An answer to our question

For some time now LAAG has posed the question: What to "civic groups" do to raise money in cities like Long Beach (the majority in CA) that have outlawed the sale of safe and sane fireworks? Well the story below is one answer. A golf tournament. Also then raised over 100,000 in donations. But I guess selling smoke and fire (also enriching the Chinese fireworks factories) is a more "environmentally friendly" way to raise quick cash. I think the problem we have with the economy right now is people trying to raise funds "the quick and easy way".

We post this story for the benefit of all the more enlightened cities (or rather city councils) out there battling the fireworks money/lobbyists and the civic groups who cry about not being able to raise the money via "bake sales" to replace the toxic fireworks sales. It can be done, but of course fireworks is the "quick and dirty" way to do it. Again, like selling crack, which another quick and easy way to make to make big profits.


L.B. Kiwanians raise $50,000 for campers
By Pamela Hale-Burns, Staff Writer
Article Launched: 07/26/2008 09:33:26 PM PDT

LONG BEACH - A $50,000 check from Kiwanis Club of Long Beach, made out to the Send-A-Kid-To-Camp program, has been presented to Press-Telegram Executive Editor Rich Archbold and columnist Tom Hennessy.

Founded in 1915, Kiwanis International is an organization of service clubs headquartered in Indianapolis that emphasizes service to children and youth.

"The Kiwanis' mission is to essentially change the world one child and one community at a time," Long Beach Kiwanis President Bob Reilly said at the Tuesday luncheon where the check was presented. "I think if we don't take care of our children our future's going to look pretty dim."

Reilly encourages others to contribute to the youths in their community.

"If there's anything society can do it is take care of our children. Give them hope and educate them," he said.

Each year, proceeds from the club's annual golf tournament reach the $50,000 goal, but they hope to give more this year.

"We give as often as we can," Reilly said. "We would like to try and increase that this year to $60,000."

Hopes for campers

"We hope that for each child it's a life-changing experience for them," Reilly said. "Many of the kids we send to camp have never been to camp and many of the kids we send, even in Long Beach, have never seen the ocean that they live four to five miles from."

Every little bit helps, said Reilly.

"If you just get kids to do happy things for one week it's something they will never forget," he said.

"There's a famous person who once said `Suffer the little children,'... if there is any reason to take care of children, I'd think that would be one."

Kiwanis' Golf Tournament 2008 will be Oct. 27 at the Old Ranch Country Club, 3901 Lampson Ave., Seal Beach. It is open to the public. Entry fees are $250 per person. All proceeds are given to Send-A-Kid-

To-Camp. For information, call 562-495-3193.

Including the Kiwanis donation, $102,680 has been raised so far this year by 457 donors to help send kids to camp.

pam.hale@presstelegram.com, 562-499-1476

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

Will the fireworks money win like it did in Lakewood?

Well we wish Petaluma a lot of luck in dealing with the fireworks industry and their lobbyists (the so call civic groups or "non" profits) in the story below. I for one love to see all the money thrown around. Proof once again that its not patriotism but cash that drives the fireworks lobby. Its a bit like fighting the SUV driving soccer moms and their allies the oil companies when it comes to off shore drilling. Hey California only had one spill...Hey Petaluma only had a few fires caused by legal fireworks (that we KNOW of). Its very hard to wean people off their addiction to oil just like fireworks when the only immediate beneficiaries you can point to are the environment and the peace and quiet that all the other residents not working for a so called "civic group" enjoy (as do the animals). Where is Al Gore when you need him?


Battle over fireworks heats up
Council members favoring ban face opposition from nonprofit groups, pyrotechnics industry
http://www.pressdemocrat.com/article/20080720/NEWS/807200384&title=Battle_over_fireworks_heats_up

By PAUL PAYNE
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT

Published: Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 4:30 a.m.
Last Modified: Sunday, July 20, 2008 at 10:55 a.m.
A political brawl shaping up in Petaluma over whether to outlaw fireworks could mirror one in Santa Rosa nearly five years ago that set records for campaign spending and ended in a citywide ban.

