Main

April 12, 2012

Teamsters harbor victory may have broad impact

Far from Los Angeles’ centers of power, the harbor seldom gets the attention it deserves as a driving force in the Southland’s economy. Yet decisions big and small made there have an impact on businesses and workers as far away as the Inland Empire.

That’s why a vote by a relatively few harbor truck drivers to join the Teamsters Union is worth some notice. Drivers for the Toll Group, which transports goods in and out of the harbor, voted 46-15 to join the Teamsters Union, reported Coral Itzcalli, spokesperson for Change To Win, a Teamsters-backed coalition of organizations supporting the union drive.

They are a small percentage of the some 10,000 truck drivers working at the harbor. The vast majority of the drivers work as independent contractors who lease their trucks from trucking companies. The Toll drivers are unusual in that they are on a company payroll.

What makes this vote significant, Itzcalli said, is that it is “a big step” in union efforts to organize the independent contractor drivers and negotiate more money and better working conditions for them. This would impact drivers whose routes range from the harbor though the Inland Empire and beyond the state’s eastern boundaries.

The organizing drive began when drivers couldn’t persuade Toll to provide clean bathrooms, cold drinking water and remedy other working conditions the union characterized as “inhumane and unsanitary.” The next step is for the Teamsters to negotiate a contract with Toll.

With this victory, the Teamsters are energized to extend their drive to other trucking companies serving the harbor, possibly triggering disputes that will impact business and workers throughout the Southland.

March 25, 2012

Rosendahl and Occupy LA

The conflicts of the left were on display at the Westside Progressives' forum on Occupy LA, featuring occupiers, other activists and Los Angeles City Councilman Bill Rosendahl.

The Progressives’ Lillian Laskin deserves much credit for assembling such a disparate, lively and argumentative bunch Saturday at St. Bede’s Episcopal Church in Mar Vista. The idea was for Occupy LA to update the Westside Progressives on what’s been going on with the movement.

The church’s beautiful stained glass windows had a welcoming look, as did the garden, visible through the big window at the end of the room. Before the program, I chatted with a fellow panelist, Bill Gallegos, executive director of Communities for a Better Environment, about how peaceful everything looked.

That changed once the program started. I got in trouble. I discussed the tricky relations between Occupy in the media. I then went to make what I thought were complimentary observations about Occupy, which I think is a positive movement that has shaped much of the dialogue of the current political campaign. Another panelist said that while she appreciated much of what I said, she objected strongly to describing Occupy in the past tense. I should have used the present tense because it is a living, breathing, active movement. Guilty as charged of using the wrong tense. Being an insensitive journalist, such shadings were beyond me.

As she and others said, Occupy has been busy since the high profile days of its occupation of the Los Angeles city hall lawn. Occupy holds General Assembly gatherings during the week in East Los Angeles and has joined in support of a number of demonstrations and rallies around town. Occupy will be part of the May 1 general strike in favor of immigrant rights and against foreclosures, corporate malfeasance, unemployment, low wages and unfair taxes. Students will be urged to stay away from school and workers from their jobs.

What was striking was the distance between Occupy and anyone who holds elective office. Rosendahl was that person Saturday.

He sat there while the electoral system was assailed “We don’t want to join with any group affiliated with the electoral system,” said one Occupy person. “You can’t change anything through the electoral system. Another said, “The Occupy movement doesn’t believe the system can be reformed.” Filmmaker Jehuda Mayaan, part of Occupy, said, “You can’t change anything through the electoral system.”

Rosendahl told how he had helped create housing for homeless veterans and was working on providing more facilities for them and other vets at the Sawtelle Veterans Administration hospital.. “Not everyone is corrupt, not all politics are corrupt,” he said.

Occupy folks gave him a hard time about the police and the fence installed around city hall after the occupation. Someone else complained about police stopping people from sleeping in mobile homes in Venice. The mercurial Rosendahl answered in kind. The discussion got heated. Voices were raised. The garden outside the window looked inviting.

I was impressed with the energy of the meeting but I thought the hostility toward the end was bad news for progressives. Unless they love conservative rule., they had better get together. The Westside Progressives were the most positive sign. Believers in retail, person-to-person politics, they had accomplished a lot in a small way by getting these people together in the same room.

February 20, 2012

Race and city redistricting

An overlooked aspect of Los Angeles’ fight over drawing new City Council district lines is whether the city power brokers—Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and council members—will stir up racial animosity and discriminate against Latinos with their redistricting proposal.

There are other issues involved in the redistricting fight. But none of them are more important to L.A. in the long run as this dispute over ethnic representation, which touches on the racial tension that is always part of politics—and life—in this city.

The ethnicity issue a has been raised in a letter to the Los Angeles City Council Redistricting Commission by Steven Ochoa, national redistricting coordinator of the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund. It has also been brought up by Alan Clayton, a noted redistricting expert and advocate for Latino representation in several conversations with commission and City Council officials.

At issue is a plan drawing new boundaries for the 15 City Council districts as required every 10 years to account for population changes. The lines were drawn by a citizens commission appointed by the mayor, council members and other city elected officials. Villaraigosa and his council allies, who include Council President Herb Wesson, an African American, plus Latinos, seem to be calling the shots.

The redistricting commission plan, Ochoa said, would reduce Latino representation and “will directly put Latino and African American communities in electoral conflict throughout the coming decade.” If Latino representation is reduced, the city could conceivably be found in violation of the Voting Rights Act, which is designed to assure equal representation for minorities.

A perceptive reader might ask why a Latino mayor and his multi-ethnic allies favor a plan that could discriminate against Latinos and heat up always-delicate race relations. There are many theories but as of now I’ll write it off as another example of the murkiness of Los Angeles politics.

Ochoa and Clayton have particularly objected to the lines the commission has drawn for the 9th and 13th Districts. The 9th District is represented by Jan Perry, who is African American, as have been her immediate predecessors. She is also Jewish. The 13th is represented by Eric Garcetti, whose ancestry is a rich L.A. mix of Latino, Jewish and Italian forebears. Both are candidates for mayor in 2013.

The Perry 9th District would include much of South Los Angeles, as it does now, but would lose a big business portion of downtown, source of major campaign contributions. The Garcetti 13th District would continue to be Hollywood based but would lose Latino constituents while gaining more affluent white residents in parts of Silver Lake and around Griffith Park and Atwater.

Clayton said the commission plan, to be considered by the City Council, would reduce Latino representation on the council, from the present five to four because of the new boundaries in the 13th District, The new district could be whiter and with a demographic mix more favorable to an Asian or a gay or lesbian candidate than it is now under Garcetti.

Advocates of the commission plan disagree. While conceding that the proposed lines for the 13th District would make it harder for a Latino to win there, they say that the new boundaries for Perry’s 9th District would make up for this by giving a Latino a better chance to win in that constituency.

Ochoa denied this. Instead, he said, the commission has recommended a 9th District that is 46.3 percent Latino and 45.8 percent African America. This is not enough to help assure election of a Latino candidate and would create strife between the two ethnic groups fighting it out in an election.

