Property Tax Rate Comparisons in LA County Cities 2010

This was a very interesting chart from the LA Times this week. (you can sort using column headers at the top) What was most interesting was that the cities with wealthier residents (and likely bigger more expensive homes) had lower property tax rates than poorer cities. The reason the LA Times likely ran this story was there seemed to be a correlation between Bell's property tax rate and its exorbitant salaries of elected and appointed officials. Bell of course is ranked no. 2, second most costly rate in the city. (City of Industry may be the hot seat next as its ranked no. 1!!) But what LAAG found more interesting was that Lakewood was ranked 47th out of all 88 incorporated cities in Los Angeles county. By no means anywhere near the lowest. Very interesting to note that city of Bellflower is ranked 88th (the cheapest in the county) and city of Cerritos is 85th out of 88 incorporated cities in the county. City of Artesia is 84th. All three have much lower tax rates than Lakewood but yet very similar cities in terms of size and demographics. All also have LASD coverage and contracts. Why the difference? Very interesting indeed. Don't count on Lakewood city hall to illuminate any of this mystery for you in any detail if at all. While most cities are responding to the Bell debacle with publications of salary and other data on their website, Lakewood remains totally silent (as of this posting), hoping that all the questions and news focus on "questionable" city practices just dies away....before anyone starts digging around and asking hard questions.

Of course the Times story notes that this chart only includes figures off the county property tax bill which includes all those "nice" little add ons ("voted indebtedness" and "direct assessments") which are not based on lot size or Proposition 13 reductions. In Lakewood these can be over 500.00 per year per parcel/bill as they are not affected by Proposition 13 limits or lot size or property value. How nice!

It would be very interesting to see a comparison of all local utility costs such as water, trash, sewer, fire and police costs. Hopefully we will see something like this in the future from the Times, along with a comparison of all city salaries and personnel costs by city. For example it would be nice to see what the total payroll costs are in Bellflower as related to Lakewood, averaged out per resident.

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

The Real lessons from the City of Bell Debacle

We Don't disagree with the points raised by the LA Times editorial of 7/23 below however there is a broader message: Never trust local politicians (or any for that matter) and always keep your ear to the ground. As Ronald Regan famously said" "Trust but verify" (see more quotes like this on our LAAG quote page) We completely applaud the more recent (7/29) LA times post below and for years have tried to get Sacramento to force local governments to open up their records. The biggest problem with local [city/county] government is that there really are no watchdogs or effective media scrutiny like there is at the state and federal level. No one thinks any fraud or corruption can happen at sleepy little cities yet this is the easiest place to pull it off as no one is even looking. Hell they don't even know where to look or if they did that the city would post anything on line answering their inquiries. Public records requests are useless as the law has no teeth and too many exceptions. All you get is a bureaucratic run around and no one bothers. The scary part is that no one looked at was how it was precisely that the LA Times was able to break this story. It was insider info apparently from the police. Great. Took a city feud to get the info out. See if you can find any mention of the Bell issues on the Lakewood website. Nope not one. See any salaries posted of ANY current city official or elected official? Nope. (a search for "salaries" or "pensions" on the Lakewood website did not pull up one document) Good luck on that. Can Lakewood become the next Bell? Sure. Why not? All cities have the potential to become Bell. Its just takes voters asleep at the switch and the right combination of insiders to get the guts to try to pull it off. Bell had that deadly combination. This website was created out of a frustration with the lack of transparency and action by local government. Nothing has changed. It wont until voters demand it change.

We applaud this latest column from Terry Francke (Voice of OC's open government consultant and general counsel for Californians Aware) as it once again just echoes LAAG's foregoing comments and emphasizes the problems with the current system (and weaknesses in the Brown Act) that allows any city to become Bell with the right [wrong] people in charge.

This ethics outline might be a good thing for the city council to post up in council chambers just to make sure they don't "forget" what they are supposed to do. And LAAG reminds "public servants" all the time, its not that anything "unethical" is actually going on, its that secrecy gives rise to "an appearance of impropriety". Taxpayers have a right to be suspicious, especially now with bell and all the other public pension debacles (back room shady deals) coming to light.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/07/schwarzenegger-city-salaries-should-be-placed-online-to-avoid-another-bell-scandal.html
Schwarzenegger: City salaries should be placed online to avoid another Bell scandal
July 29, 2010 | 11:29 am

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger said Thursday that if local governments have “nothing to hide” then they should post the salaries of top officials online, citing the growing scandal in Bell as an example of the need for disclosure.

City managers from across California are gathering in Sacramento today to discuss damage control.

The Legislature is also considering several responses to the high salaries in Bell, up to nearly $800,000 for former City Manager Robert Rizzo.

“The people should start asking themselves what are their city officials, what are their county officials getting paid,” Schwarzenegger told a group of business leaders at round-table discussion in San Diego.

Schwarzenegger said outrage over the scandal in Bell has the public calling cities and counties demanding to know what officials are being paid.

But local governments, he said, should go one step further and “put your information on a website so people don’t even have to call.”

-- Shane Goldmacher in Sacramento

latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-bell-20100724,0,1549953.story
latimes.com
Editorial
The lessons of Bell
There's a lesson for all citizens in how the outrageous salaries for Bell city officials came about.

4:06 PM PDT, July 23, 2010
Advertisement

Bell City Manager Robert Rizzo has announced his resignation from his $787,637 a year job, as have police Chief Randy Adams ($457,000) and Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia ($376,288), and we wish all three a not-so-fond farewell. Even if they performed their work brilliantly, and even if they believed in their hearts that no one earning less could properly serve their problem-wracked city, their pay was shocking, and so utterly out of step with their counterparts in neighboring municipalities and their own struggling residents as to be inherently exploitive.

The public became aware of the disproportionate salaries earlier this month in reports by Times staff writers Jeff Gottlieb and Ruben Vives. Now Bell residents are angry and want to know why most members of their part-time City Council, which approved the contracts for the three, get an outrageous $100,000 a year when nearby council members get 10% of that, or even less. Prosecutors already are delving into that question, and they will determine whether there is sufficient evidence to pursue criminal charges.

It would be comforting to be able to conclude that the problems in Bell — or in nearby cities such as Maywood, South Gate, Lynwood, Vernon and Compton, which have all been plagued by exploitation, mismanagement and corruption — originated with a handful of municipal officials who forgot their moral and fiduciary duties to the people they were supposed to serve. Or, perhaps, that the people of those cities brought these problems on themselves by electing such leaders, or by staying away from the polls and allowing themselves to be suckered.

Although there's certainly some truth to both of those explanations, the full reality is far more complex and troubling. Bell and its neighboring communities were built on factory industries and on waves of immigrants from the American Midwest who built their cities' civic institutions. They stayed, and many of their children stayed, but their grandchildren left when the factories closed. Their places are being taken by new waves of immigrants, mostly from Mexico, who are still in the process of rebuilding community and civic institutions — but without the wealth that industry once pumped into middle-class pockets and city treasuries. Unlike the earlier waves of immigrants, many of the newest generation lack U.S. citizenship and can't vote. Those who came here illegally live and work in fear of the law and tend to keep their heads low rather than fight exploitation at the hands of those who win power.

