It is with a smile on my face that I say congratulations to once again Governor Jerry Brown. I wish him well and hope that the faith that working families have in Gov. Brown is validated and realized as he approaches the biggest job at the most difficult time in California.
I'd like to give a big CONGRATULATIONS to all our local Democrats who were reelected. Assembly Member Isadora Hall was reelected with a high of 88% of the vote, Warren Furitani with 71%, Congresswomen Laura Richardson’s long fought battle was successful as she overcame with 69% of the vote and my dear friend, may she rest in peace, and Senator Jenny Oropeza still took home 58% of the vote as folks bid her farewell. Assmeblymember Bonnie Lowenthal received 56% of the vote against an out of nowhere Republican Martha Gibson Flores who received 46% of the vote.
In fact, Latino Republicans did very well across the country, but not in California, so don't look for most California Latinos to run and join the Republican Party any time soon.
Thank you to our friends in Labor who worked hard out of the Teamsters Hall in Long Beach to make this election a success.
The City of Long Beach had 4 measures on the ballot and 3 of the 4 passed.
The most controversial item changed the formula for amounts that the Port of Long Beach can transfer to City's Tidelands from 10% of Port net revenue to 5% of gross revenue and changed/clarified verbiage regarding City Hall's control of the Harbor Area Tideland's oil revenue. While this measure or reiterations of it, have been discussed for years and brought forth by Rae Gabelich, Gerrie Schipske and yours truly, it did not gain speed until the City Auditor provided a report to council which was eventually adopted for ballot consideration. It passed with 55% approval.
The other somewhat controversial measure was GG, the effort to dismantle the Civil Service Department. Opponent's of the measure displayed yard signs with, "Vote no on GG, the City Manager has Enough Power -Don't Copy Bell!" While the campaign was understated and somewhat quiet, it helped to have two very well respected women, Doris Topsy Elvord and Dale Clinton making the opposing ballot statement.
One big reason it was defeated with 55% of the vote, is that the working folks in this City are feeling the pain and getting hit the hardest in this down economy. That coupled with double digit unemployment, layoffs, furloughs and a disregard for seniority; it is no wonder that employees are counting on someone to be on their side. A fair, competitive merit based system like Civil Service was something for the workers to get behind.
All in all it was a great Election Day.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Mad Men and the Big C-City Council that is!
Well I am back after a very long vacation, but the City of Long Beach’s wheels keep turning and I am not one to sit back and let them turn without comment.
Some interesting items coming up in the next two weeks:
Today,Tuesday November 2, 2010-ELECTION DAY
If you have already voted then you can attend the Council Meeting BUT it starts at 4:00 pm today. It is hard to keep up with the ever changing time of the meetings. Check out Item #4, “Recommendation to receive and file the Registered Lobbyist 3rd Quarter Report for the period ending September 30, 2010.”
I was not enthusiastic about the lobbyist ordinance because I felt it fell too much on the lobbyist and did not make elected officials any more or less accountable than they were before the ordinance passed. But if you have trouble sleeping it can be some good reading, and frankly it raises more questions than it actually answers. For instance, ABC Consulting, who has as one of its primary partners, the wife of a Harbor commissioner, is pitching Union bank for the job of the City's bank. The city has an RFP out for a new bank and isn’t the City’s bank also the Port’s bank? Whoever lands the city /port as a client has caught a big fish and who better than the wife of the commissioner. Good Luck!
Speaking of big fish, Alex Cherin is also a contract lobbyist and he seems to be doing well since leaving the POLB.
Lobbyist forms must be filled out to indicate which city official or employee was the point of contact for the lobbyist. Unlike his competitors, Alex lists the Mayor as his contact for ALL his clients. Other contract lobbyists don’t list anyone at all or list lowly Department heads or City line staff. Nice work Alex that should be worth a few extra bucks.
Also on Tuesday’s agenda is Item #10, “Request to Implement Ballot Rotations.”
This item suggests that the current practice of allowing a candidate to be listed first on the ballot gives some candidates an unfair advantage and that the practice should be eliminated; even though the selection is done via lottery from the California Secretary of State and is intended to determine the RANDOM order of the candidates. We are told that making the ballots rotate so everyone gets a chance to be first somehow levels the playing field.