His organization, MALDEF, recommends making the 9th District solidly African American while drawing lines for the l3th District that would include 50 percent Latino registered voters, enough for a Latino to win. In that way, there would be no ethnic battles, he said, while continuing the present number of five Latino council members and three African Americans.

Years ago, the city government was found guilty of violating the Voting Rights Act by denying Latinos representation on the City Council. As a result, Gloria Molina, now a county supervisor, won a council seat. If MALDEF feels the current commission plan violates the Voting Rights Act by costing Latinos a council seat, this one could also end up in court.


February 16, 2012

Hot times before big debate

If the last few days are any indication, the Jewish Journal debate starring Reps. Howard Berman and Brad Sherman at Temple Judea in Tarzana Tuesday night should be pretty intense.

A third debater in the contest for the West San Fernando Valley congressional seat is Republican Mark Reed.

So far, attention has been focused on Berman vs. Sherman. At the Democratic state convention in San Diego last weekend, Berman supporter Betty Yee, a member of the State Board of Equalization, made waves with a blast at Sherman.

Yee, who was a veteran Sacramento legislative staffer before her election to the board, handed out a letter to delegates saying: “It would be insane, self-destructive and wrong—horribly wrong for the Democratic Party to support Brad Sherman against Howard Berman….Somebody has to say this—and I guess it’s going to be me, And I just did.
“Oh, you want your back slapped, Brad may be your guy,” she wrote. “But if you want someone to protect impoverished farm workers…women’s rights…immigrant rights, Howard Berman is your man.”

In the end, Sherman fell short of getting the convention endorsement. His campaign manager, Parke Skelton, told me he didn’t think the blast from Northern Californian Yee would hurt Sherman,. “She’s a good person, a great policy person but I don’t think her endorsement means much to voters in the district,” Skelton said.

Skelton, meanwhile, attacked Berman for telling MSNBC’s Chuck Todd he had no Super PACs in the race. These political committees can accept unlimited corporate contributions under the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision and Skelton noted reports that one supporting Berman had accepted a $10,000 contribution from PG&E. Actually, after telling Todd “I have no Super PACs, “ Berman backtracked and said “I have done everything I can to discourage any Super PAC creation and I have done nothing to encourage them.”

This is pretty small time stuff and candidates in one of the nation’s highest profile congressional races should be capable of rising above it and talking policy. Whether they do or not is up to the questioners, That would be Rob Eshman, publisher and editor-in-chief of Tribe Media Corp., publisher of the Journal; Journal reporter Jonah Lowenfeld and me. It should be a good show,

CONTROVERSY OVER PANEL

Another Republican candidate, Susan Shelley, was not included in the debate and has protested vigorously.

Eshman said, “Susan Shelley simply didn't meet our debate criteria. She didn’t file a statement of candidacy with the Federal Election Commission. She didn't have any significant support, endorsements, didn't show up in the polls. She simply didn’t meet our criteria." Shelley said in an e-mail to me, “As you know, I'm Jewish, and a Republican, and socially moderate. It's my belief that Rob Eshman is trying to hide my candidacy from Jewish voters who might be inclined to cast a protest vote against the Democrats.”

February 6, 2012

Parents win cutback reprieve

Parents have won partial restoration of federal poverty funds for 23 schools in the San Fernando Valley and the Westside. Many of the schools are in middle class neighborhoods but have substantial numbers of poor students.

The reprieve is only for a year. And the funds will come from money allocated to schools with many more poor students. While it’s a nice win for the parents with kids in the 23 schools, it’s really sad. People are fighting over scraps as Washington and state governments slash school funds. The situation is bleak in many states and California is one of those being hit the hardest.

John E. Deasy, Los Angeles Unified School District superintendent, said the 23 schools would receive a part of the money they would have lost under a Board of Education decision made in December. The money is distributed under Title 1 of the federal aid to education law.

Involved are schools that have been receiving the aid because at least 40 per cent of their students are classified as living in poverty. With federal funds being reduced, the board raised the level of poverty students needed for eligibility to 50 percent, resulting in the proposed cutoff to the 23 students.

“In a time of great economic challenges and uncertainty, this option provides (the) schools with a ‘safety net’ while we transition to the new eligibility threshold,” Deasy said in a letter to the board.

Tamar Galatzan of the San Fernando Valley, the only school board member to vote against the cutoff, said, “ This is a short term solution to help the 23 district schools… It is our duty as a district to try to help them find both short-term and long-term solutions.”

The only long-term solution is giving more money to public education.

One is being proposed by Gov. Jerry Brown, who advocates an initiative for the November ballot that would raise state sales taxes by a half a cent and income taxes on taxpayers earning more than $250,000. The increases would expire in five years.

The proposal would, Louis Freedberg wrote in the EdSource web site, “yield billions of dollars for California schools.”

Brown will have a tough fight. Other well-meaning people are proposing their own tax increase initiatives. Too many initiatives make defeat of all of them likely. The best thing concerned parents can do is pressure all of them to get behind one measure, and then campaign like mad in the fall.

January 28, 2012

Valley, Westside parents fight school cuts

A big parental revolt is shaping up in the San Fernando Valley and the Westside as federal budget cuts reach deep into the Los Angeles Unified School District.

At issue is the school board’s 6-1 vote in December to take federal poverty funds away from 23 schools, a number of them in middle class Valley and Westside neighborhoods. Nevertheless, they have student bodies that include substantial numbers of poor youngsters.

The funds are distributed to school districts under Title 1 of the federal school aid act, a program begun in 1965 as part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society. They are designed to provide schools with additional funds to help students overcome obstacles from impoverished families and neighborhoods. The money pays for more teachers, counseling, instructional material and training for parents.

Washington has reduced Title 1 funding. In the past, with more Title 1 money, the Los Angeles district distributed its share to schools where at least 40 percent of the students are classified as living in poverty.

Now, with less money to allocate, the school board voted to raise the level to 50 percent. This means funds would be cut off to the 23 schools. “We have less Title 1 money to give out,” Los Angeles Superintendent John Deasy told me. He said the district should “concentrate the funds in schools where there is the greatest concentration” of poverty.

The impact would be painful. Los Angeles Times reporter Howard Blume told how the decision would affect Superior Street Elementary in Chatsworth, where 43 per cent of the students are low income. The cut would deprive the school of $200,000 a year, which pays for an instructional coach, intervention teachers, teacher aides, a library aide and a clerical worker, who also acts as an informal nurse. The school’s academic level has risen. “We could not have made these gains without the support of this funding for these children,” said Principal Jerilyn Schubert. “I’m devastated,” said Schubert, “I just want to cry. I really do.”

At the Westside’s Los Angeles Center For Enriched Studies (LACES) Magnet, Principal Harold Boger said the school would lose $460,000, which pays two teachers, a counselor, a three-and-a-half day nurse, math intervention programs, a parents representative, two educational aides and choir assistance. One of my granddaughters is a student there, and through my daughter I have seen the extensive e-mail and organizing campaign being waged by the parents.

“Are the low-income children at LACES and the other affected schools somehow less deserving of intervention services, tutoring and after school programs than a student who attends a school a few blocks away with a slightly higher percentage of Title 1 student?” parent Elizabeth Dennehy wrote to school board member Steve Zimmer, who voted for the cut.