Battle lines were drawn during the recent Northern California wildfires when Petaluma Mayor Pam Torliatt appealed to the City Council to place a prohibition on the Nov. 4 ballot.

Although none of the fires were started by fireworks and there have been few mishaps in the city that can be traced to them, she said residents have expressed concern about dry conditions and are asking to put the matter to a vote.

Several council members appeared to support the idea and some said they favor an immediate ban to spare the $7,000 to $14,000 expense of an election. A decision is expected at the Monday council meeting.

"It becomes an issue and has been an issue over the years," Torliatt said July 7.

However, opposition is mounting from 16 city nonprofits who sell fireworks to raise hundreds of thousands of dollars each year and leaders in the fireworks industry who organized the Santa Rosa campaign.

New rules suggested

Dennis Revell, a spokesman for American Promotional Events, the distributor of Red Devil, Freedom and TNT fireworks, said in a letter to Torliatt and council members that outlawing state-approved fireworks is wrong.

Instead of a ban, he asked the council to consider restricting sales and use and imposing stiffer fines for first-time violators, which could put money in city coffers.

Rather than allowing sales for the six days before the Fourth of July, Revell said the city could reduce it to four days. Likewise, the use of fireworks could be cut from 96 hours over 6½ days to 13 hours on the holiday only.

A fine of $1,000 would make people who possess or use illegal fireworks such as skyrockets say "ouch," Revell said in his letter.

"Everyone agrees that when it comes to fireworks, the problem has always been and continues to be illegal fireworks, not state-approved fireworks," Revell said.

Nonprofits also object to any ban.

Dick Sharke of the McDowell Drug Task Force said fireworks have allowed his group to raise an average of $53,000 a year since 1999 to spend on worthy programs that benefit students, Vietnam veterans and the poor.

He has vowed to fight any effort to stop fireworks.

"(The group) has been in the community for 26 years and has never asked for or received any local, state or federal funding," Sharke said in a letter to council.

Similar arguments were made in Santa Rosa in 2003, when the council enacted a ban after a house was destroyed by state-approved fireworks.

SR referendum lost

The fireworks industry brought a referendum to voters in March of the following year and lost, 57 percent to 43 percent. The two sides in the fight over Measure F spent a combined $372,130, a record for municipal elections in the county.

American Promotional Events, a Florence, Ala.-based fireworks distributor, and its allies spent more than $280,000.

Yes on Measure F forces spent $87,634. Most of the money came from companies that do business with the city or rely on the city for building approvals.

On Monday, the Petaluma council will consider options that could trigger similar responses from the industry and nonprofits.

Three scenarios

Fire Marshal Michael Ginn said the council can decide to place a ban on the November ballot, enact an outright prohibition or do nothing.

If the council enacts a ban, opponents likely would begin the referendum process to put the question to voters in November 2010, Ginn said.

Certification of a referendum would temporarily suspend any ban until voters can chime in, he said.

The Fire Department has long fought for restrictions over the years, but Ginn said there is little evidence that state-approved fireworks are to blame for fires.

On July 4, one person was cited for possession of illegal fireworks and a small grass fire was blamed on the legal kind, Ginn said.

The city will have to decide if the risks outweigh the benefits, he said.

"One misused firework and we could have something like what happened in Santa Rosa a few years ago," Ginn said. "I hate to be the guy saying, 'the sky is falling,' but the potential is there."

You can reach Staff Writer Paul Payne at 762-7297 or paul.payne@pressdemocrat.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

Verizon fios update July 19 2008

A LAAG reader writes:

"Do you know whether they will be offering us all the FIOS services internet, tv, phone right away? I've read that in some places around the country, they don't offer everything at first. Maybe they offer internet and phone, then tv later, for whatever reason."