Who are they kidding? This is a waste of the taxpayer’s money because we would have to print half of the ballots with candidate #1’s name first, then the second batch with candidate #2’s name first and so on. What if we have six candidates? How do we control the cost? If they wanted to level the playing field then they should ban late hit pieces, provide for truth in advertising and try to do more with campaign finance rules.
And to top it off, this item is coming from city council members that recently raised their office holder account to $10,000 a year. (I would have voted yes too)
But do you call that a level playing field when the incumbent has a fund of possibly $40,000 going into an election? I think not.
Interesting agenda next week too, November 9, 2010:
Changing the rules of the game-again- for Medical Marijuana (item #13, no kidding) and folks just trying to catch a fish! (Item #22)
Some interesting items coming up in the next two weeks:
Today,Tuesday November 2, 2010-ELECTION DAY
If you have already voted then you can attend the Council Meeting BUT it starts at 4:00 pm today. It is hard to keep up with the ever changing time of the meetings. Check out Item #4, “Recommendation to receive and file the Registered Lobbyist 3rd Quarter Report for the period ending September 30, 2010.”
I was not enthusiastic about the lobbyist ordinance because I felt it fell too much on the lobbyist and did not make elected officials any more or less accountable than they were before the ordinance passed. But if you have trouble sleeping it can be some good reading, and frankly it raises more questions than it actually answers. For instance, ABC Consulting, who has as one of its primary partners, the wife of a Harbor commissioner, is pitching Union bank for the job of the City's bank. The city has an RFP out for a new bank and isn’t the City’s bank also the Port’s bank? Whoever lands the city /port as a client has caught a big fish and who better than the wife of the commissioner. Good Luck!
Speaking of big fish, Alex Cherin is also a contract lobbyist and he seems to be doing well since leaving the POLB.
Lobbyist forms must be filled out to indicate which city official or employee was the point of contact for the lobbyist. Unlike his competitors, Alex lists the Mayor as his contact for ALL his clients. Other contract lobbyists don’t list anyone at all or list lowly Department heads or City line staff. Nice work Alex that should be worth a few extra bucks.
Also on Tuesday’s agenda is Item #10, “Request to Implement Ballot Rotations.”
This item suggests that the current practice of allowing a candidate to be listed first on the ballot gives some candidates an unfair advantage and that the practice should be eliminated; even though the selection is done via lottery from the California Secretary of State and is intended to determine the RANDOM order of the candidates. We are told that making the ballots rotate so everyone gets a chance to be first somehow levels the playing field.
Who are they kidding? This is a waste of the taxpayer’s money because we would have to print half of the ballots with candidate #1’s name first, then the second batch with candidate #2’s name first and so on. What if we have six candidates? How do we control the cost? If they wanted to level the playing field then they should ban late hit pieces, provide for truth in advertising and try to do more with campaign finance rules.
And to top it off, this item is coming from city council members that recently raised their office holder account to $10,000 a year. (I would have voted yes too)
But do you call that a level playing field when the incumbent has a fund of possibly $40,000 going into an election? I think not.
Interesting agenda next week too, November 9, 2010:
Changing the rules of the game-again- for Medical Marijuana (item #13, no kidding) and folks just trying to catch a fish! (Item #22)
Friday, September 3, 2010
More vacancies on boards and commissions causes missed opportunity
LONG BEACH MISSES THE VOTE ON IMPORTANT TARGETS FOR
GREEN HOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS
On Tuesday August 17, 2010, the Long Beach City Council at the urging of Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal and Council member Patrick O’Donnell, passed an agenda item requesting a resolution in support of California Air Resources Board (CARB) efforts to reduce criteria pollutants and green house gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles.
The resolution called for support of “ambitious regional GHG reduction targets as envisioned by SB375 that incentivize local governments to integrate land use and transportation planning that supports air quality and public health goals and emphasizes reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through alternatives such as driving, walking, biking and mass transit options.” The motion passed 8-0 (DeLong absent)
I for one was proud and glad that our City weighed in on such an important action since at the end of the month, CARB is planning to finalize regional draft targets and this week local area planning agencies weighed in on the targets. Long Beach is the second largest city in Los Angeles County and should play a role in the implementation SB375.