School board member Tamar Galatzan, the only board member to vote against the cuts, said the district, in allocating the money, doesn’t know what programs work. Before cutting, she said, “we need to know what programs are helping. Is it dropout prevention, is it Saturday classes, and is it smaller class size?”

At Galatzan’s town hall recently, many parents asked questions about the Title 1 funds. They had been alerted by calls from Galatzan’s office, and by protest organizers’ e-mails and letters.

An LAUSD source told me the matter still could come up again. Perhaps the protests are working.


January 20, 2012

Beutner challenges weak city ethics regulation

To some of us disillusioned alums of the weak and failing City Ethics Commission, mayoral candidate Austin Beutner is saying the right things.

In a piece in the Daily News, Beutner noted the weakness of the city’s incomprehensible ethics laws, and pointed out that any attempt to improve them must be approved by the City Council. In my five years on the commission, I watched the council, which hates the commission, kill any of our plans to strengthen the law. The council and the mayor must be pleased now that the commission barely receives any public notice.

I asked Beutner about his Daily News piece when he met with reporters after speaking to Town Hall Thursday. Would he favor going around the city council blockade?

“I would like to see the ethics commission truly empowered to put measures directly on the ballot,” he said. “Let’s take it directly to the voters.”

Since most voters, readers, viewers or Angelenos don’t care about ethics laws, I wouldn’t recommend Beutner make this a major part of his campaign. But the fact he tackled it at all is noteworthy--and indicative of serious tone he might bring to the mayoral campaign trail.

Beutner is a multi-millionaire retired investment banker who impressed former Mayor Richard Riordan and other old white guys who like to throw their weight around. They persuaded Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa to put him on as a $1-a-year top deputy. Beutner supervised several departments, including the messy Department of Water and Power before leaving to seek the top job himself.

He’s the un-Villaraigosa, with a spare, matter-of-fact speaking style, showing none of the mayoral emotion that has captivated, appalled and annoyed us for so long. The somewhat slight and slender Beutner sounds like another ex Wall Streeter, Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, and he looks a bit like him too.

Some people say he is boring. Gene Maddaus wrote in the LA Weekly that Riordan fell asleep during Beutner’s Town Hall speech. “Hey, Beutner can have that effect on people,” Maddaus wrote.

But I stayed awake and enjoyed the way he dug into details. He was right about the miserable conditions at LAX and the MTA’s refusal to buy electric buses. In the Daily News, he wrote about the sad ethical conditions at city hall. He didn’t, however, connect ethics to the airport, although there is a connection. The food is lousy and the shops inadequate and overpriced because concessionaires—using campaign contributions and an influential gang of city hall lobbyists—call the shots with the council and mayor when it comes to the airport. Bad ethics produces bad food.

Even so I congratulate Beutner for taking on the ethics laws and the commission that administers them. When then City Controller Laura Chick, a great reformer, appointed me to the commission she told me to raise hell. I tried as but my friend Tim Rutten pointed out at the time, I was “treated like the drunken uncle at a Seder.”

Even more than anything I learned as a reporter, that experience taught me that it will take someone tough and smart to change the culture of city hall and shake up the intertwined politicians, lobbyists and campaign contributors who dominate it.

January 9, 2012

Zev blasts city hall

Although Los Angeles County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky didn’t shed much light on whether he will run for mayor, he gave a scathing and knowledgeable critique of L.A. city hall and indicated what he might do if he ran the place.

Of course, whether he would be a mayoral candidate in 2013 was the first question asked by designated questioner Dave Bryan of Channel 9 at a luncheon of the Los Angeles Current Affairs Forum at the downtown Palm Monday.

The supervisor, a former city council member, drew an unusually large crowd to the forum luncheon, hosted by public affairs consultant Emma Schafer. Crowd size is important when discussing the forum, which is attended by people who, in one way or another, make their livings from government contracts and contacts. When this group figures a guest lacks clout, the crowd is small. Perceived clout equals a big turnout, and Yaroslavsky, as potentially strong mayoral candidate, got one.

“I will let you know in due course,” he said of his decision, adding that “it won’t be long…I’ll keep you posted.”

What was most interesting was the way he ripped apart city government on subjects ranging from redevelopment to potholes.

He said city streets are in bad shape compared to those maintained by the county in unincorporated areas, he said. He sarcastically compared the streets in East Los Angeles, run by the county, to those in neighboring Boyle Heights, in city territory. Boyle Heights streets are filled with potholes, a condition ranging from there to Wilshire and Sunset Boulevards, from the center and south of the city to the Westside. Yaroslavsky said the gap between East Los Angeles and Boyle Heights street maintenance is as wide as the Grand Canyon.

Yaroslavsky blasted the city hall plan to float bonds for street repairs, saying there is plenty available money from various transportation programs. And he said there was no need for the city to furlough employees, Good management would have prevented it, as it did with the county. “Where did all the money go?” he asked. If he ever gets back to city government, Yaroslavsky said, he would find out.

The question is whether he wants to undertake the difficult task of returning to city hall and trying to get a straight answer to such questions.

November 18, 2011

Occupy LA and a new-style LAPD

Watching Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck deal with Occupy LA at the Bank of America plaza Thursday, I was struck by how much the police department has changed for the better.

When I got there about 3 p.m., the plaza was pretty well filled with occupiers, onlookers and the media. Tents and demonstrators were in the grassy portion of the plaza. There were probably a few hundred people in all. About an hour later, Beck showed up, accompanied by a couple of command officers and someone from the departmental press office. He stood on Hope Street, which had been blocked and was crowded with police cars. He looked relaxed as he took in the scene.

There was no command post, which had been the heart of the military style approach the old LAPD anti-demonstration strategy. Nor was there the old police hostility. Several clergy—rabbis, ministers, and priests—walked from the plaza to talk to the chief. I followed them. He spoke quietly, and they did too. So I wasn’t sure what was said. But I sensed the conversation was calm, polite and probably reasonable.

The media then gathered around the chief, and Beck was just as calm. He said the demonstrators had a point to make, and they had a right to make it. But the owners of the plaza and other businesses had a point, too. Negotiations between the police and demonstrators were continuing. Then he walked over to the plaza to talk to the demonstrators as if it were no big deal.

This is a man who is confident with himself and with a department that was reformed by his predecessor, Bill Bratton. Before Bratton, the chiefs and the cops treated a demonstration as if it were the start of a revolution. Unlike them, Beck didn’t fume and fret because the demonstrators are liberal. His attitude seemed to have seeped down to the SWAT officers on the plaza, and the cops on Hope Street.

The SWAT officers on the plaza generally were unsmiling, although I saw a couple of them chat in a friendly manner with the demonstrators. Some demonstrators yelled “This is what a police state is like.” Having recently returned from China, I thought, “No, China is what a police state is like.” One demonstrator handed a bottle of water to a cop, who said thank you. The demonstrators applauded the police officer’s courtesy.

