Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Elections. Show all posts

April 22, 2022

City of Long Beach CA: Candidate Forums for Primary Election June 7 2022

Long Beach Candidate Forum - Monday April 25th @ 6:00pm
Your Los Cerritos Neighborhood Association (LCNA) hosts free Long Beach political forums each election year. This year, we are partnering with the Bixby Knolls and California Heights Neighborhood Associations.
 
The format is a debate style with predetermined questions by the debate committee.
- Expo Arts Building, 4321 Atlantic Avenue
* 6:00pm - Meet & Greet
* 6:30pm - Council District 5
* 7:45pm - City Attorney
* 8:20pm - City Auditor
* 8:55pm - City Prosecutor


Long Beach Mayoral Candidate Forum - Wednesday April 27th @ 6:00pm
Your LCNA hosts free Long Beach political forums each election year. This year, we are partnering with the Bixby Knolls and California Heights Neighborhood Associations.
 
The format is a debate style with predetermined questions by the debate committee.
- Masonic Lodge, 3610 Locust Avenue
* 6:00pm - Meet & Greet
* 6:30pm - Mayoral Forum
 
 
Lakewood Village Neighborhood Association (LVNA) hosts
Long Beach City Council District 5 Candidate Forum


Tuesday May 3, 2022 6:00-8:00 PM
Bethany Lutheran Church Gym 5100 Arbor Rd. Long Beach
Confirmed Candidate Attendees:
Linda Valdez
Ian Patton
Megan Kerr
Jeannine Bedard
Potential questions must be submitted by Saturday April 30 to:
Lvnaforum@gmail.com

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

August 23, 2020

Vote by Mail (non USPS) ballot drop boxes and other LA County vote by mail info for the November 3 2020 election (specifically 90808 Long Beach info)

UPDATE 10/11/20: Beware of fake drop boxes for ballots at churches no less. See that story here. Only drop into boxes that look like this. Really GOP..really?

UPDATE 10/10/20: We spoke to a county worker collecting ballots at the Heartwell park county ballot drop box located below in the original post. Collections will happen 7 days a week at least once per day thru Nov 3 @ 8pm. So drop away.

UPDATE 10/2/20: Today via US Mail I received my actual ballot. My Fiancee did not. Everything else from the county we get at the same time. Also Jeffrey Pransky | Election Operations Bureau Los Angeles County Registrar-Recorder/County Clerk,
finally responded to our questions via email (we did not see this information anywhere on their website so we are providing it below)

LAAG's Questions:

So there are two ways (county system and state system) to track your ballots return to your office. but how do voters know if their ballot is actually counted? The ballot tracking does not tell you that and that's actually more important.

We assume the ballot tracking methods also work if we dot use US mail...that is we drop them off at polling place or in the country drop boxes?
 
Also if voters ballot is not counted will they be notified in enough time to fix the alleged error? Is it possible that they can fix the error after Nov 3 2020?
 
How will voters be notified to make the correction? phone, email or US mail?

Answers from Jeffrey Pransky | Election Operations Bureau:

You will receive a message saying your ballot is on its way when your Vote By Mail packet is delivered to the US Postal Service. Ballots (with the exception of ballots for Military and Overseas voters) which have not yet been mailed to voters.
 
9/24 - Through the State Ballot Tracking system “Where’s My Ballot?” you will receive one of three possible notifications when the ballot is received and processed by our office – this notification will come whether you return it in-person at a vote center, by mail, or by drop box.
 i. Ballot Accepted (meaning we have received and counted your ballot)
 ii. Ballot Rejected (we have received your ballot but it will not be counted)
 iii. Ballot Rejected but Curable (your ballot is currently rejected, but may be counted if we receive more information).

You will be mailed the appropriate form to “cure” your ballot with a postage-paid return envelope. If you do not wish to mail the cure form back, you also have the option of returning it either in-person by Election Day to a Drop Box or Vote Center, or later by fax or email. You may also call our office and we will indicate which form you can download from our website, fill out and return to us. The deadline to return a cure form is November 28, 2020.