CARB is finalizing targets for 2020 and 2035. Statewide area planning agencies are already weighing in and making a statement that they are willing to work for the following targets:
Region 2020 / 2035
Bay Area 7% / 15%
Sacramento 7% / 16%
San Diego 7% / 13%
SCAG 6% / 8% (our region)
Gateway Council of Governments (COG) met Wednesday and voted on a 4% goal for 2020 which is way below all others. Even Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) staff stated, “If we do business as usual we can achieve 6.5%” The SCAG meeting held the next day the Regional Council (RC) voted to support 6% in 2020 and a paltry 8% in 2035 after the staff recommended 8% / 13%.
How could this happen? And was Long Beach present to advocate for the policy the entire city council voted on? The answer is NO, Long Beach was MIA. Long Beach was a no show. SCAG is the largest regional metropolitan planning agency in the NATION and the City of Long Beach is the second largest city in LA County and has 2 (two) votes on the RC. But no one was present, not even staff.
The City of Los Angeles passed a similar resolution and had numerous city staff, and council representatives present at the SCAG meeting testifying and expressing the importance of achievable and ambitious goals for the sake of their citizen’s public health and for good transportation planning.
At the Gateway COG the scenario was much the same, the City of Long Beach and is the largest city in the COG and also has 2 (two) votes on the board but only one showed up. No statement of the previous council policy position was made and the COG passed a dismal 4% goal for 2020.
We live in a non attainment area because of our poor air quality and we struggle daily with congestion and traffic. Here was an opportunity for us to weigh in.
It is not enough for our City Council to pass paper policy and good intentions if they are not prepared to advocate for that policy at the regional or state level.
I am asking the Mayor and City Council to fill the vacant SCAG positions and the vacant Gateway COG positions and instruct staff to defend, promote and advocate the policy direction that the policy making body votes on at regional meetings especially when votes are taken. Otherwise the agenda items the council votes on are only good for re-election brochures but do nothing to advance the interests and quality of life of the people of Long Beach.
GREEN HOUSE GAS REDUCTIONS
On Tuesday August 17, 2010, the Long Beach City Council at the urging of Vice Mayor Suja Lowenthal and Council member Patrick O’Donnell, passed an agenda item requesting a resolution in support of California Air Resources Board (CARB) efforts to reduce criteria pollutants and green house gas (GHG) emissions from motor vehicles.
The resolution called for support of “ambitious regional GHG reduction targets as envisioned by SB375 that incentivize local governments to integrate land use and transportation planning that supports air quality and public health goals and emphasizes reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) through alternatives such as driving, walking, biking and mass transit options.” The motion passed 8-0 (DeLong absent)
I for one was proud and glad that our City weighed in on such an important action since at the end of the month, CARB is planning to finalize regional draft targets and this week local area planning agencies weighed in on the targets. Long Beach is the second largest city in Los Angeles County and should play a role in the implementation SB375.
CARB is finalizing targets for 2020 and 2035. Statewide area planning agencies are already weighing in and making a statement that they are willing to work for the following targets:
Region 2020 / 2035
Bay Area 7% / 15%
Sacramento 7% / 16%
San Diego 7% / 13%
SCAG 6% / 8% (our region)
Gateway Council of Governments (COG) met Wednesday and voted on a 4% goal for 2020 which is way below all others. Even Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) staff stated, “If we do business as usual we can achieve 6.5%” The SCAG meeting held the next day the Regional Council (RC) voted to support 6% in 2020 and a paltry 8% in 2035 after the staff recommended 8% / 13%.
How could this happen? And was Long Beach present to advocate for the policy the entire city council voted on? The answer is NO, Long Beach was MIA. Long Beach was a no show. SCAG is the largest regional metropolitan planning agency in the NATION and the City of Long Beach is the second largest city in LA County and has 2 (two) votes on the RC. But no one was present, not even staff.
The City of Los Angeles passed a similar resolution and had numerous city staff, and council representatives present at the SCAG meeting testifying and expressing the importance of achievable and ambitious goals for the sake of their citizen’s public health and for good transportation planning.
At the Gateway COG the scenario was much the same, the City of Long Beach and is the largest city in the COG and also has 2 (two) votes on the board but only one showed up. No statement of the previous council policy position was made and the COG passed a dismal 4% goal for 2020.
We live in a non attainment area because of our poor air quality and we struggle daily with congestion and traffic. Here was an opportunity for us to weigh in.
It is not enough for our City Council to pass paper policy and good intentions if they are not prepared to advocate for that policy at the regional or state level.