But it's not even that simple. In 2005, soon after the governor signed a bill to cap salaries of city council members in general law cities such as Bell, public officials there called a special election to ask voters to make Bell a charter city. Only 336 voters said "yes," but it was enough. Ballot measures, drafted for purposes not immediately clear in their wording, are unfortunately not phenomena limited to small cities. That's a lesson, in this election year, for every California voter.


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

California Proposition 59 - freedom of information or "sunshine" law

California Proposition 59 was an amendment of the Constitution of California that introduced freedom of information or "sunshine" provisions. On November 2, 2004 it passed with 9,334,852 (83.4%) votes in favor and 1,870,146 (16.6%) against.

The amendment adds to the state constitution Article I, Section 3 (b). Section 3 (a) is the provision of the Declaration of Rights that guarantees the right to freedom of assembly, the right to petition the government and the right to instruct ones elected representatives. The amendment added to these rights the following provisions:

(1) The people have the right of access to information concerning the conduct of the people’s business, and, therefore, the meetings of public bodies and the writings of public officials and agencies shall be open to public scrutiny.

(2) A statute, court rule, or other authority, including those in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, shall be broadly construed if it furthers the people’s right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. A statute, court rule, or other authority adopted after the effective date of this subdivision that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest.

(3) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies the right of privacy guaranteed by Section 1 or affects the construction of any statute, court rule, or other authority to the extent that it protects that right to privacy, including any statutory procedures governing discovery or disclosure of information concerning the official performance or professional qualifications of a peace officer.

(4) Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.

(5) This subdivision does not repeal or nullify, expressly or by implication, any constitutional or statutory exception to the right of access to public records or meetings of public bodies that is in effect on the effective date of this subdivision, including, but not limited to, any statute protecting the confidentiality of law enforcement and prosecution records.

(6) Nothing in this subdivision repeals, nullifies, supersedes, or modifies protections for the confidentiality of proceedings and records of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses provided by Section 7 of Article IV, state law, or legislative rules adopted in furtherance of those provisions; nor does it affect the scope of permitted discovery in judicial or administrative proceedings regarding deliberations of the Legislature, the Members of the Legislature, and its employees, committees, and caucuses.


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

Water costs to increase 109% in Lakewood

Just as LAAG was getting ready to write an article on what a poor job cities like Lakewood are doing on water conservation and recycling (other than lip service), this story below pops up and grabbed our attention. Bottom line: water fees are going up 109% due to spending on pork projects that do not appear to be directly related to water delivery to residents in Lakewood. Whatever happened to all the federal stimulus money? Again this is yet another sad example of how government agencies (especially little known, little watched ones like the Central Basin Municipal Water District) just do not care what the taxpayers think about spending. They know that most of what they do is carried out in utter obscurity and hidden from ratepayers, and unless things really get out of hand, most increases are gradual, slow or hidden in "obscure fees" and unnoticed by most ratepayers (like the frog in the boiling water; turn up the heat (or costs) slow and he wont jump out before he cooks).

Charges for water need to be based more on rational formulas than simply raw usage. Charge based on lot size and number of occupants. Once they go above the allotted threshold fees go way up. Then perhaps we would see all those silly lawns in Lakewood replaced with drought resistant plants. People in LA county fail to realize that we live in a desert and its going to get worse before it gets better. We are now in year round drought mode. Rain in LA country means very little as the vast majority of it just goes out to the ocean (after it picks up a bunch of toxic chemicals after coursing over miles of driveways, streets, gutters and storm water drains. Some non run off waste water is treated then released to the ocean. Only a very small percentage of water in LA County is reclaimed and used to water lawns. Not only is this a waste of money and energy but also something that is even more precious: water.

Of course the irony here (as usual) is that this "fee" increase has nothing to do with the scarcity or usage of water (or even the cost of water) but rather poor judgment by bureaucrats and pet projects of dubious value. Still this cost increase may have the "beneficial" effect of making people cut back on water use and starting to be come more rational in terms of their landscaping choices.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-water-rates18-2009jul18,0,756615.story
From the Los Angeles Times
Doubling of water fees in largely blue-collar L.A. County area stirs uproar
The Central Basin Municipal Water District says the money will go to projects that are cheaper to build during a recession. But client cities and agencies question the expenditures.
By Louis Sahagun

[bold text from LAAG editor]

July 18, 2009

A water district's decision to double water fees has sparked outcry from largely working-class and impoverished areas of Los Angeles County.

The Central Basin Municipal Water District unanimously approved the charges June 25, despite objections from cities including Compton, Lynwood, Santa Fe Springs, Huntington Park, Bellflower, Norwalk and Lakewood.

The fee hikes will be phased in, from $44 per acre-foot of water to $62 per acre-foot on July 1, then to $72 per acre-foot on Jan. 1, 2010, and $92 on July 1, 2010.

An average household in Lakewood, for example, can expect to pay about $88 more a year on water services, officials said.

Officials in Norwalk, which buys 80% of its water from the district, say the city's water fund cannot support the increase without passing the cost on to customers.

"This issue is not dead yet," said Adriana Figueroa, administrative services manager for Norwalk. "We have lots of questions and we want answers -- we deserve them."

Cities and local water agencies have begun questioning the board's spending on projects, including a 12-mile-long pipeline for recycled water, and contributions it made toward building an "interpretive center" in the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary.

Art Aguilar, district manager for the central board, sympathized with customers, but insisted that "the money we get will be spent wisely" on projects that he said are more efficient to build during a recession, when costs have fallen.

"I do not disagree with their anger and being upset," Aguilar said. "If we didn't have to do it right now we wouldn't. . . . It's just one of those things. We have a bad economy, which means that the cost of building the recycled-water pipeline will be less than it would in a strong economy. So we'll save money in the long run." The pipeline project "was initially projected to cost about a total $110 million," he said. "We believe it will come in at less than that."

But Jeanne-Marie Bruno, general manager of Downey-based Park Water Co., a district customer that serves portions of Compton, Norwalk and Artesia, was not convinced that her customers would benefit directly from that project.

"We have lots of questions," she said. "Does this project make sense for our region? Are the right customers being billed for this project?"

Robb Whitaker, general manager of the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, argued that this was not the time to raise fees. The agency manages groundwater for nearly 4 million residents of southern Los Angeles County, according to its website.

"In the worst of times," he said in a letter to Aguilar, "when our respective public and private customers are laying off employees and implementing mandatory furloughs and generally slashing their budgets, such an increase is unimaginable."

Some environmentalists took issue with the district's donation of $80,000 last year in support of a controversial proposal to build a $30-million interpretive center and parking lot in the Whittier Narrows wildlife sanctuary.

Aguilar said the district wants to use the proposed center for new student programs designed to enhance understanding of the San Gabriel River watershed and its water districts. He pointed out that as part of an effort to cut costs, the district did not donate money this year to the San Gabriel River Discovery Center.

Jim Odling, chairman of the Friends of the Whittier Narrows Natural Area, which opposes the center, said the environmental impact report on the project "indicates the real purpose of the center will be to serve as a fancy meeting place for water and government agencies."

"In other words," he said, "while the district claims to be so desperate for money it is raising surcharge fees, it managed to come up with $80,000 to help build an interpretive center nine times bigger than the one that exists there now."