No reply from Verizon on that yet. However one other development. Verizon recently (week of July 14, 2008) placed curbside/parkway terminals (called "FDH's" or "Fiber Distribution Hubs") on Ashworth near Ibbetson and 2 FDH's side by side on Allington near Ibbetson. These are tan "vault like" cabinets that look virtually tamper proof (don't want anyone stealing fios or hijacking the fiber!). They are about 3.5 feet all and about 1/3 the size of a standard refrigerator. The Verizon linemen "on the ground" (not contractors) told me those are placed near where all the loops are seen on the poles and hooking those boxes up is one of the last steps done before the fiber is lit up. The boxes do not look like they are hooked up yet. Once they are all those loops of fiber on the poles above them will disappear as they run them underground into the boxes. This is where all the splicing takes place. Different teams of linemen are used on this hookup operation than running the fiber on the poles. Also keep in mind that some of the main trunk lines of fiber are run underground but most of it in this area is aeriel. We have seen some fiber run from the poles to underground conduits in a few spots in Lakewood.

This link has a nice example of what the street mounted FDH's look like from the inside and videos of how Verizon hooks them up. Also in some states they use the same size FDH but pole mounted. Here in Lakewood they are using the sidewalk or parkway level mounted boxes. Verizon apparently calls these "pedestal" mounted FDH's. Also note the red or dark orange wrappers on the fiber lines on the poles on the link above. They use those here in Lakewood too so I guess the linemen working with copper will not touch those fiber lines.

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

Fundraising at any cost

This editorial writer below must have read some of LAAG's articles written in the November 2006 election cycle as the selling of drugs line sounds familiar. LAAG did not "advocate" the selling of drugs just nice legal ("safe and sane") cigarettes. Those sell really well, are high priced (good profit margin), sell year round, and have very reliable big companies behind them that I am sure would be willing to share a little profit "for the children" just like the fireworks companies. The added benefit of allowing this form of distrobution is that you get the kids to back the selling of the product. And who can argue against sales of anything that benefits kids!! Plus like fireworks, tobacco has a long "honored tradition" in this country. Its almost un-American not to grow and sell tobacco. Lets not forget that a few of the founding fathers were tobacco farmers. (long American tradition as you recall is a big agrument fireworks promoters try to throw in if the "children" argument does not work on someone) And tobacco is still grown today. Plus its totally legal and when used responsibly does not start fires.(so we could label them "safe and sane" ciagarettes...but just the ones sold for the kids) So whats the problem? Well you see cigarettes got a bum rap a few years back by these darn "health advocates" as we learned that even though people really like them it turns out they have no redeeming qualities and cause harm...sort of like fireworks. Sooner or later as the effects of global warming ravish this state and fires are a year round condition and people have to pay a carbon tax for the air pollution they cause (via fireworks), perhaps the civics groups and the "kiddies" will have to give cigarette sales another look. After all the ends always justify the means when comes to the kiddies new baseball uniforms right?

OP ED: MY TURN - July 16, 2008
By Peter S. Beck, Pacifica CA
Article Launched: 07/16/2008 02:00:00 PM PDT
http://www.pacificatribune.com/ci_9900406?source=most_viewed

Every year on the 4th of July, our city becomes one of only a few in the entire Bay Area to allow fireworks to be sold and ignited within the limits of the city.

Not only do we allow it, we pursue the sale of fireworks with such abandon, that we attract citizens of many other, more sane communities, to our rapidly constructed, temporary sales offices.

For the 17 years that I have lived in this city, I have read the numerous arguments for preserving this idiotic tradition.

It is always the same drivel, "without the fireworks revenue, our programs could not survive", or "We would have to pursue other means to raise the money that would never make as much money as the sale of fireworks", or "We make all the money we need all year in just a few days selling fireworks".

Might I suggest a few alternative measures: sell drugs, sure they're illegal, but with a little effort, our local city council could probably declare them necessary to support our various civic programs.

But drugs are harmful and people get addicted, you might say. No more addicted than all the people in our city who simply must celebrate the birth of our nation, by blowing up fireworks all night long.

Actually, that makes a lot of sense, if you blow up fireworks, you don't have to think about the sacrifices our forefathers made to establish and nurture our great country. Blowing up fireworks makes us all as smart as 5th graders and isn't that what we all strive for?

Don't you love the signs on all of our fireworks stores? "Pacifica is a Zero Tolerance City".

If you have no tolerance, you have to be able to enforce it don't you? Like keeping dogs on leashes, driving 45 miles per hour on Highway 1, actually signaling when you make a turn, or even granting the right of way to the other driver.