UPDATE 9/25/20: today we received via USPS our "official sample ballot" of 32 pages..but don't get excited yet. On the front it says "All registered voters will receive a vote by mail ballot". So this is mostly trash. Also got the 110 page voter information guide 2 days ago. Read that here ...but to get all the full text of all the propositions go here ...very lame they don't point that out clearly. Apparently not enough space in voter booklet to put the full text but for Prop 14.

Original Post:

So everyone can calm down now. Turns out in LA county we don't really need the post office that much to return vote by mail ballots. (post office still needed to get the ballot to you and for those people that cant get to these drop boxes or a polling place)[UPDATE: 9/11/20 the post office just sent this link to us today.] There will be 300+ of these vote by "mail" drop boxes throughout LA county. (And of course you can still walk in and drop off any ballots to any polling place/Vote Center in LA county as well; all the vote center locations and days/hrs of operation map) I happened to see one (picture) in Heartwell Park today located here. It was locked (as of Aug 23 2020) not allowing anything to be deposited. I am assuming that Postal Workers will NOT be collecting ballots from these drop boxes but rather LA County poll workers. Apparently the map of the 300 LA County drop box locations will be made available 30 days before the Nov 3 2020 election. What is not clear when these will be unlocked allowing you to deposit your ballot nor is it clear how often these will be checked for ballots.(I assume they will be unlocked soon after ballots are mailed out or or about Oct 5 2020 and will be checked daily after that date) They will close or last be collected at 8pm on election night Nov 3 (barring some catastrophe). This will be the link (live Oct. 2) to a map with where all the boxes will be located within LA county.

After returning your voted ballot via Drop Box (or by mail or walking it in to a vote center) you can check on line to make sure it was received and tallied through the county's Vote by Mail Status Tool. This tool will be available 30 days prior to Election Day. There is also another method provided by the state of California: Ballottrax. Why there are two methods is unclear. I guess to add more confusion to the already confusing process.

As I was curious (and because this information was not posted anywhere on the web two weeks ago) I asked LA county when the "vote by mail" (and or "absentee") ballots would be mailed out to voters and they told me (via this email VoteByMail@rrcc.lacounty.gov ) that they would be mailed out on Oct. 5, 2020. So If you don't get yours (in the US mail) within a week of that date you better take matters into your own hands and get a ballot. Start here. If you don't receive one in the mail the first thing to do is check to see you are registered to vote in LA County. You can use the state of CA site to see if you are registered to vote in any county and it will tell you which county. The deadline for registering by mail to vote is (postmarked by) Monday, October 19, 2020 You MUST register to vote in LA county in order to be eligible to vote in LA county in the Nov 2020 election.

The deadline to register in person to vote IN PERSON AT A POLLING PLACE in CA is election day Tuesday, November 3, 2020. Conditional voter registration is a safety net for Californians who miss the deadline to register to vote or update their voter registration information. Voters can use the conditional voter registration process from the day after the mail registration deadline (Oct 19, 2020) all the way through Election Day. Finding a polling place (now called "vote centers") is also relatively simple. Just go here after Oct 4 2020. Unlike prior years any LA county resident can vote or register in ANY LA county vote center regardless of your residence location (as long as its in LA county.)

Also this election (Nov 2020) the state will be ensuring that all registered voters in all 58 counties are mailed a "mail in/drop off" ballot (regardless if they were permanent absentee, occasional absentee or some other vote by mail category) This was part of The California Voter’s Choice Act passed in 2016. But for Nov 2020 due to the covid 19 pandemic the timeline was moved up to include all California counties, not just LA county and a few others.

We noted this bit of info that is also helpful with respect to absentee or mail in ballots in CA:

California does not require a copy of your ID in the ballot and a Notary or Witness Signatures on Return Envelope is NOT Required.

