March 18, 2011

"Sunshine Week" turns out to be rather overcast

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

March 8, 2011

Lakewood City Council election results March 8, 2011

Update March 23, 2011:

I would not consider 14% of registered voters any sort of a "mandate" or a "seal of approval" for the status quo as some politicians like to claim. Voter apathy is a huge problem not just city wide but nationwide as voters tend to have less and less faith in politicians ability to actually solve problems (as opposed to just complain that one level of government is "taking away" "their" tax money.) The 61 percent of the vote that comes in by mail makes one wonder why all elections are not just done via mail. What a waste of time and money.

Following certification of the official vote canvass by the City Clerk, the candidates received these final totals:

Lawrence H. "Larry" Van Nostran, Incumbent: 3402
Jeff Wood, : 2810
Joy Janes, : 2041
Marc Titel, : 1527
Marisa Perez, : 1263

The above totals represent the final tally for the March 8 election, and include all provisional ballots and Vote By Mail ballots turned in to precincts on election day. There are 45,920 registered voters in Lakewood and 6,328 ballots were cast in the March election. Turnout was 14 percent (well 13.78% actually). Turnout percentages are in line with Lakewood's 2005 and 2007 elections. The city is experiencing an all-time high in the overall number of registered voters. 61 percent of residents voted by mail, with 39 percent of residents going to a polling place to cast their vote.

3/8/11:

Unbelievably the Lakewood "incumbent machine" puts Larry VanNostran back into office. We hope our prediction about Larry was wrong. Jeff Wood wins the open seat, clearly benefiting from the "Esquivel effect" (yet more incumbent bias). Sigh. More later on LAAG regarding the results and what they might mean.

The unofficial vote count includes 22 of 22 total precincts reporting at 9:49 p.m. The total number of precincts includes 11 precinct counts of ballots turned in at polling places and 11 precinct counts of vote-by-mail ballots. Results are unofficial until the canvass of the election by the Lakewood City Clerk is completed.

Larry Van Nostran
Incumbent
3293

Joy Janes
Community Consultant
1961

Jeff Wood
Deputy Emergency Manager
2702

Marisa Perez
Environmental Policy Advisor
1200

Marc Titel
Educator/Businessman
1463

The City Clerk's "official canvass" of the March 8 election will contain the late vote-by-mail votes (ballots turned in at the polling places) and provisional ballots verified by the Los Angeles County Registrar of Voters.

The official canvass of the March 8 election will be presented to the City Council during the Tuesday, March 22 city council meeting. Following approval of the canvass, two council members will be sworn in that evening.


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

March 2, 2011

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

Well the day is almost upon us. Make sure you sharpen your pencils and make it to the polls on March 8, 2011 as this year, for a change, we actually have ballot choices (unlike in March 2009)

LAAG is not "endorsing" any of the Lakewood City Council candidates as we really don't believe in "endorsements". If there is one thing Lakewood candidates have plenty of its "endorsements" by their "pals". Quite frankly we think endorsements are not really worth that much. We want facts not facebook friends. LAAG quite frankly is more interested in who does not endorse a candidate (and why) rather than who does.

Elections are important for one reason really. It’s the only time elected officials will really listen (or at least pretend they are listening) to voters/taxpayers. Once elected look out. You just become a constituent that they have to mollify then do what they damn well please as after all they are now “in”, you are not, and they know what’s best for you as they got a "mandate from the 2500 or so people in the city that voted for them". Those small turnouts make it nothing more than a "popularity" contest, not an "issues" contest

The only good thing we can say about local politics is that they are non partisan so we don’t need to hear all the bickering from and regarding the parties. And quite frankly we are saddened that Lakewood voters want to know the party affiliations of the candidates. Without political party nonsense and chatter we can focus on the "issues". Problem is the only issues are "fluff" if you read the campaign “fluff fliers”. The candidates don't really address the "hard" issues adequately. Why should they if voters let them off the hook when they don’t do so? Of course part of the problem is that the hard issues are just that; hard to tackle and if you take a stand on them before an election you could be accused of not following through once elected. Now we wouldn’t want that.

Only one of the 5 candidates (Marisa Perez) took LAAG’s transparency pledge (well about 90% of it) and bothered to fill out our candidate questionnaire which had much tougher questions on it than those put forth at the ”debate”. All had an equal opportunity to do so as we emailed it it to all of them at the same time. Those that wanted to reach out to us did. We can only base our opinions below on what we have seen or have gleaned from public information. Again LAAG is not “endorsing” any candidates.

Larry Van Nostran (incumbent)

Interestingly Larry Van Nostran is running again while his colleague Esquivel is not. It was Van Nostran supported Esquivel and helped him get elected for the first time in 1990 (once again for an open seat). One of the things that came up in the 2011 debates was term limits for City Council (which are hard to do without a city charter or city wide referendum). Only Marisa Perez supported that. Obviously Larry would not (even thought he just taped a political ad for the debate and did not respond to the question). Larry Van Nostran has been on the city council every year since 1975, following a "special election" in 1975. So if he were to finish out the 2011 term he would be in office for over 40 years making him one of, if not the longest, sitting council members in the state. Well LAAG will say in writing what everyone else is afraid to say out loud (or heaven forbid write): Its time to retire. LAAG has nothing against the elderly. We just feel that after 36 years its time to step aside for the good of the city and allow some fresh perspective on the issues of the day. Unfortunately its why we had to institute term limits in Sacramento (term limits are also unpopular in the Middle East we hear)