Yes sir, we are a no tolerance city alright, the only problem is, that nobody cares and we can't do anything to stop it. So let's see, we've discussed selling drugs as an alternative, if that doesn't work, let's sell cigarettes and liquor to all of our underage residents. I bet that will give us enough revenue to support all of our civic programs.

Let's stretch our virtual reality a bit. Suppose your entire state is engulfed in wildfires. There are over 18,000 firefighters working day and night to control these wildfires. Highways adjacent to many of these fires have been closed to all traffic and, to top it all off, we have been warned to stay indoors because the wildfire smoke air we are breathing is dangerous.

What do we do to help this situation? Why here in our city, we sell fireworks and encourage everyone to set them off adding both smoke and danger to an already dangerous situation.

I realize that this sounds a little stupid, but how will we ever be able to pay for all of our civic programs without fireworks?

So let's cut down all the redwoods and sell the wood, let's burn down the forests and pollute the air because, by George, we need that revenue to run our civic programs and coming up with alternatives just takes too much thought and too much effort. Wait till next year, we'll have even bigger and better bombs for sale.

Maybe next year we can add rifles, pistols and a few rocket launchers too. Happy 4th of July folks and keep those excuses coming.

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

Lakewood, CA FIOS sales to start at the end of August 2008

LAAG has just been advised by Verizon that the Bellflower CA central office will begin offering FIOS signups at the end of August 2008. That office serves the phone prefixes listed below. Now it is not at all clear how many homes will be offered FIOS at that time as it is not at all clear how much of Bellflower and northern Lakewood (generally north of Del Amo) has the FIOS main lines strung so that "fiber drops" to residences can begin with the residential installers. But all in all this is good news as it means FIOS coverage for most of Lakewood could be accomplished by the end of 2008. Hopefully there will not be any "snags". There are approximately 20,000 single family residences in Lakewood.

Phone prefixes served by the Bellflower Central office (area code-prefix):

213-259, 213-632, 310-623, 310-696, 310-698, 310-856, 323-312, 323-345, 323-374, 323-456, 323-505, 323-508, 323-796, 323-813, 323-834, 323-835, 323-989, 323-999, 562-246, 562-248, 562-249, 562-250, 562-251, 562-263, 562-280, 562-281, 562-282, 562-283, 562-285, 562-287, 562-821, 714-210, 714-224, 714-263, 714-453, 714-698, 714-729, 714-887, 949-540, 949-545, 949-554, 949-681, 949-751, 949-945
562-461, 562-804, 562-866, 562-867, 562-920, 562-925


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

Can LAAG get on the grand jury?

Oh man LAAG loves it when common taxpayers are given power. Go Grand Jury go! Don't mind those politicians paid off by the unions...they won't bite you. The quotes and statements in the article below would be hilarious if they were not so alarming and true. City councils for the most part don't have time for independent thought and even if many were capable of such thought I would not want to hear their thoughts. Their job is to represent the taxpayers of the city. All of them. And to conserve tax dollars and hold down spending. Not to kiss the staff's a__ and suck up to rank and file union members. Gov. Schwarzenegger already does that, all the time claiming he is a republican. (don't forget his failed initiatives)

Grand jury slams Live Oak over pension OK
By Robert LaHue/Appeal-Democrat
July 12, 2008 - 10:32PM
http://www.appeal-democrat.com/news/jury_66291___article.html/pension_increases.html

The Sutter County CA grand jury targeted pension increases in its latest report, but not the long-disputed pensions of county employees.

Instead, the jury scrutinized pension increases approved for Live Oak's workers.

In the annual report released this month, the grand jury said the City Council didn't do enough independent research into the long-term impact of pension increases and did not make a strong enough attempt to inform the public — findings disputed by the city manager.

The council in March approved an increase in the pension, from a 2.5 at 55 benefit to a 2.7 at 55, meaning employees receive 2.7 percent of their salary for every year worked and are eligible to receive full retirement at age 55.

The council approved the increase 4-1. Vice Mayor Judy Richards dissented.

"The recent, and highly publicized, pension increases enacted by Sutter County should have informed the City Council as to the significance of the issue and all the variables surrounding it," the grand jury wrote.

