The Saving L.A. Project took some positive steps toward getting organized at a Town Hall Meeting Saturday at the Glassell Park Community/Service Center.
About 100 people from every corner of LA. attended and participated in various breakout groups dealing with various aspects of the organization: Advocacy, Outreach, Legal/Information, Truth Squads, Issues, Schools.
The group as a whole endorsed the Mission Statement articulated by Bob Gelfand, long-time San Pedro community activist:
The Saving L.A. Project (SLAP) opposes the undue influence of money in L.A. City Government decisions, expect the L.A. City Government to obey and enforce the law and to stop the common practice of lying to the public.
The group approved this by voice vote as well as me becoming honorary chairman while a process is put in place to create a board of directors and take other administrative steps.
There were two guest speakers, Soledad Garcia, head of the Neighborhood Councils' Oversight Committee on the Department of Water and Power, who reported on the good and bad of the Memorandum of Understanding with the utility, and Walter Moore who talked about his campaign for mayor and how SLAP can pull community activists together and help defeat incumbent city elected officials in the upcoming elections. There also was an open forum
After the breakout groups reported back, there was a discussion to have another meeting or series of meeting around the city in early September.
About 100 people from every corner of LA. attended and participated in various breakout groups dealing with various aspects of the organization: Advocacy, Outreach, Legal/Information, Truth Squads, Issues, Schools.
The group as a whole endorsed the Mission Statement articulated by Bob Gelfand, long-time San Pedro community activist:
The Saving L.A. Project (SLAP) opposes the undue influence of money in L.A. City Government decisions, expect the L.A. City Government to obey and enforce the law and to stop the common practice of lying to the public.
The group approved this by voice vote as well as me becoming honorary chairman while a process is put in place to create a board of directors and take other administrative steps.
There were two guest speakers, Soledad Garcia, head of the Neighborhood Councils' Oversight Committee on the Department of Water and Power, who reported on the good and bad of the Memorandum of Understanding with the utility, and Walter Moore who talked about his campaign for mayor and how SLAP can pull community activists together and help defeat incumbent city elected officials in the upcoming elections. There also was an open forum
After the breakout groups reported back, there was a discussion to have another meeting or series of meeting around the city in early September.
Ron Kaye is the former editor of the Los Angeles Daily News where he spent 23 years helping to make the newspaper the voice of the San Fernando Valley and fighting for a city government that serves the people and not special interests.
Twice in recent years, Los Angeles Magazine listed Kaye among the city’s most influential people, specifically in the area of politics. Kaye has been variously described in the media as the “accidental anarchist,” “the Patrick Henry of the San Fernando Valley” and a “passionate populist.” He is now committed to
carrying on his crusade for a greater Los Angeles as an ordinary citizen. Previously, Ron worked at the Los Angeles Herald Examiner,
Associated Press, Cleveland Plain Dealer and The Australian as well as papers
in Fairbanks, Alaska and Yakima, Wash. He also wrote for Newsweek magazine, The Guardian in London and the National Enquirer.
August 1, 2008
Public Comment – Non Agenda Item
I thought the Brown Act did not allow the councilmembers to speak on non agenda items. If councilmembers choose to speak they can respond and keep it under 20 words?
After Mr. Zuma Dogg spoke during public comment, Zine stated Garcetti was serving his country and not on vacation, a non agenda item. Council President Garcetti then proceeded to thank Zine. Alarcon then rambled on, over 20 words, on a non agenda item.
After Ms. Rowe spoke during public comment, Smith spoke on a non agenda item until Garcettii made “a point of reference” and provided an active council file number regarding the subject. Zine then rambled on, over 20 words, on a non agenda item.
During public comment, Mr. Marez individually praised “not kissing ass” Councilmembers Greuel, Zine, Smith, Weiss, and Hahn until the last 3 or 5 second remaining of the two minutes allotted that the deputy city attorney asked Marez to address the council as a whole.
Not once, did I hear the deputy city attorney interrupt these councilmembers as he has become an expert in interrupting constituents while constituents are exercising their constitutional rights. The deputy city attorney needs to be reminded that Angelenos are paying his salary. The deputy city attorney also needs to regulate the city council during public comment, specifically on non agenda items.
You've attracted zuma dogg's fan, one of maybe two loose cannons egging him on to further adventures in Obnoxiousdom -- the above weird ocmment only makes sense when you understand it's excerpted from their exchange on another blog you have referenced on your Links. Their objective is to bash poor Tom LaBonge, who zuma dogg's driving to a coronary by his intentionally vile and possibly slanderous behavior. These people naturally have the most time on their hands for this reprehensible behavior, wasting our taxpayer dollars by their bizarrely egomaniacal rantings.