One of the reasons Larry Van Nostran taped his "debate" speech and thereby ducked all the forum questions was some vague surgery or health problem (as noted in his speech). Again no full disclosure from the candidate from what we have seen on whether this or any other health problems will affect his next 4 year term (leaving him 81). Quite frankly at his age (77 per our research) and his vague health problems, we feel that there is a real issue related to him not finishing his 4 year term. This comes up with all candidates over 70 and most recently in Jerry Brown’s campaign. Again not a big problem in most political offices, however under current law (supported by most city councils of course) the sitting city council is now allowed to appoint a replacement for the remainder of the term and not hold a special election. Of course this is wrong democratically speaking and we all know will lead to even more manipulation of the “buddy system”. It was supposedly done to save money on elections (heaven forbid we don’t want to spend money on those). We all know that once there is an incumbent in Lakewood its hard to run against the "re-election machine". That is what happened in March 2008.

Nothing about transparency in his election materials of course. We don’t even know if he knows the meaning of the word. We tip our hat at his railing against "illegal fireworks" in his campaign material but quite frankly the March 2006 Dunrobin explosion (which gave birth to LAAG) was on his watch and due to the escalation of legal and illegal fireworks use and misuse and Los Angeles County Sheriff (LASD) incompetency, also on his watch. (LAAG wont rehash the whole issue of the LASD’s lapses in failing to prevent the Dunrobin explosion after numerous calls by residents over many years)

So overall Larry Van Nostran stands out as the worse choice for 2011 in LAAG’s opinion. We wish Larry well in his retirement and with his medical issues. We thank him for the years he has served.

Marc Titel (former Lakewood Councilmember)

The biggest questions we have about Marc Titel are not answered in any of his campaign material in our opinion. Why did you leave the council (he was not voted out) before 2001 and why are you trying to get back in NOW? He talks a lot about "experience" but quite frankly we don’t know of any other legal qualifications for the job other than living in the city and being over 18. It takes 2 days a month to do which is not a bad gig given all the perks, heath benefits, and government pension enhancements government employees get from it. Quite frankly it is not at all clear why Marc Titel wants to get back in. Why did he not run in 2009 when we badly needed a candidate? Not willing to run against an incumbent? Is that an unspoken rule in Lakewood? Again lots of unanswered questions.

What did he do in his last 17 year stint on the council that is noteworthy? (Again something specific, not just "supporting" law enforcement and puppies) Again silence. Seventeen years is a long time to serve without some long standing, bold or significant solo achievement. Marc Titel mentions nothing in his campaign materials about transparency. That does not surprise us as we don’t see anything from his campaign materials that speak to what he did to promote it when on the council.

Marc Titel seems to base much of his campaign on his "experience". In our opinion all the candidates are more than "qualified" for the job. Lets not get into the Sarah Palin qualified or not debates over city council. Please. There will be no 3 am calls from generals or nuclear launch codes involved in the job. As far as LAAG is concerned the most important qualifications for the job are being truly independent from special interests, being willing to go against the majority of the council to stand up for taxpayers and what is right, being smart enough to think outside the box, and truly listening to [good] ideas that don’t always come from other elected officials, municipal lobbying groups or city staff (many of which do not live in the city). Yes those of us outside government sometime know a thing or two about budgets and solving problems.

We do like the fact that Marc Titel is the only candidate without a government job or consulting position (at least currently) but that alone is not enough to essentially re-elect him to his 18th year on the council.

In LAAG’s opinion this election really boils down to the three candidates below, which although they can be distinguished from the prior two candidates, it is more difficult to see the fine distinctions between Joy Janes and Jeff Wood (based on what little we know from their campaigns). The problem of course is there are two seats to fill in this election so again it always comes down to choosing candidates which are the “least” bad choices.

Joy Janes (Sitting Chairperson Lakewood Redevelopment Committee)

Joy Janes is a smart person and politically well connected. In our opinion, perhaps too smart and too politically connected. She was one of the earliest to start campaigning (well before the vacancy was publicly announced as per years past in Lakewood) and she has run a very professional style campaign. Her campaign manager for this election has in the past or currently works for congresswoman Linda Sanchez (whose former “district director” now works as Lakewood’s “Public Info officer”) How cozy is that? (not to change the subject but could we eliminate that position or make it part time with and “enhanced version” of our transparency pledge?) Joy Janes also works in the office of State Assemblyman Warren Furutani (D-Lakewood) and before that was Chief of Staff in the 5th District at the City of Long Beach. You get the point. All these people that “work” in government are “lifers” and just get “recycled” from one position to the next either through elections, appointments or getting a “well paid gig”. All her connections to the city are not enumerated here but we are sure there are many given that Joy Janes was appointed many years ago to the “planning and environment” commission by former councilman Bob Wagner, who LAAG respects for the most part.. Again good and bad points about "insiders" with lots of political connections running vs true "outsiders".

We do not like the fact that to run for city council, commissioners who are appointed often get a better chance at winning election simply due to their knowledge of the how things “work” in Lakewood, but I guess that is politics. Based on what we have seen the city council likes commissioners to run as they often are their “pals” and as they have worked with them for a longer time they know where they stand on ensuring the "status quo" the current city council wants. Don’t want to rock the boat if you know what I mean. Outsiders are not given much encouragement.