As for how Absentee Ballots Are Verified CA elections code 3019 is applicable which in summary says upon receipt of a vote-by-mail ballot, the elections official compares the signature on the identification envelope with either of the following to determine if the signatures compare: (1) The signature appearing on the voter's affidavit of registration or any previous affidavit of registration of the voter. (2) The signature appearing on a form issued by an elections official that contains the voter's signature and that is part of the voter's registration record. If upon conducting the comparison of signatures pursuant to subdivision (a) the elections official determines that the signatures do not compare, the identification envelope shall not be opened and the ballot shall not be counted. The cause of the rejection shall be written on the face of the identification envelope. Voters are given the opportunity to verify their signatures before the election is certified for their ballots to be counted.

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

March 8, 2011

Lakewood City Council election results March 8, 2011

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

March 2, 2011

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

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

February 17, 2011

The Lakewood transparency in local government pledge

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.

February 16, 2011

Why public official city email addresses are important

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

January 31, 2011

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

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

January 20, 2011

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

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

January 12, 2011

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

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

December 21, 2010

March 8 2011 city council election in Lakewood, CA

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

Mayor Joseph Esquivel is bowing out of politics, but incumbent Vice Mayor Larry Van Nostran is running for re-election, further extending one of the longest city council tenures in the history of California. Of course Lakewood made sure that the small time period within which to file the documents to run for city council was only known to the fewest number of people possible, and so few people "got in" under the wire. Two are currently on city Commissions (typical) one is a former city councilman and the last is an unknown but with some government tie in. What is rather disheartening is that all are basically paid by the government in one form or another already. But this is what we are left with in Lakewood. Other local cities appear to have a more robust lineup of "non government", "non insider", "non establishment" candidates.

Here is the march 8th slate: Joy Janes, a community consultant with Assemblyman Warren Furutani and chair of Lakewood's planning and environment commission; Jeff Wood, deputy regional administrator with the California Emergency Management Agency and a member of Lakewood's recreation and community services commission; Marc Titel, former Lakewood city councilman and instructor at Fremont College and Marisa Perez, policy advisor to a member of the South Coast Air Quality Management District governing board.

LAAG hopes to find out more about these candidates in the coming weeks leading up to the election on March 8, 2011. The only good thing about the election is that we will be replacing a sitting councilperson for sure. This election is at least starting out much better than the dismal one that was never held in March 2009 which was more akin to the way things work in North Korea. At least this election we have real candidates and some choice! But don't get your hopes too high. After all this IS Lakewood. The more things change the more they stay the same.


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

December 17, 2008

LAAG's reply to the City's comments in the Press Telegram 12-15-08

Most of our loyal readers (and many new ones) saw the 12/15/08 Press Telegram feature written about our site. Of course the city of Lakewood was queried about the site. LAAG wanted an opportunity to address some of the comments made by Councilman Rogers in the article. And of course as we have many times before, we offer the city space on our pages to offer rebuttals to what they feel is inaccurate on our site. To date the city has not taken us up on that offer.

With respect to the March 2009 city council election candidate filing dates not being not well publicized, on that issue, Councilman (excuse me, vice mayor) Todd Rogers says there was an announcement about incumbents seeking re-election on the front page of the Lakewood Community, a Chamber of Commerce Publication that goes to every home in the city. "It clearly told everybody in town that there was an election," Rogers said.

We found the November 2008 issue of the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce newspaper. (we are not sure of the date when it was actually distributed) Again this is the paper that most people throw directly into the trash after it sits on their lawn for a few days. Each month it has a puff piece written by the "mayor" (or likely some ghost writer) or some other councilperson talking about some "issue" (a real or fake one). In November one small article was about how the three incumbents were "kicking off" their March 2009 re-election "campaigns" with a 100 person dinner (wonder who paid for that?) at city hall (attended by you guessed it all the politicos and fireworks sellers that would have been voting for them in March 2009, along with our special friend Sheriff Baca!) NO WHERE in the article did it mention any deadlines for nominations or anything about that rather complicated process whatsoever. The Press Telegram ran no story at all (as they had no reporter for Lakewood at the time) nor was there any hint of a deadline on the city website. Why? Well if you are running for re-election the last thing you want to do is call a deadline to the attention of your potential opponents (like LAAG did) So yes there was hint of an "election" in the air, but as we said the city did everything it could to "hide" the nomination deadline to insure the three candidates would be a shoe in. And it worked.