"If the importance of their decision was evident to the City Council, it wasn't evidenced by their efforts to fully inform the public or engage the citizens of Live Oak in a meaningful dialog."

City Manager Tom Lando said the city held "two or three separate public meetings" on the pension increases, and allowed the public to speak on multiple occasions.

"The City Council deliberated over a number of sessions about an appropriate compensation package for employees," he said.

The pension increase was requested by city employees, who aren't represented by a union. Lando also noted staff members took the pension increase instead of a cost-of-living increase in pay.

"In terms of net impact on the city and its budget, it was better for the city and it's what the employees wanted," he said. [we dont care what the taxpayers want; LAAG]

The grand jury also noted concerns about the fact-finding efforts of the City Council. Public Employees' Retirement System actuary Richard Santos told the jury "he was disappointed that not even one question was asked of him by any member of the Live Oak City Council."

The panel also noted testimony by Mayor Diane Hodges about her reason for supporting the pension increase.

"Her response was, 'Staff thought it was a good idea and that's why they're there for,'" the grand jury wrote. "Asked if she had an independent thought as to the wisdom of the increase, she replied, 'No.'"

The grand jury labeled Hodges' response an admitted "rubber stamp" of the pension increases.

Hodges could not be reached for comment Friday. Lando defended Hodges and other council members as "diligent" in their deliberations about the pension increases.

"I have found the mayor to be very good about doing her homework on each issue," Lando said.

The grand jury said it wasn't passing judgment on whether the pension increases should have been enacted, saying its "focus is on the process that preceded the decision."

However, the jury also noted that costs of public employee benefits "have become a significant area of concern in recent years."

Lando said he could say "with certainty" the approval was not a rubber stamp.

"We will provide an official response to the grand jury report, but in my opinion it was well thought-out with the City Council," he said.

Contact Appeal-Democrat reporter Robert LaHue at 749-4713 or rlahue@appealdemocrat.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

One factor explaining increased cost of the Lakewood Sheriff's 2008-9 contract

The report below makes the increased cost of LASD (sheriff) service make sense. Look at this brilliant taser incident right here in Lakewood. What will that cost? Of course dont forget the cost of wrongful shootings like this one and the settlement costs of crashing into hapless motorists while drunk on the job.

The report notes that the in-custody claims are increasing and are more costly to resolve. We think it is likely due to the fact that juries see these in custody injuries or deaths as less justifiable than other injuries or deaths.

I think part of the reason for these incidents is poor on the job training, a "don't care attitude", (as deputies are not personally at risk for bad behavior) and just plain lack of smarts and common sense. Lets face it you are giving a gun (and tremendous power and unquestioned authority) to some guys that barely have a high school diploma. (yes some do go to college on our nickel once on the force to boost their salary)

The only good thing to be said about sheriff's "contract" service is that the pain of the cost of these settlements is spread over the whole county and all contract cities and not just Lakewood (which it would be if Lakewood had its own police force). The sore point however is that we are getting close to the tipping point of LASD costing more than they are "worth" in terms of achievements. We need more individual deputy legal responsibility. But that will happen when hell freezes over thanks to public unions and their mafia like grip over elected officials.

From the July 2008 report of Special Counsel Merrick Bobb (click on image to enlarge):





Read the full report here from the semiannual reports of Special Counsel Merrick Bobb and staff discussing the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (LASD). These reports are prepared at the direction of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors pursuant to its appointment of special counsel to conduct ongoing monitoring and critical review of the LASD's performance.

Report: LA Inmate Deaths, Injuries Costing Millions In Settlements

POSTED: 12:35 pm PDT July 11, 2008
http://www.knbc.com/news/16856328/detail.html

LOS ANGELES -- Deaths and injuries to people in custody in Los Angeles County jails continue to cost the county millions of dollars in lawsuit settlements, according to a report released Friday.

While the number of lawsuits filed against the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has dropped in recent years, the total amount of money paid out due to litigation has increased, according to an internal investigations report released by Merrick Bobb, special counsel to the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

When looking at three-year averages over the past six years -- from 2001 through 2004 as compared to 2004 through 2007 -- the number of lawsuits closed dropped from an average of 300 a year to 233 a year, but the total amount paid rose from an average of $9.9 million a year to $10.5 million.