Again on transparency Joy Janes has said more on her website than other candidates but given that she was aware of LAAG’s proposed legislation on transparency in December 2009 we expected more from her than some “vague commitments” (like: “Joy will work to encourage citizen participation in city government by making it more open and responsive to the needs of residents..” …from her campaign website). As she has been a “city hall insider” for many years we would expect to see more transparency on her own commission (see comments to this article) Did she take LAAG’s transparency pledge? Nope. Comment on it? Nope. Accept some part of it? Nope. So again we see more of the same status quo with Joy Janes on city council. We would like to be pleasantly surprised but we are not too encouraged when candidates wont even MAKE specific campaign promises, let alone break them once elected.

With all the potential loss of redevelopment funds and “name calling” going on between Governor Jerry Brown and the cities I would also have expected more detail from a long term planning commission member to show us just how those funds have been so well spent under her tenure and why cities have a right to that money. Or is it just a slush fund that should be cut?. Again nothing on her website of any substance. I guess that’s the reason Lakewood voters come to our website. Some substance. Some critical questions and analysis.

Jeff Wood (Sitting Commissioner Lakewood Recreation and Community Services Commission)

Jeff Wood’s day job is for the “state version” of FEMA created in Jan. 2009. (You recall FEMA the federal agency that forced us to buy silly flood insurance in the late 1990’s…how could you forget). So again another candidate that is already a government employee. 

Same problem here as Joy Janes in terms of already being a city hall "insider". Apparently appointed to the “Recreation and Community Services commission” by Joe Esquivel roughly 10 years after Esquivel was “elevated” to city council. I don’t equate “Parks and Rec” with Planning and environment as the latter usually involves ticking off homeowners by saying “no”. Parks and Rec we assume involves making hard choices like how often to water the lawns and what time to turn off the park lights. We do like the TV show though and assume its not far from real life? But over all, the same issues Joy Janes has as a commissioner, even thought he is not the chairperson. The real purpose we assume of commissioner positions (each council member gets to appoint one) is to “groom” a councilmember successor. That’s how politics work. Now that Esquivel is “retiring” its Jeff’s "turn" to be in the spotlight.

Again the dog park issue has come up in debates and with residents that want one but we don’t see Parks commissioners coming out and taking a bold stand on this. It just gets shoved off to staff (who ever that is), laden with costs and then sent out to pasture as “too costly” (of course we don’t know any details about the city budge but a juvenile colored pie chart…please) Am I missing something? How about creating some park space with all the vacant land laying around or commercial space likely to never be leased this decade? Again no outside the box thinking that we can see. We don’t see anything in his campaign materials that scream “outside the box thinking” either. Maybe its just that parks commission does not offer a true opportunity to shine. Not sure.

On transparency once again Wood at least mentions (almost as an after thought; bottom of one campaign flier) that he supports the “idea” but with no details or pledge its nothing but a hollow promise. We also note that again same problem as with Joy Janes to some extent. If you truly supported transparency all along (as opposed to a “recent convert” to the idea for the campaign as someone else mentioned it) what specific steps have you personally taken to promote transparency in your own commission? Examples please? Silence.

So with Joy Janes and Jeff Wood it’s a tossup really. To close to call.

Marisa Perez (“Environmental Policy Advisor” per the ballot)

Marisa Perez appears to be the only “outsider” running. We say that as she has not been on any Lakewood commissions or been closely aligned with any past or current council members that we can see. No real insider connections to city hall (at least when compared to all the other candidates)

Right off the bat we will say that we are impressed that she completed LAAG’s Candidate Questionnaire and took some if not all of LAAG’s transparency pledge. (her pledge is here) Trust us. This is a good thing. As we said before transparency is the key to everything that goes on in local government. Never forget that. Most voters are learning that lesson too late. There is no investigative journalism going on at the local level and we have the City of Bell debacle as our reward for that.

People already in government, especially those in elected office tend to get the “bubble effect”, which is what Obama feared once inside the Oval Office. That is you only get to hear from staff and “yes men” and the rest of the public’s legitimate ideas are thrown out or never reach you. People in government are also loathe to accept ideas from outside as they often feel as they are elected they somehow are better or smarter than “non electeds/non insiders” and are surrounded with a “cloak of wisdom” once elected. They are not. Again not true of all elected politicians and government bureaucrats but unfortunately we have seen it happen too many times lately. And the reality is the longer in office or in government the more susceptible you are to the “bubble effect”.

So again Marisa Perez does not have the support system that Joy Janes and Jeff Wood have as she is coming from outside the system. That is very rare and can really only happen at the local level. Meg Whitman tried it and you see what it cost her.

In our view Marisa Perez is fully competent, qualified and is a quick study. She is personable and seems committed to the cause. Her background as represented seems more than adequate for the task at hand. Will she know the job inside and out from day one? No. No one could. But that’s why we have the City manager, City Attorney and City Clerk (“the pros”) all sitting there at council meetings holding the councilmember’s hands. Just to make sure all the “formalities” are completed. (wasn’t that why we just couldn’t let Howard Chambers retire...he was too damn good?) The real work is the reading and time that goes into prep for the meeting and the votes. Put it this way, Marisa is more qualified that Larry van Nostran or Joe Esquivel ever were when they were first elected. In fact I would go so far as to say she is better qualified for the job now even as Larry and Joe are at the end of their “reigns”.

She also supports term limits which in a non charter city like Lakewood may be attainable with a city wide vote and we would support that measure as well given that “incumbent bias” in this city is just too strong and voter turnout just too low (in terms of a percentage of votes). Marisa stated that she wanted to limit herself to three terms (12 years) on the council. LAAG applauds that. But then again that is the type of thinking you get from an outsider candidate. Try one. You might be glad you did.