Beck or some other police officer had given them a deadline. By 4:30 p.m. the arrival of motorcycle cops and a bus big enough for those arrested heralded action. Finally, around 5 pm, the cops started arresting people. But the arrests were done pretty peacefully. Maybe the two sides had worked out the procedure.

Beck exhibited the same abilities last year when the Latino community around MacArthur Park protested over a police officer's shooting of a man with a knife, He showed up at community meetings, listened and answered in a direct style, understanding and not defensive.

A word on Occupied LA’s expansion to the Bank of America plaza: It was a good idea. The choice of the bank gave Occupied LA more focus than it has had at city hall. The bank is relevant to our national economic crisis. Not that our lobbyist-campaign- contributor- dominated city hall is innocent of wrongdoing. But its offenses are local. The Bank of America, saved by the bailout, has wrecked the lives of people across the nation, if not the world.

The mainstream media whines about the Occupied movement having no specific goals. I talked to Elise Whitaker, an organizer. She was specific: “No bank money in politics, publicly funded elections. Once we get our democracy back, we the people will be empowered to make decisions again.”

My afternoon at Bank of America plaza and two previous visits to the Occupied LA city hall site doesn’t make me an expert on the movement. But I like what it’s doing. And an afternoon of watching Charlie Beck and his cops doesn’t make me an expert on them. But so far, they have handled things better than their counterparts in New York and Oakland.

October 29, 2011

Occupy LA as a leadership school

Walking through the Occupy LA encampment the other day, I stopped to listen to a small meeting being held on the north side of city hall. A dozen or more occupiers were discussing how and when to serve food.

A couple of people wanted to post serving hours for the free food. There was intense discussion of varieties of food. One person was a vegan, another, wanting protein, was not. And, naturally, there was the question of who would cook or serve, and whether their assignments should be posted.

“Interesting, isn’t it?” said my friend Art Goldberg, a lawyer who has been protesting since his Berkeley Free Speech Movement days and probably even when he was in elementary school. Goldberg had just finished talking to the group on the best and most humane way to treat the mentally ill in the encampment. He said he stops by Occupy LA every day during breaks in a trial in the nearby courthouse.

“If you’re interested in food service,” I replied, rather sarcastically, indicating that the group’s discussion hadn’t grabbed my attention. He said he thought if I had concentrated more, I would have seen the dialogue wasn’t just about serving food .If I had listened carefully, I would have heard the dynamics of Occupy LA played out on a few levels.

I saw what he meant a few minutes later when a young woman came over to us to thank Goldberg for his remarks on the mentally ill. She had been one of those discussing food. Goldberg talked to her about the need to post schedules and to work out differences that had been evident in the discussion.

The problem, she said, was that there were two very strong women involved in food—one cooking and the other serving. The young woman said she both cooks and serves. It sounded as though she was trying to mediate, to understand both sides. As she explained the food situation, I saw that the discussion at the meeting was really about leadership and bringing people together. She was intelligent, personable and mature. I could see her in a few years leading a movement in the neighborhood, city, state or national level, mediating, compromising, and building coalitions.

That’s one of the important points about the Occupy movements. Leaders will emerge from them, just as Art Goldberg’s sister, Jackie Goldberg, emerged from the Free Speech Movement to become a teacher, a school board member, a legislator and a Los Angeles City Council member.

What looks like a disorganized mess is, in many respects, a training ground for those who will join the next generation of leaders. They are receiving practical lessons in subjects ranging from getting agreement on a food-serving schedule to dealing with difficult people to organizing protests against what originally brought them together—income inequality and rapacious financial institutions.

October 15, 2011

CGS closing: A blow to political reform *

The closing of the Center for Governmental Studies is another setback to the dying cause of cleaning up elections and taking them out of the hands of big contributors.

Last week, Tracy Westen, CEO of the political reform think tank, and Bob Stern, the president, sent out an e-mail saying “With some sadness, but with considerable pride in our accomplishments, we are closing the Center for Governmental Studies’ offices after 28 years of service in the public interest. The recession has depleted our funding, and we cannot continue to operate CGS in its present form.“

The center, mostly financed by contributions from foundations, brought something new to the political reform movement. In addition to advocating electoral reform, the center dug into the policies that too often are shaped by campaign contributions to elected officials. It proposed major changes to a sick state budgeting system that has been heavily influenced by corporate and labor contributors as well as right wing anti tax forces. It also studied one of the great victims of these forces, California’s education system, and proposed reforms. When I retired from the Times, I was employed as a CGS consultant for two years. I worked with another journalist, Emmett Berg, on a project showing how land developers and their government allies put through land use laws weakening flood and fire protection.

“We were one of the few organizations emphasizing improving government,” Westen told me. “We were trying to fix the process …we tried to figure out what were the best solutions for the public.”

The center was born during the post Watergate era, extending from the mid-‘70s to possibly the early ‘90s. Reformers were heroes then, but as my wife Nancy Boyarsky had predicted in a Los Angeles Times op ed piece in the mid-70s, the big contributors would eventually use their money and influence to figure out ways around them. The fat cats and their sharp lawyers found loopholes in reform laws. They created political campaign committees that operated outside the laws. The U.S. Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision, giving these shadowy committees carte blanche, was a mortal blow to campaign reform. Today, contributors call the shots at every level of government, mocking an intricate web of reform laws.

This was never clearer to me than during my five-year term on the Los Angeles City Ethics Commission. We commissioners nailed a few big contributors. But contributors and their lobbyists and lawyers had reached so deeply into city government that I thought our job as reformers was hopeless.

So, apparently, did the foundations that supported CGS. Steve Rountree, chairman of the CGS board, said in an e-mail obtained by the San Francisco Chronicle, “In my view this is the result of the impact of the recession on foundation but, more than that, the consequence of our dramatically polarized political environment and court rulings that have tended to gut laws and regulations aimed at making the democratic process fairer. I believe that foundations have given up hope of meaningful reform in this climate.”

Westen agreed. “ As Steve said, some foundations that have supported our governance reforms may have become dispirited by court rulings and legislative gridlock, feeling not much could be accomplished through the legislative or judicial processes,” he said. “And there's some truth to that -- witness Congress and the California Legislature. But, in my view, that's just when organizations like CGS are needed.”

The CGS office was a few blocks from our house, and Nancy and I often passed it on our morning walks. Last week, it was silent and empty, a perfect symbol of the present state of campaign reform.

* Fixed misspelling of Westen's name

October 7, 2011

Catching the drama at city hall


During my days as a newspaper and wire service reporter, I did my best to hype up stories about the State Capitol or city hall. But it wasn’t easy to get editors or readers interested. Put personalities and conflict in your stories, advised my Associated Press boss Morrie Landsberg. Even so, I found it hard work, a sentiment I am sure is shared by the current generation of reporters.

Now filmmakers, equipped with visual and story telling skills, are tackling the job of exploring the personalities, issues and politics that have made the Capitol and Los Angeles City Hall so important to the state.

I’ve already written about one in LA Observed, “California State of Mind: The Legacy of Pat Brown,” an excellent documentary done by the late governor’s granddaughters, executive producer Hilary Armstrong and director Sascha Rice. It will be shown at MOCA Nov. 10 after screenings in October in Mill Valley, Carmel and Manhattan.