Rogers, stated in the article that "city government is 'open', despite some of the assertions he has read [on LAAG]" and that "The city of Lakewood doesn't do anything in secret...". Well if hidden in the clerks office is your definition of open then I guess it is "open" (but only from 9-5 pm) But most folks dont walk into city hall every day for their news. They read news papers and now the web. So if you dont want people to know something just post it on a bulletin board in the clerks office. How many of you have read the bulletin board in the clerks office in the last year? LAAG believes in transparency in government as its our money they are wasting. "...Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants..." [Justice Louis D. Brandeis] We have a whole section devoted to government transparency. The reason governments dont want to post too much on the web is that people might actually see it, copy it (like LAAG) and start asking questions which politicians find "hard to answer". I think Long Beach Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske agrees.

Rogers also stated in the article that what the city does is "...based on the surveys and feedback we get from the community..." Well I saw two surveys on the Lakewood website and only very brief summaries at that with no specific questions asked. The last survey date we saw was 2006. LAAG plans to do some surveys as well and you can be sure when we do we will post them. The point being that only about 2,700 people vote in city council elections out of 80,000 residents. So how many of those polled do you really think are clued in about specific problems in the city?

As Campbell Brown recently said on CNN.com: "It goes without saying, the media is annoying. It is the media's job to be annoying. Especially those members of the media assigned to cover the president. Or in this case the president-elect. Their role is not to support [the City council] President-elect Barack Obama, but to challenge him, to do their best to hold him accountable."

If you want to read cheerleader "puff pieces" about the City and the City Council then read the city's website or those from the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce "throw away" "news"paper that comes out once a month. There are plenty of places to find that kind of news. Not here.

We don't think Lakewood is a bad city nor the city council the worst. There are much worse. But there are much better too. We need to strive for improvement. We think this site is one way of encouraging change by trying to make the city more "transparent" or calling foul when everyone else is too afraid to or have given up on dealing with city hall as it is. And who could blame them.

Mr Rogers concluding dismissive comments about LAAG in the Press Telegram article: "...[LAAG's] views are out of sync with the majority of residents. As an example, he cited [LAAG's] suggestion at a City Council meeting to look into the possibility of creating a city police department.." Well again you have to realize that Rogers is a sheriff captain (top person in the substation) in Carson and it sends shivers down his spine when you dare to criticise the sacred cow that signs his paychecks. The point LAAG was making (the context of which is when LASD totally dropped the ball on the Dunrobin explosion in March 2006 by its own admission) was that the city just accepted what the LASD fed them. It was the city council that had to hold the LASD accountable. It clearly had not and LAAG felt that the reason was that the LASD offered Lakewood its services on a "take it or leave it basis" and to get some competition on LASD's 9 million a year contract the city should get bids from other police agencies that offer contract law enforcement. Of course carving out a piece of LASD "territory" would be about as likely as Rogers "Lakewood school district" fantasy becoming a reality. Talk about out of sync.

We agree that LAAG is out of sync with the status quo and we aren't going to change one bit!

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

December 11, 2008

Why bother with Elections?