So there you have it. The 2011 candidate roundup. They’re not much but they’re all we have got. So look at all their websites, read the candidate statements but most of all make sure you get out and vote on March 8 2011. City council elections can mean more to your quality of life than an national election can in many ways.

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

February 21, 2011

The need for transparency in local government grows

See our related post on our proposed candidates transparency pledge

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

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

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

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

By Catherine Saillant, Los Angeles Times
February 21, 2011

Reporting from Lindsay, Calif.
Advertisement

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

catherine.saillant@latimes.com



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

February 17, 2011

The Lakewood transparency in local government pledge

Update: see related post on need for transparency and our Candidate Review


We are asking all Lakewood City Council candidates, and incumbents, to agree in writing (they can just reply to us and we will post their pledge as weak or strong as it is) to the following transparency pledge and to introduce legislation to insure that a city ordinance or section is added to the Lakewood municipal code to address all these issues below. LAAG will be glad to assist in this process in any way feasible.

Some of these ideas can be implemented immediately. Some will take longer but that is no reason for foot dragging. All are very technologically feasible and are already being done by other local government websites. These proposals are all very low cost and quite frankly will cost less than most of what the city has spent so far on technology issues (had the full budget been posted as it should have we would know that figure!!)

Why Lakewood voters/residents need this pledge

"Transparency" is the linchpin to ensuring that the city government does what its supposed to do. Quite frankly it is one of the most important factors to ensure a democracy remains a democracy.

What do China, Iran, Egypt, N. Korea and host of other repressive regimes all have in common? No free press but most of all a total lock down on any information being leaked out other than what the government wants to have leaked out. The best way to insure you win re-election is make sure the voters never find out anything bad might be going on at city hall. The best way to do that is keep all information off line and away from snooping voters. Then when you run for re-election just say you support things like law enforcement, parks, baseball and puppies. Then get 2500 of your friends to vote for you no matter what and you are in. The rest of the voters have no idea what is going on as there is basically no media or investigative journalism going on (unlike in most larger cities) so the vast majority of voters have no real reason to vote...nothing bad is going on right? This is the formula Bell city officials used. Seem familiar to you? If Lakewood voters (all 41,000 of them) really felt strongly in favor of a candidate don't you think they would get more than 6% of the vote (3% of the population)? 2500 votes is not a mandate or an endorsement. Its a glee club.

Elements of this proposal were presented to (now) Candidate Joy Janes in December 2009 as proposed state legislation to be introduced thru Assemblyman Warren T. Furutani (D-Lakewood) but nothing ever came of it (no surprise there) Interestingly Janes re-requested it on 10/26/2010 (likely to use in creating her campaign website!). So it is not really a big surprise that she lifted some of our ideas to add to her current "platform" (of course with no thanks or attribution to LAAG).

Candidate Jeff Wood stated in one of his his campaign fliers he "support[ed] transparency in local government" but again no details what so ever on his website or anything else we could find on him. Disheartening. But this is typical with candidates. Say as little as possible. Just enough to get elected. Talking points are best. Don't use detailed substantive platforms, just mention your endorsements and that you belong to the YMCA. Who cares! We will discuss the candidates in detail in an upcoming post.

Both Wood and Janes are also long time sitting city commissioners so one has to wonder if they are so "pro" transparency why have they not enacted any of these proposals on their own commissions over the last 5 years. Again talk is cheap and politicians will say anything to get elected. That's why.

On Jan 7, 2011 LAAG sent all the candidates a link to some recent Long Beach proposed ordinances regarding transparency (here and here) so really all the candidates and the sitting council members have had more than ample opportunity to adopt these ideas as a platform but did not. LAAG also has posted numerous articles dealing with transparency over the years. The real question for voters is why have the city council and the two sitting city commissioners Janes and Wood not done more so far? What are they afraid of?What is the excuse they are going to hide behind?

We proposed our state legislation in December 2009. The City of Bell scandal broke in July 2010. Amazing. Again transparency is the key to keeping local government honest and under control. Anyone that fights against transparency is highly suspect as a politician in today's web enabled environment. Again its the appearance of impropriety that is the issue here not actual impropriety. Secretiveness breeds distrust. Oh and don't fall for the line that "all this stuff is out there" as its not. People don't have time to dig thru musty archives are do Public Records Act requests which as costly and time consuming for both the requester AND the city. People are busy with their lives. Government should make it easy for citizens to check up on what their elected leaders are doing. That should be part of what our tax money does. Posting it on the Internet accomplishes that at a very low cost.

This is a work in progress and will will amend this as time goes on as we refine it based on what other comparable cities are doing.Obviously there is lots of detail missing here which we will also try to flesh out as time goes by.

General conditions applicable to all postings:

* All material (material includes documents, photos, video or any other information in any form) must be posted as soon as it is made available to the city or city council. Static documents (like organizational charts) or information must be updated at least quarterly.

* All material must be posted on the web for a minimum of 2 years from date of posting regardless of the date of expiration of the information or notice. City emails should be archived for 5 years.

* All postings must visibly indicate to the viewer the day, month and year of the original date the document or material was first posted to the web;

* All materials posted must be text searchable (this includes pdf documents which can be rendered text searchable before posting)

* All postings to the web must be fully available to the "spiders" and "crawlers" of all major search engines such as google at the time they are posted and at all subsequent times. The material must also allow web search engines to "cache" posted material.

