A history lesson
Perhaps, given the happenings in Wisconsin and right here in Long Beach, we need the Knights of Labor. We need some Knights in shining armor to help put a stop to the demonization of union members and the working class.
The Knights began as a secret society of tailors in Philadelphia in 1869. The organization grew and as worker militancy rose, their membership grew. In less than 10 years, by 1886 the group had over 700,000 members! The organization was committed to seeking radical reform like the eight-hour day, the abolition of child labor and equal pay for equal work, and political reforms including the graduated income tax.*
Fifty years later in 1935, the Wagner Act gave employees the right to collectively bargain, be represented by a union during negotiations and the Act also gave us the National Labor Relations Board. Today we are ALL benefitting from the Knights of Labor’s ideas and other united efforts like the Congress of Industrial Organizations that showed us that united, working families gain.
Almost a century later we are ALL benefitting from their advocacy, yet the actions in Wisconsin are threatening the very gains we enjoy today. Over 130 years of hard fought gains by workers in this country are now seriously at risk.
Why on earth would someone want to take away the unions right to collectively bargain? Divide and conquer? Make no mistake about it; this is a veiled attempt by a Republican Governor to use the fiscal situation to cast a fatal blow to unions in Wisconsin and in this country. Similar attempts are being made in Ohio and other states. While the Wisconsin’s Governor is a blatant example of someone using a fiscal issue for political ends this does not stop in Wisconsin.
Right here in Southern California, and in our own city at Tuesday’s budget hearing, we have elected officials suggesting that the real problem with our budget is that Labor is not doing their part. This from a mayor that threatened to veto the council and the bargaining group’s agreement if they did not follow his desired path during contract negotiations just over a year ago. So now we have a contract that HE negotiated and he is asking them to again come to the table, because he really didn’t mean what he said. And, quite frankly, according to the contract he negotiated, they don’t have to come to the table until 2013.
He states that our recalcitrant unions lack “will to negotiate” and at the same time says it is not negotiations as usual. Does he mean just give him what he wants? His desired solution by the way will only just cover half of the deficient. Do we once again see elected officials like the one in Wisconsin, using a fiscal situation to press a politically motivated desired outcome?
Add to that a Vice Mayor that states, "We all know the root cause of this crisis." Does she mean the workers who keep us safe, clean our streets and aid our sick and elderly in time of need? Does she mean our public safety workers, our refuse workers, our crossing guards and our fire and paramedics?
The Council in Long Beach needs to stop pointing the finger at Labor unions and start getting to work on increasing revenue and trimming the budget. In 2002, we had a deficit of over 109 million dollars and in 3 years cut it to less than 10 million with the support of labor. The present council is struggling with 54 million deficits and working to cut that in the same 3 year time frame, and alienating labor along the way.
It is time to get to work in partnership with our community, our city workers and management to find meaningful solutions. Wisconsin is a prime example of an elected official pointing the finger at the bad guy and refusing to negotiate in good faith. We have had enough of pointing the finger at who they think the "bad guy" is. Be careful, it just may be you.
*Reader's Companion to American History. Eric Foner and John A. Garraty, Editors. Copyright © 1991 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company.
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
PLAYING THE PENSION FIDDLE WHILE ROME BURNS!
The people in the City of Long Beach are suffering as are many in this country. According to 2008 Census figures, 28% of our children live below the federal poverty level, and an additional 21% live below 200% of the federal poverty level - a measure of true economic hardship. Many working families lack health insurance and the unemployment rate in this city is close to 14%. In addition, many of our residents, especially those who live in the downtown and central area are experiencing an increase of 15% in the rise of violent crime. (Statistics from an excerpt from City of Long Beach GRIP narrative)
Yet in the State of the City there was no mention of our residents who are most in need, no mention of any immediate or short term relief for those who find it hard to put food on the table or a roof over their families heads. Yes, we all agree that pension reform is needed to stem the rising costs of our unfunded liability, but if you ask anyone in the city who is a victim of the above mentioned statistic, it is doubtful that they will describe the solution to their problems as pension reform.
To throw out the political hot potato of pension reform as the #1 issue in this City and then use the forum of the State of the City to inflame and attempt to coheres employee representative groups to acquiesce, comes off as a pitiful attempt at a campaign to rally support for a candidate for statewide office. And more importantly it does nothing for the man on the street that is searching for a solution to the problems many in our city face.
Shall I remind our Mayor about Measure I and recently Measure GG? The public and City Hall sometime differ on not only what our priority issues are but how to fix them. And in the complex world of pension reform, there are many ways to skin the cat.
This pension mass hysteria and anti public servant sector attack is in fact now spread to other members of the city. One City Council person sent out an E mail blast stating “Pension Reform is our Top Priority”. This e mail came from a council district with a 15% increase in violent crime, failing infrastructure, and the highest poverty rate in the city. As one of his constituents put it, “You can fix your pensions, but first, please fix my potholes.”
As I stated, we all agree that we need to act now to deal with our unfunded liability but even the city acknowledges that reforming the pension system for the future does nothing to serve our current unfunded liability.
I only hope that our city does more than political rhetoric regarding pensions, but right now we just need gas money to get to a job we may be lucky enough to have, and enough money to keep food on our table and our children in college. That is the real state of many in this city.
Yet in the State of the City there was no mention of our residents who are most in need, no mention of any immediate or short term relief for those who find it hard to put food on the table or a roof over their families heads. Yes, we all agree that pension reform is needed to stem the rising costs of our unfunded liability, but if you ask anyone in the city who is a victim of the above mentioned statistic, it is doubtful that they will describe the solution to their problems as pension reform.
To throw out the political hot potato of pension reform as the #1 issue in this City and then use the forum of the State of the City to inflame and attempt to coheres employee representative groups to acquiesce, comes off as a pitiful attempt at a campaign to rally support for a candidate for statewide office. And more importantly it does nothing for the man on the street that is searching for a solution to the problems many in our city face.
Shall I remind our Mayor about Measure I and recently Measure GG? The public and City Hall sometime differ on not only what our priority issues are but how to fix them. And in the complex world of pension reform, there are many ways to skin the cat.
This pension mass hysteria and anti public servant sector attack is in fact now spread to other members of the city. One City Council person sent out an E mail blast stating “Pension Reform is our Top Priority”. This e mail came from a council district with a 15% increase in violent crime, failing infrastructure, and the highest poverty rate in the city. As one of his constituents put it, “You can fix your pensions, but first, please fix my potholes.”
As I stated, we all agree that we need to act now to deal with our unfunded liability but even the city acknowledges that reforming the pension system for the future does nothing to serve our current unfunded liability.
I only hope that our city does more than political rhetoric regarding pensions, but right now we just need gas money to get to a job we may be lucky enough to have, and enough money to keep food on our table and our children in college. That is the real state of many in this city.
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
Civil Service at your Service
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