The City Clerk reported on 12/10/08 (via email) that only the three candidates completed the nomination process making them eligible to run in the March 2009 city council election. Mayor Steve Croft, Vice Mayor Todd Rogers, and Council Member Diane DuBois - the three incumbent council members - were the only candidates who sought to fill the three available seats when the nominating period ended on December 5 2008. We alerted Lakewood residents of this impending deadline but given the abysmal turnout in Lakewood city council elections (usually less than 3,000 votes for 41,000 registered voters or 7.3% turnout) it does not surprise us that no one but the incumbents threw their hat in the ring. LAAG felt that by at least notifying residents of the deadline (which the city failed to do) potential candidates would at least not be blindsided by the deadline. Now, since the number of candidates at the end of the nominating period equals the number of seats to be filled, state election law allows the nominees to be appointed. So Lakewood wont even have an election! (Even Iraq has elections!) Just as well save the money I suppose as Lakewood residents just dont care. Very sad. In hotly contested districts in Long Beach recently they have had 60% turnouts in recent elections. I guess people in Long Beach are just more aware of what is going on (or more likely what is not happening and should be). Lakewood voters for the most part dont even know what issues are going on in Lakewood that need attention. I suppose we should just dispense with elections in Lakewood and let city council members serve for life. Or perhaps we could institute a city monarchy (we have close to that as Larry Van Nostran is the longest "reigning" city councilman in California history we have read; first elected in 1975 which will be 34 years in 2009). Without elections and campaigns the city council will have no incentives whatsoever to listen to "voters" (all 3,000 of them). How many other city's in California fail to have elections? Likely none. Shame on you Lakewood. As punishment for your lack of civic interest in our system of government you should not be allowed to celebrate the 4th with fireworks. (now that will stir interest) Our founding fathers would be appalled at how we claim to be "democratic" or "patriotic" and how we can only show it with sparklers or car 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

November 5, 2008

Lakewood City Council nomination period closes December 5, 2008

The nomination period for candidates for City Council opens on November 10th and closes on December 5th 2008. We have not seen this information posted anywhere else on the internet other than our site. Nothing at the city website or in emails from the city "news fodder" email machine. Nothing in the Press Telegram. This is no doubt intentional as all the incumbents want challengers to have no time advantage. They are hoping that challengers miss the very small time window for the nomination period above.

There is no filing fee to run for City Council. The only cost paid to the City would be from candidates wishing to include a Candidate’s Statement in the sample ballot. Potential candidates must go into see the city clerk to obtain a “candidate’s packet” which is a compilation of material from various sources.

The process of issuing nomination papers is not one that can be completed remotely, the potential candidate (or designee) must appear in person at the clerk's office or they may designate (in writing) someone to collect the information for them.

We will be providing more information on this process as we move forward but we felt it was important to get this information out to potential candidates as soon as possible in order to start vetting the candidates and to insure that they have as good as chance at winning as the three incumbents up for re-election (Steve Croft, Todd Rogers and Diane DuBois)


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

December 12, 2007

55th District Primary Election Results

Much like with the last City council race in Lakewood this was an election that the voters just did not care much about. The main reason was that the two well funded democratic candidates appeared to be cut from the same cloth and took turns sniping at each other when they weren't boasting about how they could make govt. even bigger and create more taxpayer funded social programs. Most Republicans likely stayed home for this primary as there was no Republican in the race. Sad that the party has all but abandoned the highly gerrymandered 55th district which is now a democratic wasteland. Once again the likely winner will be another tax and spend type career politician who is in favor of public unions and bigger govt. Just what we need in Sacramento.

Surely the democratic machine will get behind its candidate and make sure he outspends all other opponents 10 to 1 so that they can insure an ever larger majority in Sacramento. And then there is Arnie the Govenator. A democrat dressed in Republican clothes.

So perhaps the one Libertarian in the race (Herb Peters from Carson) will get some spillover fervor from the Ron Paul presidential campaign. (Although Paul is a Republican, the Libertarian Party wants Paul to run in 2008 on its ticket.) Republicans and anyone else in the 55th sick of politics as usual would do good to vote for anyone but a democrat under these circumstances.

Democrat Furutani faces two minor-party candidates in 55th
The Associated Press
Article Launched: 12/12/2007 10:27:48 AM PST

LOS ANGELES—Democrat Warren Furutani faces two minor-party candidates in a February runoff election for the 55th District Assembly seat representing voters from Carson to Long Beach.

