BY POPULAR DEMAND
Dennis Zine and Paul Koretz teamed up Friday to squelch Zuma Dogg and Matt Dowd from raising questions about allowing indicted felon Richard ALarcon to allocate discretionary funds from his Council account. Then Tom LaBonge proposed cutting public comment from two minutes to one minute for everyone.
I heard the Zuma Dog and Dowd comments before they became controversial. They were in-your-face, but that’s what an arrogant City Council has brought upon itself.
Tom LaBonge’s attacking everyone’s right to free speech highlights the Council’s attitude towards Voters. We are the enemy and they less they see and hear from us, the happier the Council will be.
Roooooooooooon, Thank you so much for bringing this to people’s attention. SO happy!
The Brown Act guarantees public comment on agenda items, but it does not guarantee the right to speak on any topic at any time. After all, the City Council has the duty to pass appropriation motions in a timely manner and to oversee the city’s business. That is its main function. Its primary function is not to be a debating chamber for the public, and in particular, it is not required to hear lots of off-topic ranting. If the people in question want to make the point that a councilman is under indictment, they should do so during the public comment period reserved for comment on non-agenda items. Alternatively, they can make the point if it is pertinent to some other agenda item, but this posting doesn’t explain what that point was. Is it that Alarcon would be allowed to appear in some Christmas parade, or that he is the maker of the motion? In either case, the fact of the Alarcon indictment is fairly distant from the substance of a motion to sponsor a parade.
It’s also pertinent to point out that under our legal system, you are deemed guilty after a judge or jury convicts you or you plead guilty yourself. You are not deemed guilty until then. The fact that Alarcon has been indicted is a matter of public record, but that is far short of a determination of guilt. Also, it is known to all the other council members, so the public comments on this matter become redundant at a certain point. It is evident (as much as I find the tone of the councilmen irritating) that this point of redundancy had long since been passed at the point in the video we are shown.
I think that the strategy of limiting all public comments to one minute is overkill, since other people may have something substantive to offer on some other item. It makes more sense to reach a determination that one or the other of the commenters is out of order and continues to be out of order in spite of being warned, and order that person expelled from the chamber. This protects the rights of others and allows the council to do its business in an orderly way.
The ultimate recall is the election. So far, we are not seeing a lot of public movement towards replacing these people. I’m certainly not convinced of any such necessity by the comments of ZD and MD; I would suggest that a more compelling narrative involves the council’s history of voting salary increases over the past half decade, and how this has led us to the financial crisis we are in currently.
If you look at the agenda item, it was to transfer money out of Lopez Canyon Landfill Community Trust Fund to pay for two year’s worth of fireworks, including the 2011 fireworks display. The item noted the City Attorney may review for legality. And since it was about transferring trust fund money, for next year’s fireworks (and when you consider the other things Alarcon has done with public money, like the Children’s Museum that the city lost millions under SEC investigation) — the fact that the councilmember is under 32 indictments for fraud and lying comes into question, at this time. At least to ask for a discussion of the item in this budget emergency. But you still will chose to not understand how it was on topic.
Although I can see where ranting and carrying on, in some instances, may detract from the overall message, I felt that limiting the talk time to one minute was too suppressive and reactionary, which in turn says quite a bit about our City Council. Be that as it may, nonetheless, there is a place for gadflys and whistle blowers. It if weren’t for them; who knows how much more corruption would go on in this City?
Is it toooo late to recall these so called elected officials…..LA should have recalled them all!
This is actually a huge issue. Not only does it go to the heart of Free Speech, it also addresses the public’s ability to petition the government.
The irony is that Paul Koretz is going “off topic” when he complains about the speaker going off topic, the very thing he is accusing Matt Dowd or Zuma Dogg of.
Finally we just experienced several destructive measures being rushed through. Speakers are routinely interrupted and directed how to speak. This is very important for any future attempt to raise DWP rates, push through an oversize or corrupt project, or any series of matters that the public needs to address.
Allowing the public to speak can even protect the City Council from making a major mistake that will cost taxpayers dearly.
One needs to remember that the first amendment protects unpopular speech more than popular speech.
Especially in time for an election, La Bonge has a real conflict of interest to shorten the time that people can speak.