The Commerce-based district supplies water to 2 million residents in 24 cities and unincorporated county areas. Each year, it provides about 60,000 acre-feet of imported water to its 227-square-mile service area.

The district "is doing everything it can to provide information," Aguilar said. "If we need to sit down and have more meetings and outreach, we will do that too." (LAAG editor: yes we can have the meeting at the new interpretive center!)

"I understand that a 109% increase sounds horrible to people," he added. "But in the long run it will allow us to put together projects that will allow us to serve them better in the future."

louis.sahagun@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

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

LAPD innovation needed at LA Sheriff's Dept.

Once again LASD (Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept.) is way behind the times and LAPD (Los Angeles Police Dept.), an organization just as large as LASD and just as bureaucratic. Yet with forward thinking leadership via "Broadway Bill" Bratton (appointed not elected no less) we get some pretty innovative ideas. His crime mapping idea borrowed from his ideas while in NYC seems to be making progress. The latest idea is the tip site. We like the idea and will monitor its progress. Another idea is LAPDTV which this week is airing live crime scene work from the excavation of a possible burial site of a murder victim from the 1960's. Pretty innovative stuff. LAAG likes government transparency. That is very hard to come by with LASD. We all know what happens without oversight (i.e. the subprime mortgage financial mess).

Don't expect anything like this from LASD which is still policing in the 1970's. Time for some fresh leadership at LASD. Too bad we have to leave LASD leadership election up to the voters.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-text18-2008sep18,0,2533933.story
From the Los Angeles Times

LAPD unveils new tipster tool: anonymous text messages
Chief William J. Bratton says he hopes the new technology will generate more crime tips from the public.
By Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

September 18, 2008

Los Angeles Police Chief William J. Bratton on Wednesday unveiled a new system allowing people to provide anonymous crime tips to police through text messages and the department's website.

Bratton said he hoped the new technology, which protects the sender's identity, would generate more crime tips to the LAPD from the public.

"Far too often, victims and witnesses are too afraid to come forward out of fear of retaliation. Today, we're changing that," said L.A. Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who appeared at a news conference with Bratton.

Villaraigosa demonstrated the new text message system, sending an anonymous message from a cellphone saying he had witnessed a robbery and that the suspect had entered a grocery store at 8th Street and Broadway. After sending the message, the mayor received a reply assigning him an alias, which he could use to contact police and provide additional information.

Messages from tipsters are delivered to the Los Angeles Police Department's Regional Crime Center, the agency's information hub for daily operations through which tips are relayed to detectives and patrol officers in the field. The system also allows officers to communicate with the anonymous sender via text messages, according to LAPD Capt. Joel Justice.

Justice said the text message system was already used by police in New York, Boston and San Diego.

Tipsters send text messages to 274637 -- which spells the word CRIMES -- then type LAPD. The message is routed through a national system to Los Angeles police. Tipsters will also be able to convey information on www.lapdonline.org by clicking on the WebTips icon.

At the news conference, law enforcement officials said they hoped the public would use the system to assist police in cracking high-profile crimes, such as the Aug. 2 slaying of L.A. County sheriff's Deputy Juan Escalante, who was attacked outside his Cypress Park home, and the string of 11 slayings in South Los Angeles dating back to 1985, which police say were committed by a serial killer.

"We need more clues than we have now," said LAPD Deputy Chief Charlie Beck, who is overseeing the serial killer investigation. "We will solve this crime, but we would rather solve it sooner rather than later." richard.winton@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

Use of personal email accounts for government business

see our story update 3-29-11 at bottom of this post

We reprint the story below from the Washinton Post to again put all public officials on notice that using a "personal email" account for official government communications subjects the entire contents of the email account to public records act requests. We went through this before with the Karl Rove camp using @RNC (republican national committee) email addresses for official government email as a way of subverting public records requests. We have brought this issue to the attention to the Lakewood City Council numerous times yet all five still use their personal email accounts and not accounts @lakewoodcity.org. So we wait until this blows up in their face much like it did for poor little Sarah Palin, who only a few months ago was herself a lowly city council member. We also brought up to to the city council a number of times that they did not post ANY email addresses on the city website for citizens to contact them directly. We feel the reason for this is much like Bush, Cheney and McCain who don't use email simply because they want no paper trial of any of their activities. The fewer Lakewood residents that email the council about issues the better. That way there is no trace of the issue, the date, or the response or lack thereof. Then like most politicians, when the the problem blows up they can say they never knew about it (and you have no way of proving it)

All the Palin email was posted at Wikileaks.org and that site was overloaded all evening. Apparently the news media is pouring over it or the secret service is trying to take it down. Gawker had some posted.

Once again Lakewood City Council, you are on notice that this practice is wrong and needs to stop. Oh and for those that dont have the councils "non official" (and only) email addresses here they are:

Todd Rogers -- tsrr@msn.com
Joe Esquivel -- bayoujo@aol.com
Larry Van Nostran -- oldeacon@aol.com
Steve Croft -- stacro@aol.com
Diane DuBois -- diane4citycncil@aol.com

Hackers Access Palin's Personal E-Mail, Post Some Online

By Michael D. Shear and Karl Vick
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 18, 2008; A04

A group of computer hackers said yesterday that they had accessed a Yahoo e-mail account of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, the Republican vice presidential nominee, publishing some of her private communications to expose what appeared to be her use of a personal account for government business.

The hackers posted what they said were personal photos, the contents of several messages, the subject lines of dozens of e-mails and Palin's e-mail contact list on a site called Wikileaks.org. That site said it received the electronic files from a group identifying itself only as "Anonymous."

"At around midnight last night some members affiliated with the group gained access to governor Palin's email account, 'gov.palin@yahoo.com' and handed over the contents to the government sunshine site Wikileaks.org," said a message on the site.

Rick Davis, the campaign manager for Republican presidential nominee John McCain, issued a statement yesterday afternoon condemning the incident.

"This is a shocking invasion of the Governor's privacy and a violation of law," he said. "The matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these e-mails will destroy them. We will have no further comment."

The episode focuses attention on Palin's use of her personal e-mail account as lawmakers in Alaska look into whether she fired the state's public safety commissioner, Walter Monegan, because he refused to take action against her brother-in-law, a state trooper at the time.

Palin has been criticized in recent days for using a personal e-mail account to conduct state business. An Alaska activist has filed a Freedom of Information Act request seeking disclosure of e-mails from another Yahoo account Palin used, gov.sarah@yahoo.com.

That account appears to have been linked to the one that was hacked.

Both accounts appear to have been deactivated. E-mails sent to them yesterday were returned as undeliverable.

Andrée McLeod, who filed the FOIA request, said yesterday evening that Palin should have known better than to conduct state business using an unsecured e-mail account.

"If this woman is so careless as to conduct state business on a private e-mail account that has been hacked into, what in the world is she going to do when she has access to information that is vital to our national security interests?" she asked.

McLeod's Anchorage attorney, Donald C. Mitchell, said Palin declined to comply with a public records request in June to divulge 1,100 e-mails sent to and from her personal accounts, citing executive privilege.

"There's a reason the governor should be using her own official e-mail channels, because of security and encryption," the attorney said. "She's running state business out of Yahoo?"

McCain officials did not return calls and e-mails seeking further comment on the hacking and McLeod's remarks.

