Showing posts with label Government Transparency. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Government Transparency. Show all posts

September 6, 2020

Why the budget and the budget process is broken in Long Beach California

As there is yet another budget hearing coming up in Long Beach on September 8 2020 we thought we would use our blog post as our comments. Get them into cityclerk@longbeach.gov before noon 9/7/20. Heaven knows these "Citywide Community budget meetings" were a waste of everyone's time.(which we also had to pay city staffers for as we are taxpayers)

 

Long Beach is currently in a budget crisis brought about mainly because of the covid-19 crisis.  Of course it's a double whammy situation where the city spent more money than it had on emergency type services and as a result overpaid for these services (which were under delivered or did not provide much value) For example there were tons of private Labs that were being paid a very costly premium for test results that were being delivered seven and eight days after the test. Anyone that knows anything about testing said that's completely worthless. Any test result delivered after 48 hours should never have been paid for but of course government never demands that kind of accountability from private contractors.


On top of that because of the economic crisis and less sales tax is being generated we have a double whammy.  So now it appears the most local entities are waiting for the state to get a windfall of money from the federal government who of course can print money regardless of its deficit.  State and local governments can't print money but they use other budget shenanigans and tricks to make it look like the budget gets “balanced” every year.


Unlike Lakewood which is mostly a contract City Long Beach tries to provide most services through employees that are employed by the city. This is horrendously cost inefficient because these costs are fixed. Once these people are hired they are basically never fired and you have to pay for their pensions, healthcare vacation and other costs basically as long as they're alive and they are usually very costly employees. The more costly employees are the ones that work in the office and shuffle paper and get very little done in terms of infrastructure and repairs.


In addition there are a number of things that Long Beach claims it has to purchase and it does a very bad job in negotiating good prices. Here are two examples. City spends $372,327 on TWO Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD trucks (2020 Chevrolet Silverado 2500HD start at $34,600) AND $539,331 on TWO CNG-fueled 2021 Freightliner M2112 pothole patch trucks, (LB apparently patches so many streets that we need two new trucks?) Who negotiated these prices for these trucks and why are we buying something NEW that's so expensive right now during a budget crisis? Do we have to have these trucks right now? Are we selling off the used trucks are we trading them in what are we getting for them? These questions are never asked and never presented in the budget or any publicly disseminated documents. As for the pothole trucks no needs were spelled out. Zero. You want them Public Works Dept you got them! No questions asked.


Then you look at outside contracting for services and you have a similar problem. Really no transparency at all in terms of how many hours of time you're getting the hourly rate or bonuses being paid, overhead being paid how many hours of services are you being provided with, what specific tasks are going to be completed etc. Here is a recent example:” a fourth amendment to Contract No. 34265 with West Coast Arborists, Inc., of Anaheim, CA, for as-needed tree trimming services, to extend the term through March 31, 2021, and increase the amount by $3,400,000, for a revised total amount not to exceed $11,340,000. (Citywide)”

 

So taxpayers are paying almost 11.5 million dollars for tree trimming but there's really not much of an indication as to what exactly were going to get for that. Even if you assume that these people are being paid $15 an hour and you do the math that gives us about 59 hours a day of tree trimming assuming 2080 hours per year working time at 8 hours per day 5 days a week. But again this says “as needed” (determined by who?). So that might mean that no trees are being trimmed or half the amount. Again clear as mud.


Contract costs are too high because I assume the city relies on “low bid”. The city should be setting the maximum contract prices with bonuses for early completion. The city should be setting a (realistic low ball) maximum amount for these contracts before the bids ever come in. We also have to assume that there are multiple bids coming in on these projects and I doubt that seriously.  My suspicion is certain favorite companies that contribute to campaigns are invited to submit a bid with a wink knowing that these bids are going to get selected because they're the only bid that's being made.  Again the city should set a maximum price for an amount of service and then provide some sort of incentives for early completion or other types of Contract objectives that can be objectively verified.


With respect to labor provided by city employees of course the picture is much more grim. There really is no way to significantly reduce the costs of employee labor.  This is why City employees should be rarely hired and outside contractors should be used because it's much easier to control costs over time when you have a budget problem. 