Furutani, a Los Angeles college trustee, got the most votes in Tuesday's balloting with 49.2 percent compared to fellow Democrat and Carson Councilman Mike Gipson's 38.4 percent.

Because he didn't get 50 percent of the vote, Furutani now faces Libertarian Herb Peters, who got 5.8 percent of the vote, and American Independent Charlotte Gibson, who got 3.9 percent, in the Feb. 5 general election.

There were no Republican candidates on the ballot.

The seat was vacated by Laura Richardson, who was elected to Congress.

Warren FurutaniDem8,62049.24%
Mike GipsonDem6,72738.42%
Herb PetersLib1,0075.75%
Charlotte GibsonAI6763.86%
Mervin EvansDem4772.72%


Turnout districtwide was roughly 10%

Lakewood Accountability Action Group™ LAAG | www.LAAG.us | Lakewood, CA
A California Non Profit Association | Demanding action and accountability from local government™




March 5, 2007

March 6, 2007 city council election: 4 more years of "stay the course"

Incumbents Mayor Larry Van Nostran, Councilman Joseph Esquivel beat challengers Marty Schuster and John R. Nelson Jr. Schuster is a real estate agent in Lakewood who ran unsuccessfully in 2004. Nelson is a Long Beach Unified School District electrician.

A number of articles appeared in the local news papers about the incumbents. Quite frankly all 4 were really not that much different on paper. None have any vision and its just more of the same drivel: We love the Sheriffs, we like sports teams and their fireworks money. God forbid someone says anything bad about fireworks (you could be branded a heretic). Don't look for any fresh ideas with these candidates. The Press Telegram endorsed the incumbents. Quite frankly after three terms on the council its really time for a change. Just like in Washington. The problem is why vote in "fresh faces" when they don't have any fresh ideas? LAAG did not endorse any of the candidates.

Why the lack of good candidates? Well many reasons but surely the most likely reason (and as is typical of the city) is that there was no announcement about the deadline to apply as a candidate on the city website or in their email newsletter (I assume to discourage people from running). This is typical of the city failing to implement its own "e government" initiative. We announced it here on the LAAG website at least a month before the filing deadline.

The Press Telegram article appearing on 3/6/07 entitled "Few surprises, 1 upset in elections" noted as follows:

"In Lakewood, Mayor Larry Van Nostran and Councilman Joe Esquivel breezed past real estate business owner Marty Schuster and electrical manager John R. Nelson Jr. for another four years in office.

Van Nostran, who will commence his ninth term, [that is 36 years by LAAG's count] garnered the most votes with 3,169 while Esquivel earned the second spot with 3,102 votes. Schuster received 1,890 votes and Nelson lagged with 912.

"I didn't care as long as I got one vote more than the third place person," said Van Nostran. "I think it's a real stamp of approval ... (Residents) know we're really working for the good of this city."

What really scares LAAG is that Van Nostran has been in so long he thinks that 3,000 votes out of 42,000 registered voters in the city (and 80,000 residents) is a "mandate". He is as delusional as some other politicians we know in Washington. I would not call it a mandate but rather utter disgust and a failure by most residents to even care. I suspect that 70% of the people that voted for this dynamic duo were the same ones that have been voting the pair in for the last 20 years.

The only good thing about this election is that Esquivel said he would step down after this 4 year term. He was mayor when the Dunrobin explosion occurred. That is sort of like having the distinction of being the Captain of the Titanic. Lets just hope he is not grooming a successor. As for Van Nostran who knows. He is already the longest reining city councilman in the state and quite franking that is the only distinguishing factor of his reign. It only took him 20 years to fix the motorhome parking mess and that was only after two councilmen forced it onto the backs of the voters. Now lets see if he can handle the results of the election. Had the problem been fixed earlier by real leadership we would not have “grandfathered” in all these eyesores now looking for a parking spot from Southern CA Edison.