The images of the Yahoo inbox posted by hackers are stippled with the names of Palin aides using both official and private e-mail addresses.

Among the e-mails released as part of the records request in June were several from Ivy Frye, an aide, asking a state official whether private e-mail accounts and messages sent to BlackBerry devices are immune to subpoena, then reporting the answer to the governor and her husband, Todd, who also uses a Yahoo e-mail address.

One referenced "Draft letter to Governor Schwarzenegger/Container Tax" and another said "DPS Personnel and Budget Issues," an apparent reference to the Alaska Department of Public Safety.

Michael Allison, chief executive of the Internet Crimes Group, a private company specializing in Internet security, said the hackers may have accessed Palin's account by using publicly available information to guess her password, or by using a small program called a trojan to capture her keystrokes.

"I would hope the authorities would be all over this," Allison said. "The only deterrent is that people know the certainty of being caught."

Government Uses Commercial Email and Texting to Avoid FOIA Laws
Read More: Democracy, Disclosure, Email, Foia, Texting, Transparency, Twitter, Politics News
Peter Scheer
lawyer, writer and advocate for 1st Amendment rights
Posted: August 22, 2009 01:27 AM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-scheer/government-uses-commercia_b_265809.html

All public officials favor open government in principle. Who would dare say otherwise? In reality, however, they are in a perpetual search, guided by clever lawyers, for new ways to circumvent disclosure requirements--at best, because they view requests for records as a nuisance, and at worst, because they have something to hide (which can range from the merely embarrassing to the indictable).

The latest device for openness avoidance is the use of personal email accounts (and, increasingly, text messaging too) for government communications. Mayors, city council members, agency executives and school superintendents have been told that if they do government business on their gmail or yahoo accounts--anything but their official .gov email--their communications, no matter how focused on government matters, will never see the light of day.

What do your elected representatives do when they believe that their messages about government business are secret? In San Jose, city council members, like proverbial puppets on a string, take instructions during council meetings on how to vote, according to a San Jose Mercury News report on text messages sent by representatives of unions and other special interests.

The former San Bernardino County Assessor, who was arrested on drug charges and is under grand jury investigation, used electronic messaging on personal cell phones to direct his staff in partisan political activities, according to a report of an independent investigation commissioned by the county. The investigators found that the assessor and his staff had chosen this means of communicating in order to avoid creating public records.

You don’t have to be a legal scholar to appreciate the size of the loophole that this practice creates. If all it takes to avoid the obligations of the Public Records Act, California’s freedom of information law, is to use a commercial email account for official communications, then all such communications--except the occasional anodyne and self-serving message actually intended for public consumption--will shift to that private channel. The Public Records Act, already porous with special interest loopholes, might as well be renamed the California Official Secrets Act.

Lawyers for local government say that email and text messages sent or received on a private account, no matter their content, are not “public records” because they are not “. . . owned, used, or retained by” a government agency, as the Public Records Act requires. Electronic communications are “owned, used, or retained by” government only if they reside on a government server, they say. Despite the superficial plausibility of this reasoning, it is, indeed, only superficially plausible.

A government agency doesn’t do anything except through people--employees, elected officials, consultants, whatever--who are the government’s agents. Without getting too deep into legalese here, the point is that the actions of the government’s agents are imputed to the government, and the government is responsible for those actions. An arrest by a police officer, a mayor’s promise to a campaign contributor, a public school teacher’s grading of a student paper--all are actions of and by the government entity that these people represent.

The same is true for written communications about government matters that these people create or receive, regardless of the technology used or the account status. The communications are “owned,” “used” and “retained” by government because they are owned, used and retained by persons in their capacity as agents of the government.

Here’s an analogy. Suppose the mayor of your town, at a private meeting in her private home, signs a written agreement with a contractor to expand the local airport. The agreement is a paper document in the mayor’s house, miles away from her office at city hall. There is no doubt that this document is a public record that belongs to the town because it is “owned,” “used” and “retained” by the mayor as the town’s agent. Nothing changes if the document sits, not on the mayor’s kitchen table, but in the digital in-box of her personal email account at msn.com. Either way, it’s indisputably a public record that belongs to the town.

Finally, the objection is made that a search through a government official’s commercial email account for requested public records is overly intrusive. But any intrusiveness is due to the official’s choice to mix his personal email messages with his emails about government business. The remedy is not to deny citizens their access rights, but for government to adopt email use and retention policies that mitigate, if not eliminate, the problem.

What policies? Consider this proposal:

1) Agencies and local governments should set up one email account with gobs of storage capacity. To keep it simple and inexpensive, a corporate account (offering extra security) with Google or Yahoo will suffice.

2) Agencies’ .gov email accounts, by default, should “bcc” all emails to the government database account.

3) All government employees should be instructed that, when using their own commercial email account for government matters, they must “bcc” their business messages to the database account (and forward incoming business email there too). Basically, any email that is not strictly personal should be copied to the online storage account.

These three simple steps produce a comprehensive government database that provides the agency with a valuable archival resource; allows for consistent application of document retention policies; and, perhaps most important, is fully searchable using search engine technology with which all employees are familiar. Any public records requests for email can be quickly and simply processed through searches of the archive. (No IT personnel are needed!)

Many elected representatives have become proficient at using technology to thwart public access to government. Why not, instead, use technology to enhance the transparency and accountability of government?
----
Peter Scheer, a lawyer and journalist, is executive director of the California First Amendment Coalition, based in San Rafael, CA. http://www.cfac.org


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

What budget crisis?

What is ironic is on the same day the new (appointed not elected) OC Sheriff just gave up some perks LA Times posts the story below on county vehicles being doled out like candy. As noted in today LA Times: "Further distancing herself from the practices of her indicted predecessor, Orange County Sheriff Sandra Hutchens said she wouldn't use a team of deputies to protect her -- or even a driver to chauffeur her to public appearances. Acting against the advice of some colleagues, Hutchens said she intended to drive herself to meetings in a county car, her only protection the Glock 9-millimeter handgun holstered at her waist."

But not here in good ol' LA county. We waste tax dollars just like they were water (come to think of it we waste water too) What do you think the gas bill is for these gas guzzlers that the taxpayers are also paying? Where is it written that people in government should get free cars, gas and chauffeurs? Did I miss that line in the state constitution? Oh wait, they use the line in the constitution that says "once elected you can do what you want as long as too many of the 'little people' (to quote Leona Helmsley) don't revolt"

I say dump 50% of the county cars. All should be 4 cylinder or natural gas. No freebies for elected officials period. None. Most of those elected "officials" (aka royalty) are millionaires before they get elected anyway.

The Grand Jury report on this issue is available here (the part about vehicle use starts on page 89 of the report)

County officials reaping unintended benefits from vehicles
By Troy Anderson, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 07/10/2008 09:38:08 PM PDT

At a time when many Los Angeles County residents are grappling with the squeeze of an economic downturn, dozens of top county government officials are tooling around in "unjustified luxury vehicles" costing taxpayers as much as $50,000 each.

More than 1,400 county workers are given take-home cars, even though some don't have official authorization to drive them, and at least 30 employees aren't paying the required taxes on the vehicles.

Meanwhile, county employees were involved in 1,852 accidents in their take-home vehicles over the past few years - with 830 accidents in 2005-06 alone that cost taxpayers $6.7 million.

