Controller is a supporter of this proposition. In a letter printed in the Daily News, October 24, 2006, Laura Chick writes,

“For the Proposition R campaign to use my name in any way is duplicitous and intentionally deceiving. My work to expose millions of dollars in fraudulent public relations bills has nothing whatsoever to do with Proposition R. The City Council actually voted to turn down my request for them to stop the LADWP from paying millions of dollars more to outside public relations firms.”

“In fact I adamantly oppose Proposition R for many reasons, not the least of which is the disingenuous way with which this measure was placed on the ballot. I urge the voters of the City of Los Angeles to vote no on Proposition R.”
Sincerely,
LAURA N. CHICK
City Controller

When Liza White, President of the League of Women Voters, was asked about the mailers, she defended them saying “they aren’t deceptive.” If she really believes these mailers are not misleading, then how can this woman be trusted? She is obviously confused about what the word ‘deceptive’ means or she is trying to save face. Or she has another agenda.

Nevertheless, the most important thing the voters need to know when they go to the polls has not been made clear by the LA City Council, the League of Women Voters, or the LA Area Chamber of Commerce and that is: The changes to the city charter regarding ethics reform, can be made without voter approval.

If this council and these two organizations really care about ethics reform then this reform needs to begin closer to home. They need to be more transparent and truthful about their motives and political agenda.

Donna Connolly
David Hernandez
Citizens for Rational Reform

For more information, please go to www.TERMEDOUT.com.

I adamantly oppose Proposition R-LAURA N. CHICK

October 23, 2006

Mr. John Shallman
YES on Proposition R


Dear John:

It has come to my attention that you are using my name, and the credibility of the Office of the City Controller, in the campaign for the passage of Proposition R.

The mailers imply that I believe that Proposition R would have prevented the public relations over-billing scandals. Nothing could be further from the truth. Proposition R would have had no preventive effect on that matter. I remind you that the City Council actually voted to turn down my request for them to stop the LADWP from paying millions of dollars more to outside public relations firms.

In fact I adamantly oppose Proposition R, using my name in mailers to voters in support of this measure is duplicitous and intentionally deceiving.

Please cease and desist immediately from using my name, or the Office of the City Contr oller, in conjunction with the Proposition R campaign.

Sincerely,

LAURA N. CHICK

City Controller


STATEMENT BY CITY CONTROLLER LAURA CHICK ON PROPOSITION R

"For the Proposition R campaign to use my name in any way is duplicitous and intentionally deceiving. My work to expose millions of dollars in fraudulent public relations bills has nothing whatsoever to do with Proposition R. The City Council actually voted to turn down my request for them to stop the LADWP from paying millions of dollars more to outside public relations firms."

"In fact I adamantly oppose Proposition R for many reasons, not the least of which is the disingenuous way with which this measure was placed on the ballot. I urge the voters of the City of Los Angeles to vote no on Proposition R."

financial backers of Proposition R

SO now we learn that the financial backers of Proposition R - L.A. City Council members' deceitful plan to keep themselves in office for four more years - are some of the most deep-pocketed special interests in City Hall. Is anyone surprised?

Who did you think would be paying for this? The Boy Scouts? The Sisters of Charity? The March of Dimes?

Um, no.

Try companies run by AEG, Colorado billionaire Philip Anschutz's entertainment behemoth, which is benefiting from the council's $300 million subsidy for a hotel by its downtown l.a.live project.

Other contributors include the city's police and firefighter unions, whose contracts require council approval. Also on the list are some of the lawyers and contractors who make big bucks doing business with the city of Los Angeles.

For them, backing R is an investment. In exchange for a few grand, the special interests get to keep their wholly owned council members around for four more years - a favor for which the pols will no doubt be grateful, and which could prove to be worth millions later.

This racket is just one more reason to vote no on Proposition Proposition R on Nov. 7 - as if we needed one.  

LA Daily News 10-09-06

Perpetual fraud
Vote against the City Council's term-limits deceit

LA Daily News

MEASURE R - members of the Los Angeles City Council's deceitful ploy to give themselves four more years on the public dole - will go before voters Nov. 7, even though it's likely to be ruled unconstitutional.
For this you can thank the 2nd District Court of Appeal, the City Council and yourself - because it's your tax dollars that keep this cynical scheme alive.

Since its inception, it's been obvious that Measure R violates the California Constitution's requirement that ballot measures be limited to a single issue.

But the council's members knew voters would reject giving them three four-year terms instead of two, so they combined their term-limits plan with a package of so-called "ethics reforms" that in fact do nothing to clean up City Hall.

The council is now raising huge bundles of cash from developers, contractors, unions and other insiders who live handsomely on the favorable treatment they get at City Hall.

The council's members believe they found a clever political strategy to trick the public. And they've hired high-priced private lawyers at taxpayer expense to try to get around the state constitution's single-issue requirement for ballot measures.

The first judge to hear the case ruled not only that the measure was unconstitutional, but also deceitfully worded. So the council took its case to the appellate court, which left in the dishonest wording and left the measure on the ballot - without actually ruling on the constitutional issues.

The court's action is an insult to voters. There's nothing urgent about this measure; there's not even an honest argument that can be made in its favor.

With all its ill-gotten campaign funds, the council will try to blow smoke over voters' eyes, but how can anyone mount an effective opposition when the measure itself is already the subject of a legal fight?

That's why it is so important that each and every one of us makes sure our friends, family and co-workers knows that it's up to them to stop the council's abuse of its power.

Vote against political cynicism. Vote no on Measure R on Nov. 7.

A Nation of Laws, not men.

A Nation of Laws, not men.

The Constitution of the United States has enabled our county to prosper for over 200 years.

From that template, our states have formulated constitutions of their own. Constitutions which were established to protect the rights of all people and ensure the growth and wellbeing of the state and its residents.

Failure to abide by the constitution or to blatantly ignore its provisions to suit the wants of a political figure or fifteen politicians, as well as special interest groups is not only an affront to the provision violated but to the people it was established to protect.

It is unfortunate the State Appellate court has ducked the issue of Measure R until after the November election. When the measure fails to receive the votes needed to pass, the court will deem the action moot and will not make a ruling.

Those politicians, the LA Chamber and League of Women Voters will simply decry that the public is uninformed and too ignorant or apathetic to vote for real reform. They will not accept responsibility for their actions and their attempt to violate the state constitution and the rights of the people.

If one is too blinded by hate or too vested in maintaining the status quo, no amount of logic and reason will suffice.

So let us begin the campaign and tell those who would so freely and willingly violate our constitutional rights, to go to hell!

That includes the Mayor for his willingness to violate our rights in his backroom LAUSD power grab.