I am asking the Mayor and City Council to fill the vacant SCAG positions and the vacant Gateway COG positions and instruct staff to defend, promote and advocate the policy direction that the policy making body votes on at regional meetings especially when votes are taken. Otherwise the agenda items the council votes on are only good for re-election brochures but do nothing to advance the interests and quality of life of the people of Long Beach.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Contracting out our Public Safety?
This upcoming budget year, the City manager is proposing staffing levels for our Police Department that are the lowest in recent memory. In the past six years, crime went down while the police department was experiencing a rise in budgeted sworn police personnel. Is this just a lucky coincidence, I think not. The Rand Corp. released a study last year that simply states, having more police reduces crime. Long Beach is the perfect example that proves the Rand Study true.
This year, staff is proposing budgeted police staffing levels at 87 sworn officers below 2009 levels, add to that the fact that we have not been at "budgeted" levels in a while and we are looking at having an all time low of 893 officers, boots on the ground, by the end of 2010.
That is a whooping 127 sworn officers below the 2009 levels!
Crime may have gone down citywide, but if you live in Central, West or North Town you know that sexual assaults and shootings have gone up. Where is the Mayor's promise for 100 police officers? Where is the Mayor's pledge of a city where West Long Beach, Central and North Long Beach get to share in the promise of "One City"?
Eventually, other parts of town will suffer too. As crime creeps up, police will be taken off traffic duty, loud parties, parking complaints, accidents and nuisance calls to address more violent priority one calls that will take precedence, and soon the citizens will ask why we don’t have enough police to protect or serve.
The City Council of the City of Long Beach has been asking a question that has gone unanswered since the departure of Chief Tony Batts, "How many police officers do we need for a city this size to keep our city safe?" Our present police Chief refuses to answer this question but this was a question that Chief Batts did not shy away from.
I wonder why the Department head of the largest city department refuses to answer the question. Is he afraid that the mayor or city manager might think the new Chief in town is rocking the boat?
Or is he primed to accept yet another contracting out scenario that inevitably is the city's misguided answer to cutting costs? Either way, I prefer my Police Chief to be straight forward and protective of his men and women who put their lives on the line on a daily basis.
We better start planning now for the future and provide our young folks the opportunity at a job, a slot in the upcoming police academy, because I for one, do not want the sheriff's department doing the job we hired our Chief to do.
This year, staff is proposing budgeted police staffing levels at 87 sworn officers below 2009 levels, add to that the fact that we have not been at "budgeted" levels in a while and we are looking at having an all time low of 893 officers, boots on the ground, by the end of 2010.
That is a whooping 127 sworn officers below the 2009 levels!
Crime may have gone down citywide, but if you live in Central, West or North Town you know that sexual assaults and shootings have gone up. Where is the Mayor's promise for 100 police officers? Where is the Mayor's pledge of a city where West Long Beach, Central and North Long Beach get to share in the promise of "One City"?
Eventually, other parts of town will suffer too. As crime creeps up, police will be taken off traffic duty, loud parties, parking complaints, accidents and nuisance calls to address more violent priority one calls that will take precedence, and soon the citizens will ask why we don’t have enough police to protect or serve.
The City Council of the City of Long Beach has been asking a question that has gone unanswered since the departure of Chief Tony Batts, "How many police officers do we need for a city this size to keep our city safe?" Our present police Chief refuses to answer this question but this was a question that Chief Batts did not shy away from.
I wonder why the Department head of the largest city department refuses to answer the question. Is he afraid that the mayor or city manager might think the new Chief in town is rocking the boat?
Or is he primed to accept yet another contracting out scenario that inevitably is the city's misguided answer to cutting costs? Either way, I prefer my Police Chief to be straight forward and protective of his men and women who put their lives on the line on a daily basis.
We better start planning now for the future and provide our young folks the opportunity at a job, a slot in the upcoming police academy, because I for one, do not want the sheriff's department doing the job we hired our Chief to do.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
Be Careful What You Ask For
The battle for Vice Mayor has always been a contentious and interesting exercise especially if you are a new councilperson who has to vote on the selection with a little more than an hour of experience under your belt. But not to be fooled, new council members, including Johnson and Neal were lobbied far in advance of their swearing in.
Much has been said about the reasons why folks want to be vice mayor: the ability to run and control meetings when the mayor is gone, the power to sign documents in place of the mayor and most importantly,being the vice mayor is the ticket to allow you to go into another council members district and not get attacked for campaigning for a statewide office outside of your district while on city business. This was especially evident in the Suja, Patrick scenario.