The findings are among hundreds outlined in a recently released Grand Jury report that uncovered broad department inconsistencies and lax oversight of the county's $433 million, 12,780-vehicle fleet.

"I think this certainly demonstrates that the county has a long way to go to convince taxpayers that it has a revenue problem and not a spending problem," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association.

"Its chronic problems with mismanagement of its vehicle fleet is particularly frustrating given that those perks are something that most county taxpayers will never see in their own jobs."

Chief Executive Officer Bill Fujioka said Wednesday that his staff is still reviewing the Grand Jury's findings and will address all problems and issues that have been identified.

"We are meeting with the CEO next week to go over all the recommendations by the Grand Jury and then we'll develop a response to those recommendations," Auditor-Controller Wendy Watanabe said.

In the report, jurors identified 51 "unjustified luxury vehicles" costing more than $30,000 each that could be considered "excessive for routine county business."

Twenty of those vehicles were being used by employees in the county's health department, eight among the Board of Supervisors, seven in the public works department, three for librarians and 13 in other departments.

Jurors wrote that they also received information that some county departments were purchasing luxury sedans and high-end sports-utility vehicles for top executives.

"A review of departmental vehicle inventories indicates that some departments have purchased luxury vehicles for the department director or other senior managers," jurors wrote.

"Without clear direction from the Board of Supervisors, departments do not have a strong incentive to purchase vehicles that more closely meet the business needs of the departments and are priced at a lower cost."

Supervisors Michael D. Antonovich, Don Knabe, Gloria Molina, Zev Yaroslavsky and Yvonne Burke could not be reached Thursday for comment.

But a spokesman for Antonovich said the board is still reviewing the findings.

"Yes, we are reviewing and we will look at the report and act accordingly, once we've had a chance to review it in its entirety," said spokesman Tony Bell.

The most expensive vehicle identified in the report was a 2007 Acura MDX worth $49,511 that is the take-home vehicle used by Assessor Rick Auerbach.

Auerbach said he paid $10,511 of his own money for the vehicle to help offset its cost, and also uses his monthly vehicle allowance, plus $50, to pay for the vehicle.

"I looked for a car that was the safest, best car I could get that would meet the requirements of what I use it for," Auerbach said.

"I drive approximately 25,000 miles a year throughout the county. I don't have a driver. I spend a lot of time on the road. So I looked for the car that would best meet my needs, realizing I'm driving a lot and it's been written up as a very, very safe vehicle."

Other expensive vehicles included Antonovich's 2007 Cadillac DTS at $31,663, a 2003 Lincoln LS costing $48,192 and a 2007 Toyota Highlander hybrid SUV costing $38,322.

But Bell, Antonovich's spokesman, said the jurors failed to note that Antonovich's car is among the cheapest driven by the five supervisors.

"It was purchased used with 12,000 miles on it and he pays a portion of the monthly costs," Bell said. "We're operating on the premise this is an expensive car. The audit is flawed. It's obviously not compared to the costs of the other cars."

According to information from the Board of Supervisors' Executive Office, Knabe drives a 2008 Hybrid Chevy Tahoe that costs $57,134, while Burke drives a 2006 Chrysler 300 that cost $37,854 and Molina drives a 2007 Buick Lucerne that cost $32,409.

Yaroslavsky drives a 2000 Buick Park Avenue, Internal Services Department fleet car.

Jurors found the county's largest departments have 1,471 take-home vehicles, including 75 for deputies and other employees of the Board of Supervisors.

While many of the take-home vehicles are for employees who may need to respond to an emergency after normal work hours, others are a benefit as part of an employee's compensation package.

Generally, senior department managers are given county vehicles for personal use to drive home and to work.

But jurors wrote some departments have inconsistent take-home vehicle policies, which also places the vehicles at heightened risk of abuse or theft.

"Without formal justification, some take-home privileges may not be appropriate since there is minimal review and oversight to ensure adequate business need," jurors wrote.

troy.anderson@dailynews.com

(213) 974-8985

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

Robberies on the rise in Lakewood? LASD won't give you the info to decide

We are getting tired of learning about crime patterns and trends from local news sites like LBReport.com. For example this armed home invasion robbery near Candlewood and Bellflower Blvd on June 8, 2008 as well as a second June 6, 2008 bike jacking that residents need to be aware of especially as the criminals have not been caught and are likely to do this again. This information must be distributed by LASD directly and quickly via crime blotters. We have been asking the city council for this since June 2007! LAAG has offered to connect LASD with computer experts that could automate this function for a very low cost. Nothing has happened.

Other cities with responsible and accommodating police department's provide that information on their websites on a daily basis in an easy to understand and read format. For example this is what Santa Monica PD and Gardena PD does for its tax paying residents. This information is collected daily by LASD and it would not take much effort to publish it daily on the web for Lakewood residents. LASD is doing it in Bellflower (for some added cost to that city but the Lakewood reporting could be better, faster, more complete and cheaper) We suspect the reason it is not done is that Lakewood residents would either find out how few calls the LASD actually rolls on each day, how few crimes are really ever "resolved" via an arrest, or what the "real" crime rate is on a weekly basis. So what are we getting for 9 million in taxes a year? Not much in the way of tangible information thats for sure. Information is power and I dont think LASD wants to share any with Lakewood residents. I think with a new Sheriff Captain (Lt. Christy Guyovich who replaced Capt. Fender on April 6, 2008) in Lakewood we need to see a new level of disclosure. With all the armed robberies in Lakewood this year something has to be done.

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

Want to know what state employees make? We did

Well this was too good to pass up. Now we hope this will enlighten the public about where their tax dollars are going. We need databases like this for county and city employees as well as well as a database to tell us how much they will cost us when they retire at 50 with full health care at 90% of their pay. Here is the link to the database. Thank you Sacramento Bee! We need more papers like you.

Public Editor: Public is public and there is just no hiding that
By Armando Acuña -
Published 12:00 am PDT Sunday, March 16, 2008

The fallout from The Bee's decision to post a searchable-by-name database of state worker salaries at sacbee.com continued last week, dominating reader feedback for a second time.

There were, however, a few new twists that weren't apparent in the initial days after the database and the accompanying story about state salaries were published March 4.

While the overall tenor of response from state workers remains critical – though the number of complaints has significantly declined – an increasing number of state employees and just plain citizens say they support the paper's decision to create the database.

And it's more clear than ever that, overwhelmingly, almost every negative response has come from state workers, their spouses or relatives.

The number of complaints from regular folks to my office literally can be counted on one hand.

Meanwhile, the total page views at sacbee.com/statepay have reached about 4 million.

There was also some news as the paper's editors responded to reader requests for database changes.

Added were categories for searches by pay range, job title and agency.

As explained in an editor's note published last Tuesday, you can now "see who makes the most in a department, the pay for everyone in that department with a certain job title, and the number of workers there who make over $100,000 – or under $30,000."

This is an important addition, in my opinion, as it helps satisfy a legitimate complaint that it was difficult to compare and analyze inequities in state salaries on a large scale using the original database.

In addition, new links were added to state worker salary databases in other states, to a searchable database for federal employees and to national data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics comparing public- and private-sector salaries.

These were all things readers asked for, yet many missed the editor's note about the changes, judging from some of my e-mail.