When you abuse democratic freedoms as they do, especially our precious freedom of speech and public comment time which has been a hallmark of our Council for decades, no wonder the Council's tuned out and needs to multitask during these flagrant misuses of their and city staff's time. Which is OUR money, not zuma dogg's or his bizarre campfollowers'. Much as some like to use him to spout their own political agendas, and say things they themselves wouldn't dare for the sake of decency and concerns about lawsuits.
I'd keep the current Council any day to seeing this sort of spectacle of degradation -- that homeless character with his vile behaviors and his copycats becoming ever-more intentionally rude and offensive by the day, and utterly filled with themselves, as above post shows.
Sorry, but anyone who might have been a role model for the public has lost that possible platform for me by promoting this sort of behavior and these "persons" on his blog. Maybe it's just an aspect of the naivity Walter Moore is preaching to the attendees -- but at least he does it in a civil manner. -- Just wanted to alert you to the real context of that weird post.
The first post is not really complicated. It's all about the idea of having the public follow one set of rules and the council doing their own thing. The question in the past for example, with the Jamiel's Law topic brought out as a non-agenda item, and the virtual silence of council members was explained by one of them, probably Garcetti. He said that there was a limit for council members to speak and so a response was not able to be made, to sum up as I recall it. I thought the limiit was 50 words, however.
So last week, the deputy city attorney did not step in as the referee to advise council of exceeding permissible length of comments. I don't know if it was or was not something subject to the "limited scope" of comment. But the deputy city attorney, Dion Oconnell, will not hesitate to speak up for deviations from the rules that he believes are done by the public comment speakers.
I wouldn't feel too much sympathy for LaBonge as he's been around too long to be bothered by any of this. All of them have. In fact, all of them have been around too long- period. On that point, I raise another reason why your sympathies are wasted on this crowd. Prop R that allowed so many of them another term, only passed due to their lies about the measure. The ETHICS REFORM for a better council was about all you heard, and not much on the EXTENSION or RELAXATION of "term limits"- you would have thought term limits were being NEWLY IMPOSED by the campaigning style. All an intentional deception perpetrated by them, fully intending to get it passed by the usual voter reliance on election propaganda.
So in the end, these people you want to shield from the vile conduct of people you deem to be another "nobody" type is completely undeserved. They lie, and that is one thing they excel at doing. The double-talk and sidestepping of issues is another art they have developed. But the main advantage they have everyday over the public is that they call the shots on comments. If they like you, you get time fudged for you. If you annoy them, the mike goes off as time runs out. And you will lose time for the interruptions off your countdown clock.
Council, on the other hand, manage to get as much time as they want to talk about whatever they WANT to talk about, even where time runs over, they continue. But the thing you cannot overcome, and this is their forte, is their ability to speak as in argument in court EXCEPT in court, there is an opportunity for REBUTTAL and authority, or written verification of references made is usually made before the argument is done, with further briefing to be done, on occasion if something pivotal is brought out during the argument. All of that is a part of court procedure for the judge or jury to decide civil matters. Court is another place where gamesmanship is overriding the search for the truth, but at least it has the appearance of that search, and both sides have essentially the same shot at winning. Not so at City Hall.
Here with our council, they say what they want, cite numbers, throw in anecdotal references that may not even be representative of the point to be made and on and on with what they want to say. This happened with the plastic bags matter, the car wash subject, all other things that come before them. NO rebuttal by the public is allowed, no inquiry into the veracity or validity of council members or information. In short, the game is rigged.
And another thing no one really seems to notice is that they often refer to what speakers say as “testimony.” Considering you are dealing with politics, the fact that NO ONE is ever under oath under these rules, the expectation of truthfulness is without any logical basis.
There are no statesmen to be found in council chambers these days. Maybe in days of old they had more lofty appearances, but not now and now is what is important for us. They are not nobility and they are not noble. They are just people like everyone else, just paid lots more and given the responsibility and ability to SPEND money and CREATE CHARGES to collect more money. You are fooling yourself if you believe differently.
Just as young children need supervision, especially where toys and candy are plentiful, so do these folks need watching- but unlike the situation with children, it is not the ones that you are watching that have to be protected, but the rest of us.
I'm not even going to respond to Susan's comment. Her mindset IS the problem. Are you the one (from that other blog) who talk about how valuable the time of our council members are? You must be joking.
I will never stop begging Zuma Dogg to keep on doing what he's doing. If respected activists give him information - by all means, he should use it to keep the council in line.
I don't know what you're thinking and I don't want to but you are dead wrong when you say that Zuma has one or two followers. Followers is a strong word. I prefer to use supporters. I support Zuma Dogg.
When is the last time that you, Susan, went to City Hall for public comment?
Zuma Dogg has many supporters. The problem with public speaking is 2 minutes is not enough time. And, it is not fair that city council members do not show up and when they are there they do not listen to you.
They do listen to Zuma Dogg. So, he is a voice for us. But the system needs to change so we all have a voice. Go speak to your councilmember about that!!!