Pages

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Mid Week News Review

Los Angeles Mayoral Candidate Kevin James Answers LA Times Snub

One day after the LA Times deliberately omitted to mention Kevin James amongst Mayor candidates in the 2013
election, James' campaign hit back with news to wipe the smug smile off op-ed writer Jim Newton's face.

Los Angeles Mayoral candidate Kevin James issued a statement this morning announcing that in the two and a half weeks since launching his campaign to become the next Mayor of Los Angeles, he has raised over a half a million dollars in firm commitments for his campaign.

The full statement on James' website, KevinJamesForMayor.com,  states that over 100 people have given firm commitments to raise between $10,000 and $25,000 each through being fundraising co-chairs and committee members.

"It 's a very smart approach to fundraising," according to 2009 Los Angeles City Attorney candidate  David Berger, "the kind of financial smarts this City will need in its next Mayor who will take over the eight years of fiscal irresponsibility that will be Mayor Villaraigosa's legacy." Berger said.


Half a million dollars puts James far ahead of six other likely contenders, said to include L.A. City Council members Jan Perry and Eric Garcetti, City Controller Wendy Greuel, First Deputy Mayor Austin Beutner, County Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky. Real estate developer Rick Caruso has also been mentioned as a potential candidate, however, Caruso was similarly mentioned in 2009, and failed to follow through.

James' announcement came barely 24 hours after a Los Angeles Times op-ed piece deliberately omitted to mention James' candidacy. The op-ed was written by Jim Newton, described by Street-Hassle's sometimes acerbic scribe, Mulholland Terrace, as a "former news schlub, now some kind of quasi-analyst." The message seems clear; ignore Kevin James' candidacy at your peril if you want to prove precisely how biased and irrelevant you have become.

Mayor Villaraigosa Settles TicketGate Scandal With $42,000 Fine

The LA Times reported that Mayor Villaraigosa will pay the largest ethics violation fine
in the history of Los Angeles politics.
Yes, it's old news isn't it. Late in the afternoon on Friday, April Fools Day, in a move likely orchestrated to ensure the minimum media coverage,  Villaraigosa's TicketGate scandal came to an abrupt if not convenient end with the announcement that Villaraigosa will pay a record $42,000 in ethics violations fines to the City Ethics Commission and the Fair Political Practices Commission.

Villaraigosa had been under investigation for illegally "accepting tickets to sports events, concerts and other pricey entertainment activities without reporting them as gifts" according to the LA Times.

Although many would have preferred to see Villaraigosa criminally prosecuted for violating city and state ethics laws, factors in mitigation detailed in the draft settlement  describes Villaraigosa's conduct as "unintentional" as based on an erroneous "good faith belief" that he did not have to report the gifts he received. Perhaps that's a polite way of saying that the Mayor who failed the California Bar Exam on multiple occasions could not be expected to understand the law.



Danette Meyers Rumored To Be Taking Steps To Refute "Tainted" Evidence In Lohan Case

Perhaps in response to comments arising from our earlier piece on dilemma facing Meyers caused by the sale of video surveillance footage of the 'crime scene,' this from RumorFix.com:



"A shocking development in the Lindsay Lohan grand theft case.


Despite the fact that the owners of Kamofie & Co allegedly sold Lindsay's surveillance video several times over, RumorFix has learned exclusively that LA Deputy District Attorney Danette Meyers is going to call Sofia Kaman and a female employee to the stand when the preliminary hearing begins on April 22, 2011.


A source close to the situation tells RumorFix, "The Kamans did sell the surveillance video, however they have yet to receive one dime from the sale. They were screwed over by their attorney that brokered the deal. The Kamans absolutely didn't authorize nor want the surveillance video to be sold to the public for $2.99."


The owners of the store, where Lindsay allegedly stole a $2,500 necklace, came under heavy scrutiny because they chose to sell the video in the first place for a reported $30,000. However, the DA doesn't think this should be an issue for the judge at the preliminary hearing.


Our source says Meyers is preparing Sofia for a grilling from Lindsay' attorney, Shawn Holley. We are told that the female employee of Kamofie & Co will most likely be the star witness for Meyers. Her statements to the police, and DA has always been consistent, and she had no role in the sale of the surveillance video."


Meyers could also call the investigating officers to testify."

All very intriguing ...

ADDA Speaks Through "The Verdict"


April Fools Day also saw the much anticipated arrival of "The Verdict," the ADDA's eight-page newsletter that some might say was heavy on rhetoric but light on news.

No mention was made as to Treasurer Doug Sherrod's sudden resignation, however, eagle-eyed readers will have noticed that Loren Naiman is now listed as "Acting Treasurer" on page 8.

Equally, no news as to how the ADDA will comply with the court ordered payment of $160,00 in legal fees as a result of the loss of their appeal of a judges's ruling that the ADDA failed to hold elections and follow their bylaws.

Much was written in very general terms about the Agency Shop, but no details were given about how many votes will be required to compel all DDA's in Grades I through IV to have union dues deducted from their salaries at source, or the amount of the monthly pay deduction.
 