The paper also has added legislative employee salaries to the database.

In case you were unaware, there was also a protest by about 100 state workers, who picketed in front of The Bee on Wednesday. The protest was organized by one of the public employee unions.

And speaking of the unions, one reader sent a copy of an online newsletter from a unit of the California State University Employees Union. The newsletter tells employees concerned about the database who to complain to at The Bee, including my office.

The newsletter concludes, however, with this: "On the positive side, this should help with researching those equity issues."

It then provides links to The Bee's database and state salary story.

I agree with them. It is one of the positive parts of having the searchable database.

A relatively small but growing number of readers – a few dozen as opposed to hundreds of critical state workers – have sent e-mails or left phone messages supporting the paper's efforts.

Several have been highly critical of the complaining state employees, saying The Bee should also include all benefits – such as retirement contributions, health care, vacations, etc. – to more accurately show total compensation and better compare public- vs. private-sector pay and benefits.

Some want to know whether the paper will expand its database to include the salaries of county, city and public school employees. The answer is yes, though full implementation may take awhile.

A number of responses have come from former and current state workers.

"All of the dust-up over printing state worker names and salaries is a tempest in a tea cup as far as I'm concerned," wrote a reader from Elk Grove. "From 1984 to December 2004, I worked as a staff employee for the Assembly and then for the Senate. About two times a year, a local weekly paper (Capitol Weekly) ran the names, positions and salaries of all California legislative employees. No problem.

"We were – and are – being paid with tax money and our names, positions and salaries were and are public data. We found these printings to be of great interest to see who was being paid what. A real education!"

Wrote a woman who works for CalEPA:

"Please don't paint all state workers with the same brush. I have worked for the state for years and did not complain or comment on the salary database because I think my employers should know how much they pay me," she said in her e-mail. "I work for the taxpayers of California and they are all free to know anything about the work they pay me to do."

A woman from Elverta, who said she's read the paper for 45 years, e-mailed to say, "I feel The Bee's intention in making the information more readily accessible to the public is in the community's best interests."

I've excluded the names of these readers to shield them from some of the vitriol and name-calling directed at me by some of those vehemently opposed to the database that might come their way if they were identified.

It comes with my territory, not theirs.

As this situation continues to play itself out, it's apparent some state employees don't understand, as I tried to explain last week, that an important role of the newspaper is to gather and disseminate public information. That includes making it easier for people to find and use public information.

Last Wednesday, a woman said in her e-mail that she and her husband are state workers. She said they were angry at the paper for, among other things, making public information public.

"The Bee states this (salary database) is public information, then erroneously concludes that since it is public, the public should know."

I will let that speak for itself.


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

Public Disclosure...well sort of

Well I am glad to see at least another City Council member agrees with LAAG. The city of Lakewood for the most part tries to comply with the letter of the law but surely does not comply with the spirit of the law. It is so many things. They tout their "internet friendly" service desk yet results are no where a swift as the speed at which your request gets to them. They spend hundreds of thousands of tax dollars on consultants and IT infrastructure but the taxpayers never see the results. We have brought this to the city's attention numerous times and we are ignored. The implication of the city's silence is that they like things just the way they are. Don't let taxpayers really know what is going on as it creates too much work, just like with fireworks and RV's. Keep as many issues hidden in plain view as possible so no pesky voters show up at the meetings and get themselves on cable TV (of course no one can really watch the streamed meetings as they are played at odd hours and worst of all are not archived; again another example of complying with the letter and not the spirit of the public disclosure laws.)

You can find out all you want on the Lakewood website about dance class schedules but Heaven forbid they post on their home page a meeting announcement that they think the public may want to attend. (well unless city council members think they can attract lots of voters who agree with their position).

This Costco hearing is a prime example. Read the excerpt below from the PT. Now we dont care if you agree with the Costco or not. Thats not the point. The point is the city tries to do things under the cover of night as much as possible. Skolnick tells the Press Telegram that Lakewood did not "intend" to hide this from Long Beach (what about Lakewood voters?!). I never saw one announcement from Lakewood via its silly email newsletter about the 12/12/08 hearing (plenty of notices about firehouse cookbooks on sale though) If Lakewood knew there "had been a lot of press on the project" (of course not about the specifics or time and date of the meeting) then why didnt the city step up and post the notice on the front page of the website? Would that have killed them? No but they knew it would bring too many people out of the woodwork and Heaven forbid we dont want that.

Now of course it is somewhat the pot calling the kettle black here with Long Beach. We all know that all these border cities fight like Shiites and Sunni's when it comes to attracting new tax revenue (lets not get into incentives). And quite frankly Long Beach has egg on its face with respect to hiding its own City Council meeting agenda items from the public. (LB Report uses the oft used phrase "mushroom treatment"...keep 'em in the dark and fed manure.)

The point is the same. City's need to use the Internet to inform the voters more. But until the voters clamor for it or Sacramento legislates it you wont see any up to date meaningful disclosures of the nasty things that happen (or could happen) at city council meetings for a long time.

From the Press Telegram article 12-13-07
http://www.presstelegram.com/ci_7705914

Long Beach's 5th District City Councilwoman Gerrie Schipske said she felt the study was insufficient and that Long Beach was not given adequate notice about the meeting or the project that affects her constituents within Lakewood Village. "Lakewood wasn't a good neighbor," she said. It was not Lakewood's intent "to hide this from Long Beach," said City Attorney Steven Skolnik, adding that city managers from both cities spoke about the Costco months ago and that there had been a lot of press on the project.

For more coverage as to why Lakewood wanted to bury the notice of the meeting read LB Report

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

LASD discourages independent oversight

Some of these quotes below are classic, especially those from the LASD union spokesman. Most "reviewed law enforcement agencies in the nation"...oh please. Given the few things that have leaked out about LASD and that are on this website, (this one for example) LAAG supports any effort to take the LASD review process away from its union and place it in the hands of taxpayer entities that are truly independent. Now the question is how "independent" will "The Office of Independent Review" remain. LAAG is always a little suspicious of an entity that sucks up still more tax dollars and needs to use the word "independent" in its name. You can read more on the "The Office of Independent Review" here and also contact them directly from that site.


http://www.latimes.com/news/local/orange/la-me-audit25oct25,1,7934644.story?coll=la-editions-orange
From the Los Angeles Times
Report lauds work of Sheriff's Department monitor
The Office of Independent Review, which looks into misconduct allegations, is fair and necessary, according to a county review.
By Stuart Pfeifer
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

October 25, 2007

The Office of Independent Review, which oversees investigations into alleged misconduct by Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies, does a good job of making sure internal investigations and discipline are fair and has increased public confidence in the department, according to a report by the county executive.

The Board of Supervisors ordered the review last month after agreeing to spend more than $3 million to fund the unit for the next three years. The office is staffed by civil rights attorneys who consult with internal affairs investigators and make recommendations about discipline and training.

Supervisors sought the review at the request of the union that represents sheriff's deputies. Steve Remige, president of the Assn. for Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs, had told supervisors that he thought the department was already well monitored and that the money it spends on the review team could be better used to hire additional deputies.

The county report, released this week, concluded that the oversight group provides a valuable service to the county, including reducing liability to potential civil lawsuits by recommending training for deputies and by ensuring that deputies who violate policy are appropriately disciplined.