Its bad enough that La Bonge voted to put a term extension on the ballot. He is now a financial beneficiary of that extension.
Actually Zuma Dogg is right on the money, literally (because it has to do with public funds.
He addressed the topic, the agenda item number was related to Alarcon requesting trust fund money for an event. And it is true that Alarcon is under indictment. And the public has a write to ask – should we have the City Attorney investigate this to make sure it is on the up and up?
What was Tom La Bonge thinking when he jumped up and suggested cutting public comment down to one minute? He got so caught up in the moment, he forgot he was up for re election and his comments will be something they run over and over next year. And it was a Brown Act violation on council’s part to have all of that discussion during public comment. Everyone knows they are limited to a 50 word response. Wouldn’t it be ironic and hilarious if a complaint was filed and they ended up violating the Brown Act, during a discussion about the Brown Act?
ITEM NO. (6)
10-1549
CD 7
MOTION (ALARCON – HAHN) relative to funding for the 2011 Fourth of July Celebration at Hansen Dam in Council District Seven.
Recommendations for Council action:
1. UTILIZE $80,000 in the Lopez Canyon Landfill Community Amenities Trust Fund No. 531/14, Account No. L32, to fund the Fourth of July community celebrations at Hansen Dam, as follows: $50,000 to fund the 2011 Fourth of July community celebrations at Hansen Dam and $30,000 to fund outstanding general operating expenses for previous years of the Fourth of July community celebrations at Hansen Dam.
2. DIRECT the City Clerk to prepare the necessary document(s) and/or agreement(s) with Fourth of July Celebration at Hansen Dam Inc. or any other agency or organization, as appropriate, in the above amount, for the above purpose, subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form and legality, if needed, and AUTHORIZE the Councilmember of the District or the City Clerk individually to execute such agreement or other document(s) on behalf of the City, if needed.
3. AUTHORIZE the City Clerk to make any technical corrections or clarifications to the above instructions in order to effectuate the intent of this Motion.
COMMENTS: Flag should be raised by using trust fund money to pay for NEXT year’s fireworks? What’s up with that? So then, you think…hmmm, the CM is under indictment, and will most likely be stepping down. So is this something shady, trying to be pulled off, before leaving? Trying to arrange payment to a contractor or non-profit, before he isn’t there to approve it for next year? Not that is is 100% the situation. But is it not a reasonable question that should allowed to be raised.
This part may raise a flag for some: “…or any other agency or organization…”
So when it even says, “subject to the approval of the City Attorney as to form and legality, if needed,” — it should certainly be o.k. to request that the “AS NEEDED” part be enforced, in this case, given that the councilman is under 32 indictments.
My God, Zine acted like a little tyrant. As much as City Councilmembers may not like public comment that is highly critical of their own, THAT IS WHAT THEY GET PAID $178,000 PER YEAR TO DO.
The City Attorney was as slanted as he could be in favor of cutting off the debate but the fact is, asking whether a Councilmember currently under indictment ought to be asking for transfers of money out of the Lopez Canyon Mitigation Trust Fund is a very legitimate and on topic question.
That particular trust fund was set up to pay for things for the neighbors of the Landfill who were negatively impacted and endured a City sanitary landfill in their immediate vicinity for more than 20 years. So why is money being transferred to events and organizations far from the area impacted by the Landfill? Good question.
Why is a Councilmember under indictment taking more and more and more and more trust funds away from the Lopez Canyon neighborhood to grease supporters in unrelated communities?
Council may not like the way the message was delivered but did anyone notice that the City Attorney did not interrupt Zuma Dogg or Mr. Dowd? The City Attorney, who does interrupt when he sees a speaker go out of the realm of relevance, was silent. It was Mr. Zine losing his cool who constantly interrupted the testimony. As long as there is some plausible connection between the agenda item and the testimony, Mr. Zine really has just one task: To keep his big mouth shut and listen for two excruciating minutes. (Or 1 minute if LaBonge gets his way).
Tom is no stranger to sticking his uninformed nose into the 1st Amendment and Brown Act, as we all know. But I read the transcripts of the lawsuit in Federal Court filed by Matt Dowd, that includes Zuma Dogg, for First Amendment violations during public comment at the L.A. City Council meetings.