* Any material posted can of course be redacted to exclude private information already excludable from current Public Records Act request responses, such as home addresses, home phone numbers, social security numbers, drivers licences, etc.

* Postings of documents or other material must not require special software that must be purchased to view it. When possible documents should be posted in HTML or in open source formats. Documents or material must be downloadable and able to be saved on a viewers computer.

* If possible documents should have a unique URL or web address for the documents entire existence on the web.

* Any third party hosting site may be used to post documents but it should be a reliable host such as google.com and the city must use the most cost effective posting site and protocol.

* There must not be a user fee or registration requirement for viewing or saving any documents or material.

* Any Sheriff's department (LASD) material or that from any other contractor in city possession is subject to the same rules as the city with respect to posting and Public Records Act requests.

* The city can link to external government websites where such data is already posted so as to avoid duplication.

Material/information to be posted following above guidelines:

* Organizational chart for the entire city by department, listing the functions, duties and areas of responsibility of each department, in addition to all commissions and the city council. Also list the top three persons in each department with a photo, as well as that persons direct extension or phone line as well as their cell phone number, if city funded. This must be updated quarterly. All other employees or contractors working in the department listed by name and title and direct email address (not a general one).

* City email addresses (name@lakewoodcity.org) for all commissioners, elected officials, city attorneys, code enforcement people or any contractors working more than 20 hours per week for the city.

* video of all council and other city public meetings and include all public comments full length (not cut off like now after 30 or 60 mins and public comments intentionally cut off) at all city meetings (timely released on Chanel 31 via Time Warner and Verizon FiOS) and posted on line in an on demand streaming format so that it can be viewed at any time. Link the FULL agenda package and meetings minutes (when completed) with it. example from long beach In addition there should be an online public comment ability so that people can comment in writing via the internet on all agenda items and these comments should be viewable by all and archived.

* all written comments to city council or commissions by any person or entity.

* all so called "press releases" or information provided to local newspapers such as the Press Telegram will be posted to the city website the same day it is sent to any newspapers or publications.

* all information or "notices" required to be (or which generally are) posted in the city clerks office (or publicly posted) or posted in a newspaper of general circulation in the city (even though the City claims Lakewood has no newspaper of general circulation; see Govt. code sections 6000-6159) must be posted on the website at the same time with dates posted and expiration dates and shall remain posted on the site for two years.

* post all rules relating to Public records act requests, costs for copies, time frames and who to write to for such requests (example) Allow non profit groups (or individuals that could prove they were working as a “private attorney general” or for the “common good” sort of speak) to obtain records without cost if provided electronically and less than 10 hrs of government employee time is required to obtain them. Create a maximum number of free requests per year. Create a realistic pricing structure for the cost of providing digital info via email as opposed to paper. See prior bills (2006) SB 1832 and AB 2927 and (2007) AB 1393. Post all requests and responses to public record act requests.

* post links to all salary info posted here (this state site was put up due to calls from LAAG and many others after the Bell scandal broke). Post all other city salary/pay/reimbursements/per diem information not requested by the state controllers office on a quarterly basis.

* Post all sitting council members FPCC filed materials regardless of date or link to them on the FPCC site.

* Post all staff reports and presentations to the council, including photos, power points and video.

* Full agenda packets with the full agenda. example from long beach

* full meeting minutes with all attached followup information referenced or attached and linked to the meeting video. example from long beach

* Detailed City budget in excell or html form. Not only forecast but actual expenditures and check register logs. Update this quarterly. Also log all incoming revenue and source as well as cash surplus.

* The city's checkbook register should be posted online. This information provided should include: The amount of each payment; Date; Check number; To whom the payment was made (including the address); Scan of Invoice or Purchase Order or Check Request (this often provides significant drilldown detail including who approved it); What it was for; Budgetary authority for the expenditure; Functional expenditure category; Sources of funds; Links to the relevant contracts under which the payment was made.

* all FULL survey results paid for or commissioned by the city including information on the approximate geographical location (by street intersection or rounded street address of those polled) and number of resident polled.

* public calendar of all private meetings and public meetings under the Brown Act along with dates times and locations as well as contact persons for the meeting and anticipated attendees or speakers. Similar to what is being done now but in greater detail.

* list all business licences that are current and have expired in the past three years searchable by business name and address within the city

* list all vacant commercial property updated quarterly searchable by address or former tenant (Ironically we saw a city employee walking the streets just today looking at vacant commercial property. When we asked him what he was going he said making a list of all vacant commercial property sites so the city can create a master list...hmmm..so the taxpayers are paying for the collection of the data they just don't get to see it....wonder why...is it foreboding? Does it show how ineffective the city's redevelopment efforts have been vs what we have paid for them?)

* list all redevelopment funds as spent or scheduled to be spent that budget year by address

* City contracts should be made available to the public once they are completed and become final. Placing completed contracts on line - with all private, personal information redacted - would support and demonstrate openness and transparency in government. The Sheriff's Department (LASD) should be included in this requirement.

* adopt as many of the ideas in the two Long Beach proposed ordinances (here and here) as possible to the extent any items were not mentioned in this LAAG proposal or to the extent the Long Beach proposals detail more information.