A work in progress is “Bridging The Divide: Tom Bradley and the Politics of Race,” by documentarians Lyn Goldfarb and Alison Sotomayor. They are filming, raising money for the documentary and interviewing the remaining veterans of the Bradley era. Recently, they announced a “very generous grant” from the Ralph M. Parsons Foundation.

I don’t envy, Goldfarb and Sotomayor. Pat Brown was an open, talkative, warm pol, qualities that blended with idealism, a sense of purpose and a love of California to make him one of the state’s great governors. Bradley was also a good politician with idealism, purpose and love of Los Angeles. He was one of the city’s greatest mayors. But he wasn’t talkative, nor did he open up to many people.

His guarded personality was partially shaped, no doubt, by his difficult rise from black police officer in a bigoted police department to becoming African American mayor of a city without a black majority—and one of the country’s most respected public officials of his era.

He was a tough interview. Once, desperate for something interesting, I asked him to tell me about his day. He was surprised by my approach but I made him go through the whole thing, from the time he left the house to what he did in city hall. He checked potholes, streetlights and traffic on his way to work. He went over every detail of the budget. He knew the boring procedures of almost every department. I found it fascinating. Here was a great national symbol of African American progress who, at heart, was an incredible city government wonk, which was one of the reasons for his success.

I’ve always tried to think of the political life I covered as having a dramatic arc, like a movie or a play but it’s difficult to translate this onto the printed page. Now it’s the documentarians' turn to tell the incredible and dramatic story of California through the lives of two of its heroes.


September 13, 2011

Waxman's take on Berman-Sherman

“So I ask myself,” said Rep. Henry Waxman, “how do you get out of this?”

The veteran Westside congressman was talking about how to avoid a battle in the San Fernando Valley between his friend Rep. Howard Berman and Rep, Brad Sherman for the 30th congressional district created by the state reapportionment commission. The commission gave Berman’s old district a Latino majority to create a Latino seat in the Valley. The commissioners moved Berman into the new 30th with Sherman. The percentage of Latino voters in that district is 16 percent.

Waxman had called me to complain about my Jewish Journal column on the race in which I wrote that the only way a Berman-Sherman fight could be avoided was “if one or the other made the suicidal choice of moving to another nearby district, which neither would have much of a chance of winning.”

It so happens that the choice I termed as “suicidal” was precisely the choice Waxman has in mind—Sherman pulling out of the 30th District race and running in a Ventura County district, some of which he has represented in the past. The new district, with no incumbent, is 42 percent Democratic and 35 percent Republican.
It’s not suicidal at all, Waxman said. President Barack Obama carried the area by double digits, he said, and Gov. Jerry Brown lost it by just one point in his election campaign, He estimated Sherman’s campaign war chest at $4 million. Rather than have Sherman and Berman spend up to $10 million between them Waxman would like Sherman to use his money to win the Ventura County seat and give the Democrats another seat in the House. “He would be doing a great service to the Democrats,” Waxman said. He conceded it is “not a great Democratic district, but the well-funded Sherman could win it.

“If we have this race between two Jewish Democrats, it is not because of Howard, it is because Brad chooses it,” Waxman said Sherman, he said, “could do the party a favor, he could do the Jewish community a favor and keep himself in Congress without this unnecessary battle.” He said, “I would like to see both of them returned to Congress”, but if there is a contest, he supports Berman.

Sherman doesn’t seem to value such advice. He is lining up endorsements, distributing polling results that he says show him ahead, working the grassroots and energetically communicating news of all this to the media.

Meanwhile, Sherman found himself under heavy fire for recommending that President Barack Obama appoint former Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante ambassador to India. The criticism came from journalists ranging from my LA Observed colleague John Schwada to the Sacramento Bee editorial board. The Bee in an editorial said Sherman ‘just earned himself place in the Pandering Politician Hall of Fame” by backing Bustamante in an effort to influence “large numbers” of Latino voters in the district. Actually, the Bee overstated the numbers of Latinos in the district,

Sherman told me “he proposed Bustamante on the suggestion of “Indo-American organizations in my district.” He said he “did this early in the spring” before he knew he would be in such a tight race. Sherman said he supported Bustamante when he ran for governor, and Bustamante is backing him over Berman. Traditionally, he said, the ambassador to India is a not a diplomat, but someone important in the political or business world.

“I suppose Brad feels it will help him with Hispanics,” commented Waxman.

September 3, 2011

Race and county redistricting

Do Latinos tend to vote only for Latinos? Do non-Latinos generally vote against Hispanic political candidates? Those racially charged questions are behind the current struggle over drawing new districts for Los Angeles County’s five supervisors.

The supervisors are required to change the boundaries of their districts every 10 years to take into account population changes. The federal Voting Rights Act requires the district lines to be drawn so they do not deny minorities a chance of winning elections. Those protected by the act include African Americans, Asian Americans and Latinos.

In 1991, a federal court ruled that the Los Angeles County supervisors denied Latinos a chance to be elected to the board. The court found that supervisors, all white, purposefully gerrymandered districts so that Latinos were a minority in each of them, a Voting Rights Act violation. As a result, district lines were redrawn, a constituency with a Latino majority was created, and Gloria Molina was elected to the board of supervisors.

Over the years, the Latino population has increased. Latinos now constitute 48 percent of the county’s 9.8 million residents, with whites 28 percent, Asian Americans 14 percent and African Americans 8 percent. With the growth of that population, Latino groups, supported by Supervisor Mark Ridley Thomas, who is African American, are pressing for the creation of a second supervisorial district where more than 50 percent of the population would be Latinos eligible to vote.

Creation of such a district would come at the expense of veteran Supervisor Don Knabe, who is white. It would do this by removing from his district largely white areas along the coast where he has strong support and give him more Latinos.

Advocates for a second Latino majority district have produced studies of many elections in which whites vote for whites and Latinos for Latinos. “The data and election results make clear that, when given a chance in a primary or non-partisan election, non-Latinos tend to vote against Latino candidates in all reaches of Los Angeles County, while Latinos vote strongly in favor,” University of Washington Professor Matt A. Barreto said in a study submitted to the county.

Those on the other side note the election of Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and Sheriff Lee Baca, Latinos. “Frankly, the notion that non-minorities won’t vote for a minority candidate in L.A. County is antiquated. Los Angeles in 2011 is not the same as the Los Angeles of forty, thirty or even twenty years ago. Our county is politically and socially far more mature and broad-minded.” said Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky.

Are voters color blind? Or do the supervisors, knowing Latinos vote for Latinos, want to continue splitting up the Hispanic vote to protect Knabe and others who might face a Latino challenge?

August 13, 2011

Thoughts on Tim Rutten

Tim Rutten and I settled into our booth at Langers and ordered. He chose the number 19—pastrami, cole slaw, Swiss cheese and Russian-style dressing, Being a traditionalist, I picked a simple pastrami sandwich. We both called for Heinekens, the first of our usual two.

The conversation turned immediately to his firing—or layoff as it’s called—from the Los Angeles Times after four decades. It was stupid, wrong and unfair, another sign of how the paper was destroying itself so fast that soon there would be little left. Rutten, of course, agreed.