When the City Attorney defending the case for the city noted that Mr. Dowd said, “Sit down, La Bonge,” during his public comment time (after La Bonge jumped up and interrupted him), conventional council wisdom has been, “City Council always has the floor and can jump up and interrupt you at any time, and you are not allowed to tell a councilmember to sit down.”
However, the first words out of the Federal Judge’s mouth were, “Who had the floor?”
In other words, contrary to Garcetti’s & City Hall’s opinion, when a public comment speaker is speaking, they have the floor. So SIT DOWN, LA Bong!
‘Nothing like Council circling the wagons for a good laugh. Their disdain for on topic public comment is so apparent, I guess that’s what they mean by transparency.
Oh Dear! – Silencing the public! Where have we heard that before? Lemme think! …… Oh, yes, Cuba, Soviet Union, Russia, East Germany, China, North Korea, and now we can add: Los Angeles, CA – U.S.A.!
This is an ongoing issue with the City Council of LA! – They just don’t want to listen to anyone, just to those who “pad” their pockets, bank accounts, shoulders, mattresses, egos, underground hiding spots, off-shore accounts … I guess you get the idea.
It’s just like the old Scottish saying goes: “Money is flat and meant to be piled up.” And they are living it to the fullest saying by Lady Nancy Astor: “The only thing I like about rich people is their money.”
Go wrap your pocket around that one.
Conny B.
These two fools are not The Public”. They are disruptive and only blatent attention seekers.
When regular members of the public seek to speak, they are treated kindly and with the respect they are due.
These two get the respect they are due as well…it just happens to be…none.
Flies on dung.
COWARDS. Although I sometimes am irked by the WAY Zuma and Matt speak I support freedom of Speech and them in this instance. The clowns on council are bastards because they consistently try and control what people say knowing the media is listening in the back. A bunch of men who are insecure, low self esteem, ignorant, arrogant and probably got short changed where it counts, always seem to behave like goons. Zine, Koretz, Alarcon, LaBuggle etc. How stupid to be defending Alarcon who is going to jail for the felonies on voter fraud. This post should piss the hell out of everyone reading. This is how City Council morons treat the public. GET RID OF ALL OF THEM. BOO THEM WHEN YOU SEE EM
Not only are council members fools who can’t do anything right, they have to be the thinnest-skinned people on Earth.
Shutting the public up is certainly one way to solve problems!
What’s the old saying? If you can’t stand the political heat, get out of the political cauldron.
The LOST Angeles Council, including former POLICE SERGEANT/CURRENT COUNCILMAN DENNIS ZINE, do not like when constituents notify the full council of their violations.
Last week, a constituent brought to the attention of the former POLICE SERGEANT/ CURRENT COUNCILMAN DENNIS ZINE that there was a LACK OF A QUORUM during their meeting. The FORMER POLICE SERGEANT/CURRENT COUNCILMAN DENNIS ZINE directed the clerk to call the roll, which he did. The clerk call out their names, but NO council member present or not present responded to his or her name as mandated by their own COUNCIL RULE, TEWNTY SIX.
Where was the LOST Angeles Deputy City Attorney Dion O’Connell, who needs to be reminded he is paid by the constituents of Los Angeles? Los Angeles City Attorney TRUtanich needs to continue to bring back integrity to the City Attorney’s Office by replacing O’Connell with a TRUE public servant to all.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010 a constituent brought Council Rules 26, 27, and 28 to the attention of the NEED TO SET PRECEDENT GARCETTI, and the NEED TO SET PRECEDENT GARCETTI said he would allow council members to go to the rest room. The NEED TO SET PRECEDENT GARCETTI should NOT change the rules as he goes along to benefit council. A suggestion for Council to amend Rule 30 to read as noted below.
COUNCIL RULES THAT DO NOT APPLY TO COUNCIL
*25. Ten members of the Council shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business, but
a smaller number may adjourn from time to time until a quorum is present and may compel
the attendance of the absentees. Except as otherwise required by the Charter or other law,
or by these Rules where not inconsistent therewith, action by the Council shall be taken by
a majority vote of the entire membership of the Council.
26. Whenever a member questions the presence of a quorum, the Presiding Officer shall direct
the Clerk to call the roll and announce the result. There shall be no debate. Every member
present must respond when his or her name is called.