We will leave the verdict on The Verdict for your comments.

10 comments:

Anonymous said...

RumorFix/Danette is right about the judge in the prelim not being bothered about the Kaman's being "screwed by their lawyer" and not getting the $30k for the video. A defendant in a prelim is much the same as a ham sandwich in a grand jury. But a jury trial will be different.

The ADDA Verdict is strange. There is so much going on that should be told to the members, but the ADDA board acts as if members cannot be trusted to know the details. The resignation of the Treasurer at a time when the ADDA looks like being in a financial mess is surely worthy of comment?

Anonymous said...

The Verdict was an April Fool prank.

Anonymous said...

When you consider the postage and printing, the ADDA spent alot of money to avoid telling us how much they plan to seize from every DDA's paycheck.

This isn't an agency shop election, it's a demand for a blank check.

Anonymous said...

Someone should tell Kevin that committments are not hard cash.

He shouldn't set the bar so high on himself, becasue pledges always fall far short, and he'll end up looking stupid if he only raises half that amount.

Anonymous said...

Berger, went to the DA website to check you out. You are so hot. You and Cooley both.

Anonymous said...

It's comments like 6:04pm that reminds us why the ADDA cannot be trusted with an Agency Shop. It looks like the ADDA has been hijacked by a small group of hate-filled whackjobs who attack anyone who dares to express a differnt view from theirs.

BTW 6:04pm. Berger is not on the DA website, at least I don't see him there. But 6:04pm (aka ADDA troll) thinks it's easy to slur Berger because nobody will bother to check it out. Cheap shot, and it backfired.

Doug Sherrod resigned as Treasurer within 3 months of being elected. If it hadn't been for Dragnet, we wouldn know that, cause even the latest Verdict joke sheet doesn't say it.

Sherrod hasn't said why he quit, but it's easy to guess why if you look at what Hyatt Seligman said in his only non-annoymous comment. on Dragnet.

From what Seligman said the board meetings sound like a freak show - feeding time at the zoo, with the whackjobs threatening or shouting down anyone who oposses their twisted view of how to run THEIR union - not the members union, THEIRS.

My guess is that is why Sherrod resigned.

I do not think that everyone on the board is a whackjob, there are probably only 5 or 6 bad apples who ruin it for everyone else. But it seems that the silent majority of normal board members like Bobby Grace cannot or will not stand up to the crazies. In the end, decent people like Sherrod just decide to quit. And that is exactly what the crazies seem to want.

From the way the ADDA crazies seems to try to deter anyone who doesn't see it their way (Berger, Sherrod, Tavelman) it is clear that the Agency Shop would be a disaster in the hands of the crazies.

If Berger is running this blog then he's a hero for standing up the abuse that seems to be the sneaky modus of the ADDA crazies who are probably trying to find some lawsuit to shut him up. They must hate the way that THEIR union can be freely discussed without them being able to do anything but hurl abuse.

Anonymous said...

And as for "The Vedict" I doubt the April 1 delivery was intended, but it sure was appropriate.

What a waste of 8 pages. It looks and reads like one of those cheezy politial campaign mailers, only worse.

It is embarrassing that what is supposed to be a professional organization that gets over $20k a month in members dues (according to Seligman) cannot produce a profession newsletter that actually contains news. This thing looks like a 5th Grader put it together.

You must think we are idiots - like we wont see how feckless it is to announce that the next Joint Labor-Manangement Committee is on the day the newsletter arrives.

And if that's not bad enough, how facile it is to "submit your concerns ASAP to any member.." but you don't give their contact info, only Seligman's email so that he can filter the "concerns."

I don't know what it will take to make the ADDA be what it is supposed to be, but I do know that there is no way I'm going to further empower them with an Agency Shop.

Anonymous said...

Go Kevin James! The LA Times is shameless and nobody needs their biased bs anymore. The web is fast replacing print media and dinosaurs like The Times will soon be extinct. Thankfully.

All the LA blogs 1) condemned the LA Times for excluding Kevin, and 2) carried the news of him raising $500k. The Times couldn't print it because it would make them look even more stupid.

And I'm sure Kevin knows the difference between a pledge and hard cash, but it sounds like John Thomas wouldn't make an announcement like that if he didn't think he could follow through.

Anonymous said...

I know the moderator has already moved on to other issues but I can't let this pass. After reading this ADDA newsletter I still have BIG questions about this agency shop business and I think all DDA's are entitled to answers if you're trying to take money from everyone:
1) How much do you plan to take from each DDA. Not too complicated, just give the rates for top step 2, top step 3 & top step 4. YOU CAN'T ASK US TO BUY SOMETHING WITHOUT DISCLOSING THE PRICE!!!!
2) What the hell are you spending this money on. Is it all litigation? If so on what? YOU CAN'T ASK US TO BUY SOMETHING WITHOUT TELLING US WHAT IT IS !!!!

Is it so unreasonable? Would anyone walk into a store and say "I'm going to buy something, don't care about the price or what it is."

Jarvis Mitchell said...

I would never consider voting for Kevin James after the things he said about Mike Gatto on his radio show.