The Police Department and the fire department are classic examples of the two costliest groups of city employees. Lawsuit settlements due to police shootings and arrests are not helpful either. These depts are heavily unionized and the unions control all labor activity and contract negotiations.


We were recently told that the city is budgeting $200,000 per police officer. (That does not include the cost of special units K-9 units, bomb units, helicopters all sorts of special Patrol units, management, office staff, vehicle costs etc) Of course the best way to do the math is to take the total police budget of about 264 million and divided by the number of sworn officers which is about 792 which gives you about $333,000 per year per officer. Now to make matters worse because of the BLM protests and other Union Shenanigans we are now in a situation where every car has to have two officers so we've cut the number of cars in half and so we're spending anywhere between $400,000 to $650,000 a year for each police vehicle you see driving around on patrol.  What's even better with police and fire is they tend to start work at age 25 to 26 or later and then they retire at 50 and their retirement income is at least the highest amount they've ever been paid in their lives. That continues on until they die and also includes Healthcare and a bunch of other cost-of-living perks so you can see how this adds up when you're paying for hundreds and hundreds of officers that don't even work for you anymore. And you're paying for them at a much higher rate than you are for officers currently patrolling the streets. Eventually this house of cards is going to collapse.


There are no efficiency studies being done by people that don't curry favor with the unions or with the city. All the efficiency studies are done by the departments themselves or by those individuals that pass muster with the union. Apparently because the fire department is so popular in Long Beach in terms of public polling they basically came back and said we're not cutting our budget at all for 2021…. so take that City Council. The fire department and the police department are probably the least cost-efficient agencies in the city and use up the most tax money. For example the whole privatization of ambulance services in Long Beach has never been realistically looked at. The reason of course is if you do that you will lose union jobs and give jobs to private companies which cost less. With respect to the the police department they're finally starting to get smart and realizing that they have to have more civilian staff to do a lot of the functions within the department that don't require sworn police officers. (de-fund protests no doubt helping that argument) This is just an example of the stupidity and union nonsense involved when trying to get even simple things done like the administrative enforcement Lakewood did with respect to fireworks.


Another budget-busting problem we have is that a relatively small percentage of the payroll of city employees is too low for those that actually hold shovels versus those that shuffle paper and the paper shufflers in the people in the office tend to cost even more money that other low level worker bee employees This is likely the reason why it takes so long for potholes to get filled and sidewalks to get fixed; there's not enough people actually doing the work.


Another problem with the budget is that the airport revenue/fines and the oil revenue, and the port that money is not being allocated wisely. It's typically trapped in a way that keeps it within the particular Department that it comes from. Fix that.


An ongoing problem with infrastructure ( potholes streets sidewalks bike paths trees parks and other sorts of things) is these were all created many years ago when labor was cheap but there were never any budgets created to support the maintenance of these items and the bills are coming due on almost all of these things especially sewers electricity and water supply. The new money is all allocated for all new projects which get federal and state funding but none of that money is ever allocated or can be allocated towards the maintenance of these projects for 20 or 30 years in the future. Bad idea as it leads to where we are now.


The city spends its time chasing objectives of Sacramento. Not enough of our budget is spent on core infrastructure needs. Too much of it is spent on socialism and other pet projects of administrations. The city received budget funding to create “open streets” for covid yet when it did neighborhood surveys no one wanted the streets to be blocked off from vehicles so the children can play in the streets only to be run over by local delivery trucks. But that money comes with strings attached and you have to spend it on things voters dont want. Much of our budget is being allocated to social projects and not for infrastructure and this loss of focus is responsible for the problem with the infrastructure.


The budget process has very little transparency and taxpayers are never given a seat at the table when Union contracts and other issues are negotiated. There are very few people that could take a look at the current 146 page page proposed budget document and make heads or tails of any of these issues raised above and most don't even care to do it. Most rely of course on their city council member to fight for their objectives. And we see how well that has worked out. 


The budget itself is very obscure and does not provide taxpayers with a clear picture of cost increases cost allocations what goes for health care what goes for pensions what goes for office workers what goes for actual people that perform labor for the city. 