27. No member shall be considered present unless the member is within the Council Chamber.
28. No member shall leave a Council meeting without permission from the Presiding Officer of
the meeting.
29. Upon a call of the Council, if supported by a majority of the members present, whether
quorum or not, the Presiding Officer shall have the power to send the Sergeant-at-Arms with
a written order to bring the absent Councilmember forthwith before the Council.
30. Not used.
Change to read Council, specifically Need to Set Council Precedent Garcetti, shall not change COUNCIL RULES on a daily basis to benefit their personal agenda or justify their violation(s) of their OWN COUNCIL RULES.
Rules of The Los Angeles City Council
http://cityclerk.lacity.org/cps/pdf/CouncilRules.pdf
I trust these two honest citizens over the corrupt Council who are afraid of their corruption being exposed.
Thanks to everyone for the comments. Thanks again to Ron for noticing and posting. ZD
I could not agree more: Dion O’Connell has got to go and it is amazing that Trutanich has not replaced him by now. I guess Trutanich is NOT really The People’s City Attorney.
Alarcon steals public mitigation once again, this time while he is being indicted. Amazing.
BTW – “Fourth of July at Hansen Dam inc.” is run by Alarcon cronie (and cousin?) Bobby Arias.
I think these attempts to silence the public are tests – to see how what the reaction would be if public comment was reduced to one minute. Periodically, someone tries it and it fails. But for how long?
Waht I find astounding is every day Ron has a post of the negative actions of ctiy council but with all the NC’s nothing is done about it. Since NC’s are the voice of the people don’t you think its time to organize and do something together as the voice for the people and stop the insanity of city hall? If not then all you NC members need to resign because you are not rep’ing the people by whining and complaining and doing nothing. This is why in other ciricles you are consider a joke and labeled “do nothings” ITs time you showed people you do have power so use it.
I was involved in the foundation of two different NCs … and am thoroughly done with them.
The only part that hasn’t been a waste is the connections we’ve made with other activists across the City.
To October 20, 2010 6:15 AM,
You really need to understand the basics of free speech and the first amendment. If you don’t like someone, don’t shut them up or persecute them at your personal whim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_in_the_United_States
In fact it is the very people that you despise that deserve the most protection.
The first amendment isn’t meant to protect non-controversial, the average or the friendly “public.” It is meant to protect everybody especially those who are UNPOPULAR.
Just listen on a podcast or streaming of Kevin James radio show (AM 870, Los Angeles) of 12 midnight on 10-20-2010.
This could be good for you. You will have a better understanding of the Constitution and the laws of the Country you are living in.
James, a lawyer with over 20 years experience analyzed and explained that everything that Zuma Dogg and Matt Dowd said. James said that they were “on point” and were correct in their comments and should not have beeen interuppted except calling Alarcon a “Criminal” (that crossed the line). But that was the only thing.
And I can even agree with you that Zuma Dogg can be a stubborn idiot because he didn’t want to take the legal advise from James and didn’t care about the “criminal” comment.
But ultimately, you are the fool if you want to punish everybody so that you can silence someone that you don’t like.
“…Zuma Dogg can be a stubborn idiot because he didn’t want to take the legal advise from James and didn’t care about the “criminal” comment.”
Excuse me. I explained the condition in which I blurted out the single word “criminal” to Kevin. It was more than thoroughly discussed. And if you say I didn’t care, well, again, you didn’t listen with open ears. And the advice Kevin was giving was faulty. And wasn’t legal advice. I think if you listen back to the interview, you will hear there was only one person being stubborn on the phone. The guy sitting in a clinical studio with no experience in chambers under those conditions. Nice try. And what would YOU name be? Hmmm? ZD
Oh, didn’t see the name. James M. Thanks for calling me an idiot. The beach looks LOVELY at 8am when I have to leave for city hall.
To ZD,
You and Matt Dowd were right and should not have been interrupted by Dennis Zine as Kevin James pointed out your questions and points during your public comments made sense. Just look at my comments posted for this article.
But it was frustrating to listen to you talk over James while he was sticking up for you and giving you friendly advise. At the moment you came across as a stubborn idiot.