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

Comments:

One anonymous poster (likely a plant or one of the candidates...thus the anonymity) was perplexed why we were "blaming" lack of transparency on the sitting commissioners and not the sitting city counsel. We weren't. We are not letting anyone off the hook either, especially those who claim to be campaigning on transparency and also currently sit on city commissions. All we are saying is that there is no "transparency policy" at this time, so there is nothing stopping commissioners from being transparent other than state law. We welcome any information from the commissioners themselves as to how they tried to do things like post full commission agenda packets (not just abbreviated ones), why they did not obtain and or post all their email addresses and info on line etc. The campaigning commissioners apparently have the time to run campaign websites but not enough time to post their own blogs like this ever since they have been on a commission and or post public items or documents from their OWN commissions on their own sites. Nothing illegal about this. I have not seen a case made by the commissioners noted above for holding them blameless for their own lack of transparency on their own commissions or why we should blame the city council for the commissioners own lack of diligence. LAAG is not saying that the commissioners should set policy for the whole city, the city council or the city website. But again we see no indication that transparency talk amongst the commissioners running is anything but campaign fodder.

February 16, 2011

Why public official city email addresses are important

The news articles below regarding the continuing saga of the rampant corruption in the City of Bell is a reminder about what LAAG has been saying for some time: City council members using private email to conduct matters related to the city is ripe for abuse. The emails below were likely from public or city official email address used by Rizzo and others at the city. Had these emails not been on the city email server which was readily available to prosecutors (but rather on some private laptop or on a private email server that would require additional legal hurdles to get to) those emails would likely have never been located, even in a criminal investigation. City officials could also have argued that their "unofficial" city email was mixed with their "private" email and as such the entire private email account was off limits in any public records request for a city council person to produce all incoming and outgoing massages from such "private account". This is a huge problem in Lakewood as none of the current city council members have an official city email address (i.e. name@lakewoodcity.org) and in fact two of the current committee members running for city council are also guilty of the same problem most likely (Jeff Wood and Joy Janes). So if Janes and Wood, who have been commissioners in the city for years, dont have city email accounts after serving in the city for years, what are the chances they will do so if elected? You get the point. The other problem of course is unlike most cities, even the people in the city that DO have official city email addresses, they are not posted on the city website for all to see! (surely out of a fear that some angry citizen will contact them in writing and they wont be able to delete the email off the city server it as easily as they can voice mail).

Again the Bell debacle is what results from a lack of transparency.  It creates an environment ripe and tempting for abuse and it leads to misinformed voters who really have no sense of what is REALLY going on in the city behind closed doors. It is not that impropriety is always occurring but rather it creates an air of suspicion and an "appearance of impropriety" and this is a huge problem in and of itself. The fact that no current city council member or candidate has put forth a comprehensive transparency pledge or plan, other than just vaguely talking about it in a "talking point" or using the phrase as "window dressing" for the useless campaign fliers littering the mail now, is telling. Buyer beware. Talk is cheap and campaign promises are made to be broken. The only two rules in politics are (according to lobbyists we have talked to): 1. get elected; 2. get re-elected.


Revealing e-mails unveiled in Bell scandal
Monday, February 14, 2011
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=7958735&rss=rss-kabc-article-7958735

LOS ANGELES (KABC) -- Explosive evidence was unveiled in court on Monday in the city of Bell's salary scandal. Prosecutors filed documents quoting e-mails between former city officials that they say reveal their actions to hide their exorbitant salaries.

E-mails and other documents from former Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia's computer will show that beginning in 2005 she and former City Manager Robert Rizzo created phony contracts never approved by the City Council that raised their salaries to "outrageous" levels and made it difficult to determine exactly how much they were being paid, according to the 19-page memorandum from District Attorney Steve Cooley.

The e-mails were sent in 2009 by then assistant city manager Angela Spaccia as city officials were preparing to hire Randy Adams as Bell police chief.

Spaccia: "We have crafted our Agreements carefully so we do not draw attention to our pay. The word Pay Period is used and not defined in order to protect you from someone taking the time to add up your salary."

Adams: "I am looking forward to seeing you and taking all of Bell's money?! Okay ... just a share of it!!"

Spaccia: "LOL ... well you can take your share of the pie ... just like us!!! We will all get fat together ... Bob has an expression he likes to use on occasion ... Pigs get Fat ... Hogs get slaughtered!!!! So as long as we're not Hogs ... All is well!"

Rizzo had an annual salary and benefits package of $1.5 million a year when he was fired last year. Spaccia, who was also fired, was making $376,288 a year. Each of the six current and former council members facing charges was making about $100,000 a year.

Adams, who was paid $457,000 a year, was also fired but has not been charged with a crime. Prosecutors say simply accepting a huge salary is not illegal.

A hearing may begin this week to determine if there's enough evidence to try Spaccia and former city manager Robert Rizzo on felony charges of misappropriating public funds.

E-mails show Bell officials sought to conceal their high pay

Originally printed at http://www.wavenewspapers.com/news/local/E-mails-show-Bell-officials-sought-to-conceal-their-high-pay-116193539.html
By WIRE SERVICES
February 14, 2011

Prosecutors filed court papers Monday citing e-mails in which Bell’s former assistant city manager wrote that “we have crafted our agreements carefully so we do not draw attention to our pay” and another saying “we will all get fat together.”

In the court filing, Deputy District Attorneys Sean Hassett and Juliet Schmidt argued there is “substantial evidence” that former City Manager Robert Rizzo and former Assistant City Manager Angela Spaccia “intentionally concealed their actions that were designed to grant themselves exorbitant pay.”