The average amount paid for lawsuits during the earlier period was $33,000, and jumped to $44,800 over the second three-year period.

Of the 69 lawsuits against the department in which the county was required to make a payout over the last fiscal year, 17 resulted in awards greater than $100,000.

Of those, six cases involving in-custody death or injury accounted for $5.6 million in payouts -- more than half of the department's total civil liability for the past year.

"Lawsuits relating to in-custody injury and death that have resulted in significant payments to plaintiffs are not a relic of the past but rather point to an ongoing and continuing source of liability," according to the report. [snip]

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

LASD drunk ON duty!

Yet another update to the 2008 story below. June 29, 2008 accident and it takes 15 months to get a guilty plea? This is an open and shut case. The OC Register (http://www.ocregister.com/articles/driving-county-moran-2587604-angeles-influence) reports: "Vicki Podberersky, Moran's attorney, said this morning that her client has already served most of his time on home confinement. She said he was placed on unpaid leave from the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department when charges were filed against him (LAAG editor: approx. Feb 2009), but he will seek reinstatement." Oh and note how they don't like to talk about the fact he was on paid administrative leave for 6 months. Now they want LASD to hire him back. Sorry. No deal. Of course even if they have the guts to buck the union and fire him he will just go to another agency. Wonderful how we let the bad apples rot the whole barrel. Dont forget this accident was on duty and in a marked police vehicle. Also no word on the civil suit and eventual settlement the taxpayers will be picking up the tab on. It should be the officer and his private insurance who picks up the entire tab, including the county's cost of defense in the civil case and all these costly reinstatement hearings.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/09/sheriff-sentencing.html
Former L.A. County deputy sentenced in DUI crash that injured 2
September 30, 2009 | 2:50 pm

A former veteran deputy with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department was sentenced today to six months in jail and three years of informal probation for injuring two people when he crashed his department-issued sport utility vehicle into their car a year ago while under the influence of alcohol, said officials with the Orange County district attorney's office.

Moran, 43, of Buena Park was ordered to complete a three-month first-offender program and face a Mothers Against Drunk Driving panel, according to a statement from the district attorney's office. In such panels, offenders pay MADD a fee to hear victims or relatives of victims of drunk driving crashes relate their stories.

Moran pleaded no contest Feb. 27 to one misdemeanor count of driving under the influence, causing injury and one misdemeanor count of driving with a blood-alcohol level of 0.08% or more causing injury, according to the statement.

Moran was driving his Chevrolet Blazer south on Beach Boulevard in Stanton about 5:30 a.m. on June 29, 2008, when he crashed into a sedan near Garden Grove Boulevard, district attorney officials said. The sedan's 33-year-old driver and his 20-year-old female passenger were knocked unconscious and taken to a hospital. At the time of the crash, the sedan's driver was in possession of and tested positive for methamphetamine. He also tested positive for sedatives and opiates, the statement said.

His case is under review, said Keith Bogardus, an Orange County deputy district attorney. His name and the name of his passenger were not released because the investigation is ongoing.

--Ruben Vives


July 12, 2008 follow up info to story below (from various published news sources):

Witnesses reported that Deputy Robert Moran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department ran a red light at Garden Grove Boulevard while driving southbound on Beach Boulevard at about 5:25 a.m., Amormino said.

Investigators say Moran was immediately relieved of duty and remains on paid leave, pending the outcome of a criminal investigation.

An internal investigation is expected to be launched when the criminal investigation is concluded.

So he is drunk at 5:25 am? Looks like a real long standing drinking problem. What was he parting all night at a Rave while on duty? Oh and if you read between the lines above they are going to wait until AFTER both the criminal case and the ADMINISTRATIVE cases (which wont even start until after the criminal case) are completed before deciding what to do with him. What a gig. There is about a 99% chance he violated the law but he gets to go surf at the beach while making full salary. Where can I sign up for this? If this guy worked for some private company he would have been fired the day after the accident. This type of behavior takes place as the Sheriff's dept. does not swiftly discipline its own via a citizen review board. Looks like our prior post was right on the money.