Finally we need to stop penalizing departments for not spending all their budget. They need to be rewarded for not spending all their budget on frivolous matters such as new vehicles. Unfortunately many of these things are going to take many years to change.  California as a whole is running out of money and that includes all of their cities. Cities are still allowed to file bankruptcy (states are not) and a number of cities in California have filed bankruptcy including Stockton. In that case the bankruptcy actually helped Stockton to “de-fund” (reduce funding to) their police department and rethink how they look at public safety. "House Democrats included nearly $1 trillion in state and local aid in the relief bill they passed in May, but the Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, has said he doesn’t want to hand out a “blank check” to pay for what he considers fiscal mismanagement, including the enormous public-pension obligations some states have accrued. There has been little movement in that stalemate lately."


The reason we have a budget problem is the city is using "other people's money" (yours and mine) and they dont give a damn. Their “solution” to all problems is to shovel more money into the trough (Like Measure A...how is that vote tally suit going? ). At the end of the day it's not really their problem they're going to continue to get paid for going to work, continue to get their nearly free health care, and they're going to continue to get their ludicrously costly pensions. Meanwhile city services and infrastructure spending will just crawl to a complete standstill and our city will decay even further. Until people show up at City Hall with “pitchforks and torches” this is not going to change. The only thing that will really make any difference is to elect a majority of the city council to come in from outside city government not feeding from the trough (real outsiders).  They will have to take a hard look from the outside as to how the budget is going to have to work going forward into these very lean years which we are going to be facing for the next 5 to 10 years most likely ( assuming continued fires, floods, climate change, power outages, disasters, earthquakes, pandemics Etc) California is almost in a constant state of emergency now. Long Beach is in the same situation. It's on life support.

 

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

July 11, 2014

The last day to submit FCC comment on network neutrality is July 15 2014


The last day to submit FCC comment on network neutrality is July 15 2014. This is it folks. If you want blogs and small non corporate websites to have a chance to make a difference in the world this is it. Tell the FCC's Tom Wheeler than corporate greed is not ok and that he should look out for us, the ones he is sworn to protect, not his country club buddies from the cable industry that spewed him forth (We are aghast at the fact Obama appointed him). Yes Mr Wheeler you are a Dingo watching our baby. Wheeler disagrees

You can make a comment here.  Email address not required. This is your last chance to tell the FCC what you think. This is more effective than writing to Congress. After this they have to finalize the rules to deal with this defeat (thanks again to the Supremes) you can also send an e-mail to make your opinion known at openinternet@fcc.govr or direct a tweet to Wheeler @TomWheelerFCC

These are all the comments so far (205,000)   This is the FCC press release as of may 15 calling for comment.

Other good background info: PBS on the future

Kickstarter

Businessweek: Wheeler Backtracks

Vox: Beyond Net Neutrality

Vox: Pressure on FCC

Vox: What is neutrality

And Last but not least, Susan Crawford's Book on the issue


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

July 7, 2014

Lakewood is correct in opposing a California Assembly resolution which seeks to eliminate the ability of cities to outsource services

The City of Lakewood is opposing this California Assembly resolution (also reprinted below as of this posting; House Resolution No. 29) which seeks to eliminate the ability of cities to outsource services, including law enforcement and fire. The problem of course is that those two services are just provided for other government bureaucracies (LASheriffs Dept.; LACoFire) so there is no threat to government unions. Don't fret Assembly Democrats. Now as for trash services and street sweeping etc, as the recent price increase in Lakewood suggests, we need to make sure there is full transparency at the city level for all services provided. Transparency heads off problems (like this Assembly resolution) but people at the city of Lakewood try their hardest to keep things "hidden" in plain view. ["oh you can always come into the clerk's office and ask to see a document"...yeah like voters have the time, energy and know how to do that...they can't even find time to vote!] All documents regarding outside contracting need to be posted on the city's website. How many times have we brought this up? What are you afraid of [Lakewood City Council] if someone sees an outside services contract? All those contracts should have a clause in them that says they are to be web posted as well as all documents that relate to the contract. Don't like that Mr. Contractor then don't contract with the city. Can you imagine how much Lakewood services would cost (i.e. taxes) if we had to pay government union level benefits and wages to all service providers? We are already paying outrageous sums to "grass cutters" for parks and center medians vs what private contractors would likely cost. This resolution is opposed by cities and of course supported by bloated over priced public unions who are bankrupting the state. This Assembly resolution needs to be stopped...now. And they way to do it is with more transparency.