But what has really been the benefits of being Vice Mayor? Other than Bonnie Lowenthal, who I would suggest has taken her hits in her personal life as all Lowenthals have; all other vice mayors have gone nowhere and in fact been hurt by the designation save Doris Topsy Elvord.
The City of Long Beach began electing an at large mayor less than 17 years ago. Doris was our transition vice mayor and served us well, then came Dan Baker who resigned under a cloud of accusations, then Frank Colonna who lost his bid for Mayor, and after him Jackie Kell who lost her bid for reelection and then Bonnie Lowenthal (who went on to the assembly), then Val Lerch who also lost his bid for reelection.
Suja's battle for Vice Mayor is a case of be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. Now, after hearing that she will be gone for the most important budget session in years, I think in the war of public opinion, she has already felt the curse of the office of Vice Mayor. The real question is, will this hurt her in her quest for higher office? Only time will tell.
Much has been said about the reasons why folks want to be vice mayor: the ability to run and control meetings when the mayor is gone, the power to sign documents in place of the mayor and most importantly,being the vice mayor is the ticket to allow you to go into another council members district and not get attacked for campaigning for a statewide office outside of your district while on city business. This was especially evident in the Suja, Patrick scenario.
But what has really been the benefits of being Vice Mayor? Other than Bonnie Lowenthal, who I would suggest has taken her hits in her personal life as all Lowenthals have; all other vice mayors have gone nowhere and in fact been hurt by the designation save Doris Topsy Elvord.
The City of Long Beach began electing an at large mayor less than 17 years ago. Doris was our transition vice mayor and served us well, then came Dan Baker who resigned under a cloud of accusations, then Frank Colonna who lost his bid for Mayor, and after him Jackie Kell who lost her bid for reelection and then Bonnie Lowenthal (who went on to the assembly), then Val Lerch who also lost his bid for reelection.
Suja's battle for Vice Mayor is a case of be careful what you ask for, you just might get it. Now, after hearing that she will be gone for the most important budget session in years, I think in the war of public opinion, she has already felt the curse of the office of Vice Mayor. The real question is, will this hurt her in her quest for higher office? Only time will tell.
Friday, July 2, 2010
Transparency, Communication and the Good Old Days
I remember my early years on the City Council when we faced a $103,000 million dollar deficit! WOW, those were the good old days. Times where we could have said, we will use our unilateral power and make decisions to cut employees and services and get this budget under control regardless what the public thinks or if there is council agreement.
Well we did get it under control to an all time low of a 10 million dollar deficit; but we did it in a thoughtful, well planned way that involved the entire community, staff and council, working together so we were all on the same page, not always in agreement, but the emphasis was on process, transparency and inclusion.
In fact we even won a national award for our budget process of public participation, we gained the attention of the national press and won the Helen Putnam Award for excellence, articles were written about our city manager and other cities called to find out how we did it.
What a vast difference as we fast forward to how the city is handling today's $18,000 million dollar deficit.
As we analyze the process the differences are alarming.
Today, unlike in years past, we have had no citywide town hall meetings scheduled in the evening hours or half days on Saturday where we invite the public to listen to department heads explain services and ponder the necessary cuts with a heads up to the public most impacted.
Today, we have no break out groups that allow the public to weigh in with city staff to share their thoughts, concerns and ask questions regarding neighborhood impacts.
Today we have meetings during the day scheduled at 3:30 pm when people work and provide a whopping one hour to run through a series of reports leaving little or no time for council or the public to respond.
Today, we have the City Manager and the Mayor making decisions about the elimination of departments, services and staff via contracting out all in one meeting.
Today, department heads are afraid to speak up, the public is given 3 minutes, and the council is the last to know about decision effecting their constituents.
Today, we have term limits that provide council the ability to rise to the next level quicker, as long as they don't rock the boat or speak up too loudly.
Today, we have less employees, less services, and the City Manager is considering the elimination of the Departments of Civil Service, Community Development, Library and Towing and Lien Sales.
Today, the City Manager is asking the council to give back the responsibility of trees and sidewalk maintenance to the public, a public that is experiencing double digit unemployment.
And, today we still have an 18 million dollar deficit.
Change for change sake is a mistake.
Providing information to the community and educating the public is a powerful tool when it comes to solving problems. Why is management trying to do it alone?