I told him I wanted to write about his firing but hesitated because we had been great friends for a long time. If it was too complimentary, I said, everyone would think it was a puff piece. If you do write it, he said, just don’t insult me.

Saturday, I read Jim Rainey’s well-justified tribute to another victim of journalism’s greed, John Schwada, who was fired from Channel 11. I figured if Schwada gets a tribute, Rutten deserves one, too.

Rutten wrote an op ed column that appeared on Wednesdays and Saturdays and, until his bosses ended it, a weekly book review. He has served as editor of the Opinion section, editorial writer, deputy national editor, city county bureau chief and columnist,
Rutten’s columns were well informed and opinionated, just as a column should be. He was ahead of the pack on important issues. His columns on the Los Angeles Police Department and his moving interview with retiring Cardinal Roger Mahony were outstanding examples of his work. So were his columns on civil liberties.

I became friends with Rutten when I was a general assignment reporter assigned to cover the streets and schoolyards during a huge desegregation crisis in the late 1970s. He was the editor of the Opinion section. He came over to my desk in the news room, and we talked about how the desegregation story was another chapter in the long history of racism in Los Angeles. He had me write a piece for Sunday Opinon along those lines, which he played at the top of the front page.

I continued to write for Opinion after I became city county bureau chief, in charge of covering local government and politics. A new generation of bosses tried to stop me on the grounds that reporters shouldn’t express opinions. Rutten and I fought back. The battle grew intense. We had a showdown in one of the executive dining rooms, presided over by the editor, Bill Thomas. My editors presented their case against me. A high-ranked editor, Narda Zacchino, replied it was a freedom of speech issue. Bill, she said, had a right to express his opinions. Thomas listened, and then gave his permission for me to continue writing for Opinon.

Later on, I became a columnist. During the O.J. Simpson trial, my column was devoted to that epic event and Rutten joined the trial coverage, writing legal analyses as part of our team. His newsroom pod was next to mine.

Rutten then became city county bureau chief. Coverage immediately improved as he assembled a team of good reporters and motivated them.

One day, I was unexpectedly appointed city editor. It was during a tumultuous period, and I wasn’t supposed to tell anyone until the move was announced the next day. “You have to tell Tim,” my wife Nancy said when I got home that night. I called. Tim’s wife Leslie Abramson anwered the phone. She put him on, and I said I was his new boss.

Boss-worker didn’t exactly describe our relationship. I’d tell him something. He’d sometimes disagree. We argued, a couple of times so loudly that heads turned in the newsroom. But in the end, he always did what I said. It could be exhausting. But I patterned my style after that of Joe Torre, the great manager of the Dodgers and Yankees baseball teams. Torre understood that managing involved assembling talented, occasionally difficult individuals, harnessing the rebels and molding them all into a team.

As bureau chief, Tim was hands-on editor of our coverage of the Rampart police scandal. Two of his reporters, Scott Glover and Matt Lait, uncovered the first signs of it. Tim guided them and gave them all the time they needed. He brought in other reporters. Their coverage was to a large extent responsible for the remaking of the Los Angeles Police Department.

Years before, Rutten and I talked about how the Times covered such stories, wrapping up developments in one, long complete story, maybe too long for readers to handle. In the unlikely event we ever were in charge, we said, we’d try to splash the daily developments on page one every day, like the Herald did. That would have impact. That was our goal with Rampart and I thought it worked. We couldn’t have done it without the support and guidance of editor Michael Parks and our other editors. It was the old Times at its best.

Anyone who knows Rutten understands why his current editors, told to cut costs, would cast their frightened eyes in his well-paid direction. He isn’t an easy, compliant employee. He dismisses people he doesn’t think are as smart as he is, and this encompasses a pretty big universe. Also, they had something on him—a mistake in a column. For that, they had taken away his book beat. I bet he didn’t react to that and other events with the humility demanded by bosses who never studied the Joe Torre manual of managing.

But he was one of the many terrific Times journalists—some calm and straight arrow, others edgy and mercurial—who created a great newspaper. Torre would have played him every day.

August 7, 2011

Lessons of an earlier AEG battle

Greg Nelson was chief aide to then City Councilman Joel Wachs, who stiffened the city’s back during negotiations over Staples Center in the mid 1990s and improved the deal. I asked Nelson what was difference between then and now, when the city is negotiating a much bigger deal with the Staples Center developer. AEG, for a downtown Los Angeles National Football League stadium.

“The Staples deal opened with AEG wanting to float $70 million in bonds to buy up the land that would later be used for L.A. Live,’ Nelson said in an e-mail. “It offered no guaranty that the bond payments would be made. It asked the city to take a chance with them. After Joel threatened an initiative, a guaranty was accepted by the city and the developers.”

Substantially more city bonds are required for this project, which involves tearing down a convention center building to make way for the stadium and putting up another one. The bonds would total $275 million, with 73 percent to be repaid by AEG and 27 percent by the city. The city’s share would come from AEG lease payments and taxes generated by the stadium, such as parking taxes.

The kind of concern Wachs expressed over bond repayment in the Staples deal is now being voiced by city officials and a private consultant to the city in the current project
The consultant, Convention Sports and Leisure International, said that the profitability of a National Football League team “may fall short of expectations.” The CSL report urged the city to protect itself from shortfalls by insisting the AEG share of repaying the bonds is guaranteed by a company “with stronger assets not tied directly to the stadium.” That would be AEG’s big guy, Phil Anschutz, a billionaire whose web of holdings could more than guarantee repayment. AEG is just part of his empire and the consultant indicated that other holdings should back up bond repayment.

City Administrative Officer Miguel Santana and Legislative Analyst Gerry Miller in a report to the council said a NFL team might face financial difficulties. They said the National Football League might impose a relocation fee to any team, such as the San Diego Chargers, that wants to move into a new Los Angeles stadium. “The fee could exceed $500 million,” they said. “If such a fee is assessed, the team could be forced to operate at a loss for a number of years. “ AEG would be a part owner of the team, so the relocation fee could be another threat to its ability to pay off the bonds.

As Nelson pointed out to me, “This is something being discussed behind closed doors in the negotiations.”

In the original Staples deal, Councilman Wachs, an intelligent, skeptical former tax attorney, pried opens the secrecy doors that had enveloped the negotiations. I was writing a column for the Times during this period, crusaded against the secrecy and followed Wachs’ efforts every step of the way. We need some of his smart skepticism now.

July 13, 2011

Rosendahl shreds stadium secrecy--maybe

So many questions, so little time. That just about describes the situation when the Los Angeles City Council meets July 29 to finally look behind the curtain of secrecy surrounding the downtown National Football League stadium proposal.

Councilman Bill Rosendahl faced scorn and insults from his colleagues when he got the council to hold the meeting. Accomplishing this took all the talking talent and thick skin he had developed in his years as a television discussion show moderator and executive for cable television companies usually run by brutal bosses.