"By having the OIR monitor the department's actions, LASD personnel are more cognizant to follow departmental policy," according to the report by county Chief Executive Officer William T. Fujioka.

Michael Gennaco, chief attorney for the Office of Independent Review, said he believed the report accurately reflected the role his office plays in the sheriff's discipline and training process.

"I'm pleased to see that the CEO's office has reported that we actually make a difference," he said. "The most important thing we do in my view is actually keep investigations and departmental decisions on discipline honest, and when they're not we have the ability to tell the public that they're not."

Among its duties, Gennaco's office reviews lawsuits filed against the department and produces reports, available online at www.laoir.com, about the outcomes of investigations into alleged misconduct by deputies in the nation's largest sheriff's department.

"OIR's involvement gives the public confidence knowing that the LASD investigation is being monitored. The OIR's ability to be objective and impartial gives the review process more credibility," Fujioka's report says. "The idea that the department will cover up or hide essential facts from the case will have less significance when the OIR is involved to ensure the integrity of the investigation."

Sheriff Lee Baca launched the Office of Independent Review in 2001. The report "is a complete vindication of my desire to have transparency and to strengthen public trust of the Sheriff's Department," Baca said Wednesday.

Remige said he was not swayed by the report. He said the department already was one of the most reviewed law enforcement agencies in the nation, with an internal affairs bureau, a criminal internal affairs bureau, a county ombudsman, district attorney's office reviews of uses of force and semiannual reports by Merrick Bobb, an attorney who monitors the department for the Board of Supervisors.

"It's another layer of oversight that personally I don't think we need," Remige said.

stuart.pfeifer@latimes.com

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

State of the City hoopla

LAAG told the County of LA essentially the same thing regarding its own "state of the county" luncheon Nov 1. Why should non profit organizations (like LAAG) and taxpayers in the city be forced to pay to hear politicians speak about issues that should be fully discussed and detailed on their website? The City of Lakewood (although not a charter city like Long Beach) needs to take note and end this silly luncheon. Much better to raise money with firework sales (just kidding about the fireworks!!).

Mayor To End State Of City Luncheon
http://www.gazettes.com/stateofthecity08302007.html
By Harry Saltzgaver
Executive Editor

There will be a State of the City message next January and in every January until and unless the city Charter changes.

But that message probably won’t be delivered at a luncheon sponsored by the Long Beach Area Chamber of Commerce after next year. Mayor Bob Foster has told the Chamber that he doesn’t believe anyone should receive a financial benefit for a speech delivered to fulfill a requirement of the Charter.

Becki Ames, Foster’s chief of staff, said last week that the mayor wouldn’t participate in a State of the City luncheon after 2008. Randy Gordon, Chamber president and CEO, said Tuesday that he and Chamber board members had met with Foster last month, but hadn’t resolved all he issues.

“After we met with the mayor in late July, we knew it (2009) most likely wasn’t going to happen, but it wasn’t a done deal,” Gordon said. “We knew this was coming because of the mayor’s philosophy. But we were leaving it up to him.”

Foster gave notice last year that he wasn’t comfortable with the format of a luncheon raising money for the Chamber, and asked the group to donate money to three nonprofit groups from part of the proceeds. The Chamber gave $5,000 to each of the groups for a total of $15,000, and Gordon said he expects to give away significantly more after the January 2008 event.

“We’re still negotiating what we are going to give to nonprofits, but it is going to be substantially more,” he said. “We want to do that, especially if it is the last one.”

Foster was on vacation and unavailable for comment.

Since the early 1990s, the Chamber has sponsored a lunch with the State of the City speech as its centerpiece. During former Mayor Beverly O’Neill’s tenure, the luncheon became a must-attend event, drawing up to 1,500 people.

When the City Charter was amended in 1988 to create the position of a fulltime mayor, a section was added requiring a state of the city message similar to the State of the Union required of the president:

“On or before the 15th day of January of each year, the Mayor shall communicate by message to the City Council a statement of the conditions and affairs of the City, and make recommendations on such matters as the Mayor may deem expedient and proper.”

But, according to City Attorney Robert Shannon, there is no requirement that the message to the council be made in a speech, or even made public.

Before O’Neill’s term in office, mayors presented the speech to the council, typically at the second City Council meeting of the year. The Chamber first started hosting a lunch to give the mayor a chance to give the message to the public when Tom Clark was in office, according to Randy Gordon, Chamber president and CEO.

In O’Neill’s last year in office, the State of the City netted about $100,000 after expenses, Gordon said. That included a major sponsorship and corporate tables going for as much as $1,895. Individual tickets were $45, which about covered the cost of the meal, Gordon said.

But the Chamber has become increasingly political in recent years, endorsing candidates and providing money through a separate Chamber Political Action Committee. The Chamber has sued the city regarding campaign finance laws and mounted petition drives against City Council action on issues including a “Labor Peace Agreement” for city hotels and a ban on big box stores.

Several council members, most notably Seventh District Councilwoman Tonia Reyes Uranga (whom the Chamber opposed in the last municipal election), have complained that the city government was supporting a group that apparently opposed city policies.

Foster, who received the Chamber endorsement in the last election, had not made that fact an issue.

Instead, his emphasis has been to find a way that no individual group benefited from the Charter-mandated message.

Ironically, the Long Beach Chamber will sponsor its first “State of the County” luncheon this November, featuring a speech from Fourth District Supervisor Don Knabe. But that event was not planned in response to the pending demise of the State of the City luncheon.

“It, frankly was something we should have done a long time ago,” Grodon said. “Long Beach is the largest city in Supervisor Knabe’s district by far.

“You aren’t going to replace a $100,000 or $125,000 hole in your budget overnight. But we’ll do some other, smaller events to take up the slack.”

The Chamber’s State of the County lunch is set for Nov. 1. For more information, go to www.lbchamber.com.

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

Bloggers as watchdogs

This is why we need the internet to remain free and "neutral". Without the internet LAAG could not exist. Blogs are the "printing press" of the 21st century. They will become even more important in the future. The question is who is going to run them or run them off.... Just look at some of the blogs and website we link to. Very important info that you cant find on nbc.com (well at least for those that are not brain dead or just interested in celebrity "news")

Bloggers take aim at city governments -- and hit home

Some websites are watchdogs, others are just scurrilous, but their influence on the cities they cover is growing.
By Jonathan Abrams
Times Staff Writer
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-blogs23jul23,1,7719611,full.story?coll=la-headlines-california
From the Los Angeles Times


July 23, 2007

"Grandpa Terrace" didn't mince words. He wanted the mayor of Grand Terrace, a small city wedged between two scenic mountain ridges in San Bernardino County, run out of office.

The anonymous blogger posted documents on his website that, he said, showed that Mayor Maryetta Ferre and Mayor Pro Tem Lee Ann Garcia were beholden to developers putting up big-box stores such as Lowe's.

"We need to recall them now," "Grandpa Terrace" fumed a year ago. "We don't want more traffic, more crime, dayworkers just to bring in some pocket change, when the cost to the city will go up to combat the problems brought by these types of development."

His rants helped fuel a recall effort last year against the two council members. Although the campaign ultimately failed, his blog was another example of the growing influence of citizen journalists roiling communities across Southern California, many of which rarely are covered by newspapers or other traditional media outlets.