The Roman Empire was characterised by an autocratic form of government, but in case you haven't noticed, we are not the Roman Empire, we are Long Beach, and oh yeah, we still have an 18 million dollar deficit.
Well we did get it under control to an all time low of a 10 million dollar deficit; but we did it in a thoughtful, well planned way that involved the entire community, staff and council, working together so we were all on the same page, not always in agreement, but the emphasis was on process, transparency and inclusion.
In fact we even won a national award for our budget process of public participation, we gained the attention of the national press and won the Helen Putnam Award for excellence, articles were written about our city manager and other cities called to find out how we did it.
What a vast difference as we fast forward to how the city is handling today's $18,000 million dollar deficit.
As we analyze the process the differences are alarming.
Today, unlike in years past, we have had no citywide town hall meetings scheduled in the evening hours or half days on Saturday where we invite the public to listen to department heads explain services and ponder the necessary cuts with a heads up to the public most impacted.
Today, we have no break out groups that allow the public to weigh in with city staff to share their thoughts, concerns and ask questions regarding neighborhood impacts.
Today we have meetings during the day scheduled at 3:30 pm when people work and provide a whopping one hour to run through a series of reports leaving little or no time for council or the public to respond.
Today, we have the City Manager and the Mayor making decisions about the elimination of departments, services and staff via contracting out all in one meeting.
Today, department heads are afraid to speak up, the public is given 3 minutes, and the council is the last to know about decision effecting their constituents.
Today, we have term limits that provide council the ability to rise to the next level quicker, as long as they don't rock the boat or speak up too loudly.
Today, we have less employees, less services, and the City Manager is considering the elimination of the Departments of Civil Service, Community Development, Library and Towing and Lien Sales.
Today, the City Manager is asking the council to give back the responsibility of trees and sidewalk maintenance to the public, a public that is experiencing double digit unemployment.
And, today we still have an 18 million dollar deficit.
Change for change sake is a mistake.
Providing information to the community and educating the public is a powerful tool when it comes to solving problems. Why is management trying to do it alone?
The Roman Empire was characterised by an autocratic form of government, but in case you haven't noticed, we are not the Roman Empire, we are Long Beach, and oh yeah, we still have an 18 million dollar deficit.
Monday, June 21, 2010
To Tow or not to Tow, who asked the question?
The City of Long Beach is the only City that operates its own towing service; the division is comprised of over 40 city employees and 5 sub-contracted tow providers to assist with the overflow. The City only tows at the request of the Long Beach City departments, the Police Department and parking enforcement being the most frequent users. The Towing Division does not do private property tows and the public cannot find them in the Yellow Pages or towing at the request of a private party. Presently, the City of Long Beach Towing and Lien Sales Division contributes close to $3 million to the general fund, after it pays its overhead costs such as fuel, maintenance and personnel.
Last month, Financial Services issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for City Tow Services, a service already available in the city, a service that is not losing money, pays for itself and contributes $3 million dollars to the general fund a year!
So who asked Financial Management to issue an RFP if no vote was taken at the council, no discussion was held at the Budget Oversight Committee, and no outcry from its primary customer, the LBPD was received? In fact, a petition was signed by Police and Public Work's employees asking the city not to contract out towing. So with this opposition and lack of outcry for a towing RFP, why do we have one?
Let's consider the fact that towing services can be a lucrative business. It can also be rife with corruption. Recently, a LB City Auditor's report stated that no abuse was present in the Long Beach towing operations but that it was possible given the amount of money that exchanges hands. So ..... a large amount of money exchanges hands and the city wants to contract out that service?
Great..... we know how the city provides scant oversight on all its contracts and MOU's (i.e. LB Museum of Art, Queen Mary, etc.). It would seem logical, then, to recommend that we tighten our controls, maintain our Long Beach City employees and keep our Long Beach-based tow sub contractors and keep the towing business in house and out of the hands of LA conglomerates: Hands that will certainly be handling our money if we allow the towing RFP to move forward. More to come.......
Last month, Financial Services issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for City Tow Services, a service already available in the city, a service that is not losing money, pays for itself and contributes $3 million dollars to the general fund a year!
So who asked Financial Management to issue an RFP if no vote was taken at the council, no discussion was held at the Budget Oversight Committee, and no outcry from its primary customer, the LBPD was received? In fact, a petition was signed by Police and Public Work's employees asking the city not to contract out towing. So with this opposition and lack of outcry for a towing RFP, why do we have one?