Councilwoman Jan Perry, chief backer of the stadium deal, and her allies were noticeably hostile to Rosendahl’s efforts to open up the process. All Rosendahl wanted was for Perry’s special stadium committee to obey the Brown Open Meeting Act and that the council have a meeting, open to all, on the proposal. He lost on both counts but Council President Eric Garcetti, using his presidential powers, did schedule the July 29 open council meeting on the stadium.

Blogger Ron Kaye saw Rosendahl’s efforts this way: “What Rosendahl has done is to turn this into a litmus test for City Hall: They are either going to look after the public interest in this stadium deal or they are going to be exposed as nothing but stooges for special interests.”

Here are some questions for the council to consider:

Anschutz Entertainment Group, which wants to build the stadium, has promised to repay the almost $300 million in bonds the city would float for the project. The money would be used to tear down an existing convention center building to make room for the stadium and to build a larger exhibition facility nearby. Could we see this promise in writing, please?

What would happen if Anschutz Entertainment Group can’t or won’t repay the bonds? Would the money then come from the city General Fund, dollars that should go for police, firefighters, libraries and other city services?

And who is actually negotiating with the Anschutz Entertainment Group sharpies? I hope it’s not the members of the council special stadium committee.

What about the city’s precarious finances? The new bonds would balloon the city’s total indebtedness for the combined stadium-convention center expansion project to almost $800 million. What impact would this have on the city’s credit, recently downgraded by Moody’s Investor Services?

What about the possibility of a stadium fiasco, such as the one in Cincinnati reported this week by the Wall Street Journal: The paper described it as “…one of the worst professional sports deals ever struck by a local government, soaking up unprecedented tax dollars and county resources while returning little economic benefit.”

What’s the rush? Tim Leiweke, in charge of the project for Anschutz Entertainment Group, insists the council act by July 31, a deadline that won’t be met because the council’s meeting is July 29. Can’t the council and Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, a big stadium backer, take some time to explore and explain this deal?

“We can vote sometime in August,” Rosendahl said. “If the numbers make sense, if these opportunities make sense, it could be a great deal.”

Thursday, I heard from Councilwoman Perry, who is council president pro tem. In response to my comment that I hoped council members weren't negotiating with AEG, she said talks are in the hands of the chief legislative analyst. He works for the council, by the way.

While her committee is part of a "streamlined process," she said it had "never committed to a deadline" and that the council had agreed only to make a "good faith effort" to finish a draft agreement by the July 31 date sought by AEG.

"There are no secrets here," she said. "To insinuate otherwise only diminishes the process that has been established to take the politics out of the negotiations and protect the city and its taxpayers."


June 28, 2011

Leiweke clinching stadium deal with a concession

By the time I reached the Mar Vista Recreation Center Monday night, the placed was overcrowded with Westside neighborhood activists and union people braving a hot, stuffy room to have their say on the proposed downtown National Football League stadium.

The crowd extended outside the rec center. Neighborhood representatives hammered Tim Leiweke, the stadium developer, with questions so painfully detailed that they could have only come from veterans of many neighborhood council meetings. The union members, one by one, hailed the stadium as a sure cure for unemployment in Los Angeles. Alice Walton, who runs the City Hall Maven blog, twittered furiously, reporting on the proceedings for those fortunate enough not to be there.

In any case, we all could have stayed home. There was no need for comments. The meeting showed this deal is wired for City Hall approval. As the late broadcaster Chick Hearn used to say when the Lakers clinched a victory, ''You can put this one in the refrigerator. The door's closed, the light's out, the eggs are cooling, the butter's getting hard and the Jell-O is jiggling.''

Leiweke, president of the Anschutz Entertainment Group, which wants to build the stadium, pretty well tied up the deal when he told the town meeting at the rec center that he is reducing the amount of the bonds he is requesting from the city from $350 million to somewhere in “the high 200s.” This would reduce the city’s interest payment on the bonds, which should give the few City Hall doubters reason to vote for the deal. AEG can do this, he said, by paying for two parking structures for the stadium, rather than using city bond funds.

Two potential city council skeptics told me it sounded pretty good to them. Bill Rosendahl, who convened the town meeting in his district, said Leiweke’s revised proposal was “a very great plus.” Paul Koretz, who represents a neighboring Westside district, said, “the project keeps improving. Anything that reduces the city’s cost is a real positive.”

Leiweke dominated the show. Coat off but still wearing a vest, he was a star salesman as he touted the stadium, which would be located at the convention center, near AEG’s Staples Center and its LA Live development. As it should be with a great salesman, he didn’t dwell on a potential obstacle—the clout of Ed Roski and his Majestic Realty Co., promoters of an NFL stadium in the city of Industry.

As Victor Valle reported in his excellent book “City of Industry: Genealogies of Power in Southern California,” Roski all but runs Industry, a San Gabriel Valley city with few residents, many industries and warehouses and a huge redevelopment agency. This agency could finance the stadium with bonds and Roski doesn’t have to worry about city council approval. Roski got the state legislature to waive a pesky requirement for an environmental impact report. He can bedevil Leiweke with lawsuits, probably claiming violations of the environmental requirements Roski had lifted for his own stadium plan. He is a master of the Southland’s low-life politics.

With all this facing him, Leiweke has to move fast. He told me that he must have a deal with Los Angeles completed by the end of July so he can go to the NFL with evidence that he and his boss, Phil Anschutz, are ready to procure an NFL team for his stadium. He’s got to do this before the NFL prepares its 2016 schedule, which he hopes would include an LA team. If there’s a delay at LA City Hall, Roski, with his Industry redevelopment financing in place, could grab the prize.

Roski, however, must deal with another factor, the three guiding principles of the real estate business--location, location, location.

To succeed, an NFL team would need the kind of free spending big shot fans—some rich, others faux rich—who buy the high-priced Lakers tickets, except many more of them. You find them in the most affluent parts of the Westside and the West Valley. in the entertainment industry complexes, as well as in downtown businesses and law firms. Would they rather go downtown, now Jack Nicholson country, thanks to the Lakers and their most famous fan? Or could Roski lure them many miles over the freeways to the San Gabriel Valley and the city of Industry, a rich but plain place with its warehouses and political power?

May 19, 2011

Mark Ridley-Thomas' telephone town hall

Los Angeles County Supervisor Mark Ridley-Thomas used an interesting telephone town meeting to build support for putting more of the Crenshaw Boulevard light rail line below street level and to have a station at Leimert Park Village. Robo calls from the popular Tavis Smiley were placed to residents in the Leimert Park area urging them to stay on the line and talk to the supervisor about the light rail route, to be completed sometime between 2016 and 2018. It would run from Exposition Boulevard to LAX.

I watched Wednesday night as calls came into town meeting central at the Los Angeles Urban League headquarters on Mount Vernon Drive, at the edge of Leimert Park.

I arrived early and walked around Leimert Park Village, the cultural and political heart of L.A.’s African American community, located off Crenshaw Boulevard a few miles south of the Santa Monica Freeway. A few vacant stores told me the village could use the economic boost the light rail might provide. I went into the well-known Eso Won bookstore on Degnan Boulevard, and looked at the books. I had wanted to visit the store for a long time but never got around to it. I bought “The Most Famous Woman In Baseball: Effa Manley and the Negro Leagues” by Bob Luke. Then I headed south on Crenshaw toward where Ridley-Thomas wants to put the trains below street level. I passed a casket store, but didn’t want to buy one. It and the rest of the businesses were closed for the evening. There were still people on the street, however, as MTA buses unloaded passengers returning home from work, all potential light rail customers.