These muckraking bloggers say they have stepped in to fill the government watchdog vacuum. Some are anonymous, others are scurrilous and, on occasion, possibly libelous. And to local politicians, most are a royal pain in the tuchis.

Bloggers in the San Gabriel Valley have raised the alarm about a possible budget crisis in Sierra Madre; ones in the Inland Empire have written about the high costs of trimming city trees in Claremont and allegations that killers are getting away with murder in Pomona.

"We realize in today's electronic environment, it's a fact of life," said Grand Terrace City Manager Thomas Schwab. "The thing that's the most disturbing is they can put things on the blog that have no basis in fact, and you really can't refute it."

It may only be a matter of time before bloggers start to have a major influence in local politics and policymaking.

"It's inexpensive, and my guess is there are a lot of people who find it fun," said Matthew Spitzer, former USC Law School dean.

"There have always been citizens who love to go to city council meetings and see what's going on. Putting it on a blog makes it a lot easier and it increases accessibility to 24/7."

In Grand Terrace, the recall effort fell about 500 signatures short of the 1,506 needed to trigger the election. A citizen-driven group, buoyed by the blog, collected signatures at a Stater Bros. market and mailed petitions to residents.

"For years the city of Grand Terrace tried to keep residents in the dark," said resident Jo Springfield, a strong supporter of the recall effort. "The blog enlightened many residents to start asking questions and going to meetings."

Several bloggers interviewed by The Times insisted on anonymity, saying they feared a backlash from city officials.

All said they were residents of the area they report on and got involved because their community did not receive enough coverage from the traditional media.

"We want our words to stand on our own, and with anonymity, the only way someone can judge us is by what we write," said Publius of the Foothill Cities News Blog, who takes his pseudonym from the Roman whose name was used by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay and James Madison when they wrote the Federalist Papers.

"If we send an e-mail to an elected official, the odds are we won't get a response," he said. "But if enough people read it, they are going to have to respond at some point."

The Foothill Cities Blog, which covers several cities in the San Gabriel Valley, was the first to report that Assemblywoman Nell Soto (D-Pomona) was absent from the Capitol for 25 days because of pneumonia. It was later reported that she still collected more than $20,000 in per diem pay.

The website also has been critical of Pomona's high crime rate, saying that the local press ignores the issue.

"It took a rash of violent crime, or should I say a rash of violent crime that finally received lots of press, but the council's new focus on law enforcement is commendable," said a post in June applauding efforts to hire additional law enforcement officers.

But the praise is mixed with criticism aimed at Pomona officials. The site drew the ire of administrators in May after posting that its city manager was forced to step down ­ which city officials said was untrue.

"It took me back to high school days when you gossip with girlfriends," said Pomona Mayor Norma Torres, adding that she may start her own blog to communicate directly with constituents. "Some of the information reads like a gossip column."

Pomona City Atty. Arnold M. Alvarez-Glasman sent a cease-and-desist letter to the website, ordering it to remove the post.

"While the City of Pomona strongly supports an individual's First Amendment Rights … it is difficult to respond to anonymous fabrications such as those published by you in your web-site publication," he wrote.

The website took down the post but enlisted free-speech attorney Jean-Paul Jassy to respond.

"In many ways, these kinds of sites are at the cutting edge and more modern vision of commentary," Jassy said. "The Constitution and the U.S. Supreme Court placed a high premium on making sure freedom of speech is protected, especially when it comes to commenting on public officials."

It is the anonymity that separates the bloggers from professional journalists, said Michael Parks, director of the journalism program at USC's Annenberg School for Communication.

"Journalists need to accept responsibility for their reporting and comments, and that provides for them to be identified," said Parks, a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter who is a former editor of the Los Angeles Times.

"Anonymous blogs are similar to writing something up, not signing it and putting it on a bulletin. It's more social commentary than anything."

Although blogs are protected under the 1st Amendment, they are vulnerable to libel lawsuits, said Erwin Chemerinsky, a Duke University constitutional law professor.

They present unique 1st Amendment challenges.

"They cannot have defamatory speech any more than a traditional media type; however, the difficulty with an anonymous blog is who is actually doing the blogging?" he said. "And if you ask a server to take it down, what happens if they refuse?"

Two years ago, the Delaware Supreme Court ruled that an elected official who makes a defamation claim against an anonymous blogger must have substantial evidence to support the claim. Otherwise the lawsuit could not proceed and the blogger would remain masked.

A similar case has yet to be heard in California.

The California Supreme Court, however, ruled last year that Internet service providers and bloggers cannot be held liable for posting defamatory material written by someone else. The case was brought by two doctors who said they were defamed by a San Diego activist for victims of problem breast implants who called one doctor "arrogant and bizarre" and the other "a bully and a Nazi."

In Claremont, former Mayor Diann Ring threatened the Claremont Insider blog with a defamation suit.

The blog has criticized moves by the city's landscaping and lighting district assessments and targeted former city officials, including Ring, for contracting with a water agency outside the city.

"When you turn on your tap, when you pay your water bill, or if your house burned down in 2003, think of Diann Ring; in fact, call her up and thank her personally for her 'vision,' " one April post said.

Claremont Mayor Peter S. Yao said the blog provided a bit of insight but had to be taken with a grain of salt.

"It certainly is one additional input for the City Council on how some of the population feels on certain issues," he said. "Occasionally, it sheds a little light on a situation, but most of the time it is a rumor mill."

For all the furor the blogs create, city officials could take a cue from Fontana Mayor Mark Nuaimi.

Nuaimi routinely posts on a blog in his city and said he welcomed it as a way to communicate with citizens.

"I'm not going to sugarcoat things," he said. "If somebody misses the issue, I'll tell them. I'm sure folks in the future will use whatever I've written and will twist it. Frankly, my job is to do my job, and part of my job is to answer people's questions."

jonathan.abrams@latimes.com

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

E-mail leads to Brown Act concerns

http://www.smdailyjournal.com/article_preview.php?id=77028
San Mataeo Daily Journal Staff Report

The increasing use of e-mail communication between elected and appointed officials might create pitfalls such as the appearance members of the same body are violating the Brown Act by conducting public business in a private arena, according to a new San Mateo County Civil Grand Jury report.

The Brown Act, California’s open meeting law, prohibits the majority of a legislative body from gathering at the same time and place to discuss or decide any matter. Violators can be prosecuted or otherwise sanctioned.

The grand jury investigation didn’t turn up proof any San Mateo County officials met inappropriately but stated in its report that electronic communication can create “an appearance of an illegal serial meeting.”

The preponderance of e-mail with attachments also opens the cities and counties to full public disclosure under the Public Records Act, according to the grand jury.

The act, the jury found, can constitute a significant burden on staff time, document copies and legal costs to determine which records apply. Part of the challenge, too, is sorting official business from any personal communication sent from the same e-mail account.

During county budget hearings earlier this week, County Counsel Tom Casey touched on the sometimes-onerous task of responding to a growing number of Freedom of Information Acts from the press and general public.

The jury recommends every city council issue official e-mail accounts to members, adopt policies requiring the use of the accounts for all official business, considering providing accounts to planning commissioners, develop record retention policies and include legal updates on the Brown Act and Public Records Act during mandatory ethics training.