Let's consider the fact that towing services can be a lucrative business. It can also be rife with corruption. Recently, a LB City Auditor's report stated that no abuse was present in the Long Beach towing operations but that it was possible given the amount of money that exchanges hands. So ..... a large amount of money exchanges hands and the city wants to contract out that service?
Great..... we know how the city provides scant oversight on all its contracts and MOU's (i.e. LB Museum of Art, Queen Mary, etc.). It would seem logical, then, to recommend that we tighten our controls, maintain our Long Beach City employees and keep our Long Beach-based tow sub contractors and keep the towing business in house and out of the hands of LA conglomerates: Hands that will certainly be handling our money if we allow the towing RFP to move forward. More to come.......
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
Gender, Race and the Politics of Speaking Up
The Long Beach City Council and the staff of the City is getting to look less and less like the people it serves. When I came on the council I was one of seven (7) women, and after I leave there will be only three (3). Although the council doesn't quite look like our founding fathers, there is still some concern. Even our management staff, given the first hired, first laid off scenarios and a rash of retirements in anticipation of pension reform, is not reflective of a city workforce we worked so hard to diversify.
This is a concern because as we go into another tough budget year we will have difficulty connecting with those who will be hurt the most by the budget and resulting service cuts. Yet at last weeks budget meeting there was little or no discussion from the council. Admittedly the presentations from the department heads were cursory in nature and lacked specifics but save for Gerrie, Rae and myself, the rest of the council was without questions. Do we really think that lack of discussion implies a united Council in agreement with management and our Mayor or is it a reflection of the Councils to come where meaningful dialogue and pointed questions are seen as a disruption?
In my view, discussion is needed for a clearer idea of our cities funding priorities. As our City
Council becomes more and more homogeneous, there may be less and less dialogue. Does speaking up result in the fear of being thrown out of the "club" if you were never in it in the first place? Perhaps that is the real value of a diverse body. Let's hope that the community demands a public discussion of our difficult decision making process regarding the budget by all parties and not depend on a few to raise their voices. Unanimity is an asset in management but can be a liability in leadership.
This is a concern because as we go into another tough budget year we will have difficulty connecting with those who will be hurt the most by the budget and resulting service cuts. Yet at last weeks budget meeting there was little or no discussion from the council. Admittedly the presentations from the department heads were cursory in nature and lacked specifics but save for Gerrie, Rae and myself, the rest of the council was without questions. Do we really think that lack of discussion implies a united Council in agreement with management and our Mayor or is it a reflection of the Councils to come where meaningful dialogue and pointed questions are seen as a disruption?
In my view, discussion is needed for a clearer idea of our cities funding priorities. As our City
Council becomes more and more homogeneous, there may be less and less dialogue. Does speaking up result in the fear of being thrown out of the "club" if you were never in it in the first place? Perhaps that is the real value of a diverse body. Let's hope that the community demands a public discussion of our difficult decision making process regarding the budget by all parties and not depend on a few to raise their voices. Unanimity is an asset in management but can be a liability in leadership.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Good Times Ahead
The June 8th election is over and although I am disappointed in the outcome, I am energized and excited about the potential for some exciting times ahead for me and for the City that I love so much. I believe that the people of Long Beach are ready to address the real challenges ahead with creativity, compassion and a sense of purpose. Although many of us have been through some tough economic times, it is in these tough times that the most change is made. I stand ready to work by your side to bring us all back to greatness.
My last council meeting is July 13 however I will be available to my constituents until July 19th. Thank you for a wonderful ride and don't forget that every vote counts, every action matters and one person can make a difference.
I will be updating you on what I feel are issues we all need to know about and perhaps learn a thing or two from my colleague Gerrie about blogging and some pointers from LBReport and Dave Wielenga about writing the truth about the city in a way that motivates and informs. Thanks for the good times but the best is yet to come!
My last council meeting is July 13 however I will be available to my constituents until July 19th. Thank you for a wonderful ride and don't forget that every vote counts, every action matters and one person can make a difference.
I will be updating you on what I feel are issues we all need to know about and perhaps learn a thing or two from my colleague Gerrie about blogging and some pointers from LBReport and Dave Wielenga about writing the truth about the city in a way that motivates and informs. Thanks for the good times but the best is yet to come!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