Prior posting below:

This is totally unacceptable. I can at least understand being drunk off duty...but on duty?...and then driving? We can only hope that the officer is held personally financially responsible for this action as opposed to the taxpayers. Public employees are the only class of citizens that we know of where they suffer no personal financial threat/harm due to activity like this. He will also not likely loose his job thanks to the union. Also he gets to sit home and collect a check until the 6 month investigation is over, which will likely find no wrong doing. I am sure this will get buried as quickly as possible by the LASD. The sad thing is if he was off duty there could likely be more personal responsibility as opposed to the taxpayers funding this jackpot.


L.A. County sheriff's deputy arrested on suspicion of drunk driving after on-duty crash
Authorities say the officer, on duty in Orange County, was en route to an investigation in Huntington Beach when his car collided with another, causing life-threatening injuries to one person.

By David Haldane, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
July 10, 2008

A Los Angeles County sheriff's deputy has been relieved of duty after being arrested on suspicion of drunk driving following a traffic accident while on duty in Orange County, authorities said Wednesday.

Robert Andrew Moran, an 18-year veteran of the department, was en route to an investigation in Huntington Beach when his sheriff's Chevy Trailblazer collided with a 1999 Mazda Protege at Beach and Garden Grove boulevards in Garden Grove on June 29.

Two occupants of the Protege were taken to hospitals, one with life-threatening injuries, said Jim Amormino, a spokesman for the Orange County Sheriff's Dept.

Moran, who witnesses said had run a red light, was arrested on suspicion of felony driving under the influence, Amormino said.

He was released after posting bail, but has been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of a criminal investigation. "We will monitor the investigation, then determine our next step," Los Angeles County Sheriff's Dept. spokesman Steve Whitmore said.

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

Getting to the bottom of the fireworks enforcement problem

As LASD refuses to post up to date daily crime and call logs LAAG is forced to make Public Records Act (PRA) requests, which are usually only partly honored, if at all. The problem with the PRA in California is that there really is no teeth in the law. Government entities flout it and LASD I am sure is one of the best at doing so. Again as we have reported before, they don't want taxpayers to have detailed up to date crime info as it would show things are worse than they are telling you in the PR spin the council gives us via the council controlled publications we get. Secondly, they don't want you to know how little they really are doing to fight crime and "quality of life" problems (such as fireworks scofflaws). All the city council does is throw more money at it in terms of LASD overtime. It is almost like a kick back. Paying LASD more money is like pouring money down a rat hole: you will never see it again and it sure won't do you any good.

In any event our PRA sent to LASD today is reprinted in part below. We'll see what happens.

July 6, 2008
Total of 3 page(s) via e mail
PUBLIC RECORDS ACT REQUEST

Custodian of Records for Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Dept.
Risk Management Bureau

Dear Custodian of Records:

Pursuant to the California Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.), we seek to inspect and or obtain a copy of the following, which we understand to be in the possession, custody or control of your agency or department:

All the following records should be organized into these time periods and related only to the city of Lakewood:

July 3, 7:00am to July 6 700am 2005
July 3, 7:00am to July 6 700am 2006
July 3, 7:00am to July 6 700am 2007
July 3, 7:00am to July 6 700am 2008

Any and all DOCUMENTS (see fn 1) depicting, evidencing, referencing, referring, relating or pertaining to:

1. Any or all calls related to fireworks (calls for service) (along with address information on the calls)

2. Any or all dispatches of units for the calls above or related to fireworks complaints (along with address information on the dispatches)

3. Any or all citations issued related to fireworks calls or as a result of the dispatches in 2 above (along with address information on the cites)

4. Total overtime hours for LASD personnel including but not limited to total cost to city of Lakewood for such overtime;

5. Any or all injuries reported/discovered on 1 or 2 above or calls where LASD assisted with LA County Fire Dept. on the calls (along with address information on the calls);

6. Notwithstanding the foregoing dates, all reports related to any fireworks calls or injuries within 1000 feet of any side of Jose San Martin Park or Del Valle Park from July 3, 7:00am to July 6 700am 2008


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