At the Urban League, I joined Ridley-Thomas, league CEO Blair H. Taylor, Our Weekly publisher Natalie Cole and a few others seated around a table fielding calls. A supervisorial aide told me 410 people called in, certainly many more than would attend a midweek town meeting in person. This is a terrific method of political communication.

Ridley-Thomas answered questions from telephone callers and a few from publisher Cole. Most of the callers favored below-street level construction of the stretch near Crenshaw High School and another school, as well as the Leimert Village station. They expressed concerns about safety and cost.

A strong critic of Ridley-Thomas' plan is his fellow supervisor, Zev Yaroslavsky. Yaroslavsky sides with a report by CEO Art Leahy of the MTA saying the Ridley-Thomas proposals would add more than $400 million to the $1.7 billion project. Yaroslavsky opposes cost increases. Ridley-Thomas, who puts the additional cost at $339 million, said the money could be taken from future projects and other sources.

Ridley-Thomas could use Yaroslavsky’s support. Both are members of the MTA board, which will make the final decision, possibly at a meeting next week. But on the day of the telephone town meeting, Yaroslavsky and Ridley-Thomas had a sharp exchange on KCRW's ’s “Which Way, L.A."” over another issue, the power of the county chief executive officer. From their tone on the show, these two strong-minded politicians aren’t getting along.

Ridley-Thomas also needs the support of Mayor Antonio Villairgosa. He controls four votes on the MTA board. Ridley-Thomas said the mayor is undecided. The supervisor is hoping the Leimert Park residents who participated in the telephone town meeting will persuade the mayor to join him.

May 11, 2011

A 36th CD candidates' night is a useful seminar


I moderated a 36th Congressional District candidate forum that shed light on the complexities of a leading domestic issue and on the politics of coastal California.

The event Tuesday night, at Harbor UCLA Medical Center, was for candidates in the May 17 election to replace Jane Harman in the 36th Congressional District seat, which runs from Venice through the South Bay. The subject was health care and the event was sponsored by organizations involved in the issue.

These candidate events are crapshoots, as I have learned during years of covering them. So I shouldn’t have been surprised when only three of the 16 candidates showed up. They were Mayor Mike Gin of Redondo Beach and businessman Stephen Eisle, who are Republicans, and liberal activist Marcy Winograd, who is a Democrat. Secretary of State Debra Bowen, who was ill, sent a representative. Nor should I have been surprised by the size of the crowd—small.

I didn’t use the format I’d been given as moderator—to allow two minute replies, rebuttals, summing-ups. I let the three talk and talk. With just three candidates and a small audience, I liked the idea of a long discussion, sort of like an old-fashioned candidates’ night in someone’s front room.

The district is heavily Democratic and one of the Democrats is favored to win. As evidence of how liberal the district is, even among many Republicans, Gin, Eisle and Winograd, in answer to a question from the audience, all said they favored stem cell research. You’d probably get the same answer in most places in Coastal California, the most liberal part of the state. Maybe not, however, in Inland California.

Elizabeth Forer, who heads the Venice Family Clinic, asked the candidates how they thought institutions such as hers can continue to deliver health care to the needy in view of shrinking state and federal appropriations. Dr. Gail Anderson, medical director at Harbor-UCLA, wanted to know how the new health care law would affect public hospitals. Dr. David Meyer, who heads LA BioMed, a non-profit research institution, wondered about federal funding for institutions such as his, which has made many important medical discoveries.

In their answers, the three candidates revealed much about themselves and their philosophies. Eisle replied to all the questions by talking about using a business approach, taking pages from the Republican playbook, which didn’t seem to have much relevance to the daunting problems of the Venice Family clinic or Harbor-UCLA’s emergency ward. Gin was the pragmatic South Bay pol, talking about convening citizens committees to come up with solutions to problems that have long stumped politicians and academics. Winograd favors Medicare for all, which might solve the problem but is politically impossible at this time.

The discussion gave me a sense of these candidates as people. The audience, which seemed to be composed mostly of health professionals, appeared to be paying attention. At least nobody left. Some of the time it was boring, like a seminar. But campaigns need more such seminars when the issue is as complicated as this one. I wish there had been more candidates and a bigger audience.

May 4, 2011

Pat Brown's legacy: a fine documentary

In a time when the smart money has written off the state, an excellent and timely documentary, “California State of Mind—the Legacy of Pat Brown,” recalls the prosperous past and gives us a bit of hope for the problems confronting the late governor’s son, Jerry Brown.

I saw it last weekend at the Newport Beach Film Festival. For my wife Nancy and I, it was a welcome reunion with the Brown family and friends, including Kathleen, his daughter. The documentary was made by her daughters, writer director Sascha Rice and executive producer Hilary Armstrong. Rice and Julia Mintz are producers.

As the writer, Sascha Rice faced two challenges. One was that while her grandfather, Edmund G. Brown, was one of California’s greatest governors, he is a remote or even unknown figure to generations born after he served, from 1959 to 1967. Secondly, how could she, a family member, accurately show the real Pat Brown who was both an idealistic visionary and a cynical, cunning politician?

Rice doesn’t entirely capture the latter quality. Sometimes, the film is too nice, those being interviewed too admiring of Brown. Weren’t any of his detractors still alive? But Rice did solve the family problem by giving the film an interesting plot, her own effort to discover her grandfather who, to her, was the fun-filled, loving, undemanding grandpa. It was a pleasant side of the old governor but didn’t tell the grandkids much about their aging playmate. Rice returned to Pat Brown’s San Francisco roots, to his gambler father’s cigar store with an illegal card room in back and to his inability to attend college because dad was broke. She traced his rise through San Francisco’s rough politics, driven by ambition and political instinct. The film also tells of his courtship and lifelong romance with his wife, Bernice, who had his love letters under her pillow when she died. This was one of the most touching moments in the film.

Sascha visited the projects the visionary Pat built and loved—the state water system, the freeways and the public universities. There is also a glimpse of the cynical Pat, talking of the Northern California water he wanted to ship south. Those mountain counties, he scoffed, don’t need all that water, implying they were greedy. He wouldn’t have said that at a meeting in Redding or other northern cities and towns.

Sascha interviewed me for the film. I was the journalistic vet, an admirer of her grandfather but one who appreciated how he got things done. I explained the governor had to bargain and cajole to accomplish his aims, how every mile of the freeways and the water project, every university campus was built deal by deal with politicians who didn’t meet the impossibly high standards demanded by today’s ethicists.

It was a rich state then, far different than the one governed by his son Jerry. Today, we are short of money and the electorate is much more cynical. We’ll see if the Brown genes that took Pat from his father’s cigar store-gambling parlor to the governorship are still strong enough to steer Jerry through problems much more difficult than those faced by his dad.