The filing documents e-mails sent in 2009 by Spaccia to Randy Adams as the city was preparing to hire him as its police chief.

“The word pay period is used and not defined in order to protect you from someone taking the time to add up your salary,” Spaccia wrote in one e-mail cited in the prosecution’s filing.

The prosecutors said Adams wrote in a separate e-mail, “I am looking forward to seeing you and taking all of Bell’s money?! Okay ... just a share of it,” and that Spaccia responded, “LOL ... well you can take your share of the pie ... just like us. We will all get fat together.”

“Bob has an expression he likes to use on occasion ... pigs get fat ... hogs get slaughtered!!! So as long as we’re not hogs ... all is well,” the document quotes Spaccia as e-mailing.

Rizzo, 57, and Spaccia, 52, are awaiting a hearing — which could begin this week — to determine if there is enough evidence to require them to stand trial on felony charges alleging they misappropriated public funds.

Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Henry G. Hall is expected to first determine if six current and former Bell City Council members should proceed to trial on similar charges.

Last week, the only current City Council member not criminally charged as a result of the public corruption probe testified that Rizzo virtually ruled the small blue-collar city in southeast Los Angeles County.

“Everything had to go through” Rizzo, Lorenzo Velez testified last Tuesday during the preliminary hearing for Mayor Oscar Hernandez, 63; Vice Mayor Teresa Jacobo, 53; Councilman George Mirabal, 61, and former councilmen Luis Artiga, who turns 50 on Tuesday; George Cole, 61; and Victor Bello, 52.

After finishing the preliminary hearing for the six defendants, Hall is expected to hear evidence against Rizzo and Spaccia, as well as additional charges against Hernandez and Artiga.

Rizzo is also charged with conflict of interest and misappropriation of records in a separate case that is expected to be heard last and to take about a day.

The eight were arrested Sept. 21 on allegations that they bilked taxpayers out of roughly $5.5 million through hefty salaries, benefits and illicit loans of public money.

Rizzo and other top city officials stepped down last July after the salary scandal broke.

The City Council members, who were earning almost $100,000 a year, significantly slashed their pay, but most balked at calls for their resignations. Artiga announced last October that he was leaving his post, saying “it’s in the best interest for the city of Bell that I resign.”

Lawyers for the six current and former Bell City Council members said their clients rejected plea deals that would have brought them two-year prison terms in exchange for admitting guilt and paying back all the money they allegedly looted from the city treasury.



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

January 31, 2011

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

Update 4-13-11: We note that the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce has since removed the video link to all the candidates pontificating and promising what they would do on 1/19/11. So now if Jeff Wood or Larry Van Nostran fail to come thru on what they said at the debate you will never know it. See how that works? History vanishes in the blink of an eye! Apparently the video was removed as the internet ran out of space..lol..

1/31/11 orig. post:
We have obtained a link to the video taken of the candidate forum on January 19, 2011. We posted an earlier story here. The link to the two video segments is here. There is a Part 1 (59 minutes long) and a Part 2 (32 minutes long). The quality is good but unfortunately it is Apple Quicktime so you can follow this link to download the Apple Quicktime plug in for your web browser which you will need to view it unless you already use a Mac. We used Firefox 3.6 for windows and it worked fine. Problem is we don't know how long this link will stay up, we have no idea how much bandwidth there is at this site nor what the quality is like for people on slow internet connections. You can pick "tiny, small, medium, or large" file sizes so this likely affects download time. Once we find another place this will be aired (if you cannot watch here) then we will let you know. Again we won't repeat our comments from our last posting on the forum. You be the judge after watching the video and then let us know what you think and which questions you feel remain to be answered (or answered better, or even asked). We are still awaiting the candidates response to the LAAG questionnaire we sent out on January 7, 2011. We feel that will be much more informative than the candidate forum if the candidates give it some thought and give truthful non evasive answers. But again this is politics so lets not expect too much from campaign promises.

Subsequent to the above posting were were also provided the following schedule:

Public Access TV - Time Warner Cable Channel 36 on the following dates and times (LAAG was not given the schedule for Verizon FIOS TV users)

Thurs 2/17 7 - 9:30 pm
Tues 2/22 7 - 9:30 pm
Sun 2/27 2 - 3:30 pm
Thurs 3/3 7 - 9:30 pm
Sun 3/6 2 - 3:30 pm

Cerritos College Radio - 1700 on the AM Radio dial.
or
www.cerritos.edu/wpmd

Go to the website and click on the time to listen online

The Forum will be aired on the radio at the following times:
Every Thursday from 8 - 10 pm
Every Sunday from 2 - 4 pm
until the elections


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

January 20, 2011

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

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

Supposedly there were more than 100 people in attendance last night (not including organizers, staff and other gadflies). I don't know. Barely over 100 maybe. Lots of questions not asked. The questions were being cherry picked for a "mix of softball and hardball" questions and there was a preference for questions that were not multi faceted or hard hitting. The last question was "Who inspires you" I guess they could have also asked what the candidates favorite color was! There were at least 5 people that I heard complaining that their questions were not asked (they all seemed like good pointed questions albeit likely difficult to answer...but that's what we all came for right?)

A number of candidates talked abut experience (as is talked about in national elections) but as it has been said time and time before experience does not often matter as much in these small part time offices. What generally maters more is general "organizational competence" and intelligence, thinking outside the box, being independent and a self starter and not being a sheep and following what the other council members do just because "thats the way it has always been done" Our feeling is that existing council members prefer that candidates serve a long time on the city's commissions (before they run for office) so they can get to know them and see if they will be a "team player" once on the council.