Amended IN Assembly April 03, 2014 Amended IN Assembly March 13, 2014 CALIFORNIA LEGISLATURE— 2013–2014 REGULAR SESSION House Resolution No. 29

 Introduced by Assembly Member Gomez (Coauthors: Assembly Members Alejo, Ammiano, Atkins, Bloom, Bocanegra, Bonilla, Bonta, Bradford, Buchanan, Campos, Chau, Chesbro, Dababneh, Dickinson, Fong, Frazier, Gatto, Gonzalez, Hall, Roger Hernández, Holden, Jones-Sawyer, Lowenthal, Nazarian, Pan, John A. Pérez, Quirk, Rendon, Ridley-Thomas, Rodriguez, Skinner, Stone, Ting, Weber, Wieckowski, Williams, and Yamada)

 February 04, 2014 Relative to outsourcing public services.

LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST HR 29, as amended, Gomez.

WHEREAS, Public services and assets are the fabric that binds our communities together. They are also a ladder to the middle class; and WHEREAS, Faced with severe budget problems in the wake of the Great Recession, state and local governments across America are handing over control of public services and assets to corporations that promise to operate them better, faster, and cheaper; and WHEREAS, Outsourcing these services and assets often fails to keep these promises, and too often it undermines transparency, accountability, and shared prosperity and competition - the underpinnings of democracy itself; and WHEREAS, Outsourcing means that taxpayers have less say over how future tax dollars are spent and have no ability to vote out executives who make decisions that could harm the public interest; and WHEREAS, Outsourcing means taxpayers are often contractually limited to a single for-profit corporation; and WHEREAS, Outsourcing frequently means that wages and benefits for public service workers fall and the local economy suffers while corporate profits rise. The Center for American Progress Action Fund has found that of the 5.4 million people working for federal service contractors in 2008, an estimated 80 percent earned below the living wage for their city or region. For-profit corporations are three times more likely than the public sector to employ workers at poverty-threshold wages; and two million private sector employees working for federal contractors earn less than $12 an hour - too little to support a family. That is more low wage workers than are employed by McDonald’s and WalMart combined; and WHEREAS, Outsourcing means that taxpayers often no longer know how their tax dollars are being spent. Meetings and records that used to be open to the public can become proprietary information when corporations take over; and WHEREAS, The Taxpayer Empowerment Agenda is one model that may help ensure transparency, accountability, shared prosperity, and competition in the operation of public services and assets; and WHEREAS, Planks in the Taxpayer Empowerment Agenda would require governments to post information about their contracts online and require contractors to open their books to the public, ensure that governments have the capacity to adequately oversee contracts, to cancel contracts that fail to deliver on their promises, prohibit law breaking companies from getting government contracts, require contractors to pay their employees living wages and benefits, require competitive bidding on contracts that guarantee company profits at the expense of taxpayers; and WHEREAS, Recent polling shows that taxpayers oppose the outsourcing of public services and assets to for-profit companies and support these common sense controls to ensure that their interests are protected; now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Assembly of the State of California, That the Assembly opposes outsourcing of public services and assets, which harms transparency, accountability, shared prosperity, and competition, and supports processes that give public service workers the opportunity to develop their own plan on how to deliver cost-effective, high-quality services; and be it further Resolved, That the Assembly urges local officials to become familiar with the provisions of the Taxpayer Empowerment Agenda; and be it further Resolved, That the Assembly intends to introduce and advocate for responsible outsourcing legislation; and be it further Resolved, That the Chief Clerk of the Assembly transmit copies of this resolution to the author for appropriate distribution.

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

June 13, 2011

We could not have said this better ourselves

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-- Joe Flint

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

April 29, 2011

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

April 7, 2011

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted Comment:

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

March 18, 2011

"Sunshine Week" turns out to be rather overcast

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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 21, 2011

The need for transparency in local government grows

See our related post on our proposed candidates transparency pledge

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

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

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

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

By Catherine Saillant, Los Angeles Times
February 21, 2011

Reporting from Lindsay, Calif.
Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

catherine.saillant@latimes.com



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

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.