But even then I would defend your right to speak without interruption even though October 20, 2010 6:15 AM wants to have two standards – nice people get speak and people who are annoying the Council members don’t. Just re-read my comments here and look at the bigger picture.
Here is Kevin James Analysis. Move the time to 4:43:
http://townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=a2b7a45f-eda4-44bb-9631-6c34387ab646
Here is part two: http://townhall.com/MediaPlayer/AudioPlayer.aspx?ContentGuid=04442d94-6b62-4580-a06e-8386a969dad1
kevin refused to move past it. how many times did he need to refer back to that one point. did you notice the first sentence out of zd’s mouth was when he called was, “kevin, you are ABSOLUTELY right…” Kevin mentioned it. It was covered, addressed and re-brought up. Isn’t the issue city council cutting off speakers for no reason? Kinda hard to heed to advice on how to not get cut off, when they cut you off for no reason. And if you ask the city attorney for a clarification, as Kevin suggested, the president told Mr. Dowd, TODAY, “please address council.” It is the CITY attorney, not the SPEAKER attorney. And when you ask the city attorney to jump in, he remains silent unless council asks him, and speaker is told to address council. And it was especially prudent advice to say ZD can put in a card to call money transfer of indicted councilman to call it into question. WASN’T THAT WAS HE WAS DOING? Anyway, the issue is the relentless focus of a fraction of the issue. Common down to city hall and try it the way you suggest.
This has been going on for years. The City Attorney has jumped in before. For example, when Garcetti was running for 3rd term, the same City Attorney interrupts her when she talks about some candidates not wanting to participate in a debate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dx7JljJDrPs
His excuse? It isn’t in the City Council’s purview. Of course that wasn’t true. And during the same public comment period, there were people talking about other candidates and candidates that were running for non-City seats WITHOUT interuption.
The point? The City Attorney interrupts first. Almost in collusion with the Council in order to “shut up” anybody putting them down.
Bob is correct. Dion McConnell needs to be gone. He is an embarrassment to Mr. Trutanich who ran on a platform of being The People’s City Attorney. Apparently, Dion did not get the memo. He continues to interrupt and disrupt public speakers when he knows their message is unwelcome by City Council members. That is not his role.
If a public speaker is discussing a matter completely outside the realm of the jurisdiction of City Council, then the Chair, and not the City Attorney, is within his or her rights to ask the speaker to speak to a matter within the jurisdiction of the public body. However, the jurisdiction of City Council is quite broad. Council members have no problem adopting resolutions on political issues in foreign countries — so it is hypocritical for them to try to claim that public testimony about alleged criminal conduct of its own member is irrelevant to that member’s proposed expenditure of trust fund monies outside the area where those funds are intended to be spent.
Perhaps someone should file a complaint with the State Bar that Dion O’Connell is trampling free speech rights as a public attorney.
“Dion is an embarrassment to Mr. Trutanich who ran on a platform of being The People’s City Attorney.
Like you say, Trutanich RAN on a platform of being Peoples C.A. He has been made well aware, early on, of the problems in chambers with Dion.
It only got WORSE upon Carmen taking over the office. MAKE NO MISTAKE ABOUT IT. As someone intimately involved in the situation.
You are a fool if you think Trutanich is not supporting Dion. And it has gotten worse since Trutancich. And Trutanich has personally been made aware. AND LOOK WHAT IS HAPPENING. Make no mistake. Do not be bamboozled.
This city Attorney is prosecuting housing advocates for “disrupting” a Council meeting.
Ever watched these guys during the Council meeting? They’re not paying attention. I’m shocked Tom LaBong was awake enough to jump up and answer on anything. Actually, I’m always shocked when he can string together a few monosyllabic words that include a subject and a verb. Where’s Al Bundy’s football, by the way?
He is in charge of one of the wealthiest portions of our city. Can they not afford to have someone with an IQ of 3 digits?
This video needs to be posted, reposted and reposted. He just tried to cut public comment. That’s a huge deal in a democracy! Or have we ceased to be one?
The saddest part of all this is that nobody pays attention to city politics save a few informed people and Ron Kaye. That’s why Al Bundy can get re-elected again and again. Please, people, if you don’t pay attention, just mark the box of another candidate this March! If it doesn’t matter to you, let LaBong slip into oblivion so we can stop looking like a city of idiots!