All the candidates were pro-LASD, green initiatives, attracting more business etc. Again this stuff is all easy. Who is against trees? Thanks to LAAG forcing the issue most seemed to be in favor of transparency but talk is cheap on that subject. We see no evidence in the track records of some candidates that they are true promoters of /believers in transparency.  LAAG plans on getting all the candidates to sign or agree to a "transparency pledge" before the election. (this includes Mr. Von Nostran) More on that later. I think the city of Bell debacle taught us that lack of transparency and voter complacency/ignorance is a deadly mix. I think we all know from national elections that even IF you get a pledge in writing the candidates still flip flop and weasel out of their commitments. But its better than vague and aloof statements made at a meeting.

The entire program was taped by the Chamber of Commerce staff and we have an email in to them (and all the candidates) asking that the entire video be placed on the web for all to see at their leisure. City representatives stated that they did not want it posted on the city website as it was a political matter. We are waiting for the Chamber's response. Surely they cant be in need of funds.

Once we get back all the candidates questionnaires we will post them online. We hope to have them soon. We then plan on posting a transparency pledge and once the candidates have had time to support that or not we will then make our recommendations for who should fill the two council seats March 8, 2011.

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

January 12, 2011

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

There is a Candidates Forum sponsored or hosted by the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce where you can meet and ask (hopefully meaningful and pertinent) questions of all four "new" Candidates running for Lakewood City Council in the March 8, 2011 election. (Candidate marc Titel is a former councilman and Larry Van Nostran is running for reelection) Before the event we hope to have more info on the candidates responses to LAAG's campaign questionnaire sent out to the candidates last week.

The details posted on the Lakewood Chamber of Commerce site are:
Wednesday January 19, 2011 (date on Chamber site is 2010!)
6:30 pm - 8:30 pm
Sycamore Centre Ballroom 5000 Clark Ave.
Free Admission

Why this was not posted anywhere on the Lakewood City website (including its calendar of all events in the city) is a mystery but we don't think it was merely an oversight given how we know things work over there.

LAAG has also obtained further details about the event (which were/are not posted of course anywhere but on this site so far)

1. Lakewood Chamber of Commerce (LCOC) is taking only written questions from the audience the night of the event. LCOC are providing pens and 6 x 4 blank cards for people to submit their questions that evening.(The LCOC did not indicate a maximum number of questions but we presume it will be limited only by the two hour duration of the event; we hope its not filled up with fluffy speeches)
2. LCOC is taping the entire 2 hr event for submission to public access TV. Broadcast times and lengths are determined by public access TV. (which LAAG understands is controlled by the city)
3. No banners, T-shirts, or campaigning at the event except by the candidates, which will be allowed to have campaign materials on a table provided for anyone to take.
4. Rules of the forum will be explained at the beginning of the event to all present.
5. Format is a rotating question and answer format with each candidate answering the question.

LAAG wishes to add that if you cannot be present you can submit your (hopefully meaningful and pertinent) question(s) to us with your full name, phone and or email address on it so we can submit it for you at the forum (if allowed to do so by the LCOC).

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

January 10, 2011

Calling all Long Beach Cyclists ...The Bridge to Nowhere Update

LAAG editor note:

This issue is not currently an agenda item. The Coastal commission is aware of this project and the commission staff thought having cyclists present on 1/14/11 would be helpful, especially given the meeting taking place less than a mile from the bridge. The port will be requesting their coastal permit within a month or two. Having this fresh on their minds is important.

Press Release:
Calling all Long Beach Cyclists
The Bridge to Nowhere Update


This Friday, January 14th at 09:00 the California Coastal Commission monthly meeting will be held in Long Beach City Hall Council Chambers. Will the cycling community have access to this new bridge? Will the Port of Long Beach get away with disregarding the needs of cyclists and pedestrians?

A coalition of cycling and walking advocates has lobbied the Port for pedestrian facilities for a Class 1 Bicycle facility and pedestrian walkway on this very important project that will last a hundred years and connect Long Beach to Terminal Island and eventually, San Pedro, in a safe and direct way and allow for workers to get to high paying port jobs in healthy and sustainable ways.

The Coastal Commission can require the Port to include bicycle and pedestrian access in this project. In very short order, the Port will have to apply to the Coastal Commission for the final public approval. While the Commission is supportive of inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian access, they need to see and hear from bicyclists and pedestrians who will use this bridge and who support the project. The Sierra Club and more than a dozen other organizations have endorsed the inclusion of bicycle and pedestrian access. BUT WE NEED YOU to attend this hearing and show your support for this bridge to be a bridge to everywhere for everybody.

We need to show the commission that our community is large, diverse and wants equal accommodation in the bridge design construction. It is our right under Federal and California Law, and it is our tax payer dollars funding the construction - nearly a BILLION dollars! Don’t let this opportunity slip away like water under the bridge. Come to City Council Cambers at 9 am on this Friday, January 14th. The public comment is first and you only need to attend until approximately 9:30.

If you really can’t be there in person please return a letter of support to markbixby26@gmail.com

For more bike rider point of view visit this link. The Long Beach Port's bridge project info is here and the DOT point of view is here.

Thank you,

Chris Quint
lci_chris@yahoo.ca
LB Cyclists Co-Founder
League Certified Instructor, LAB

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