Thursday, May 5, 2011

Carmen Trutanich's "I'm A Liar" Ad Stirs Debate & All Quiet On The ADDA Front, Too Quiet?


Alan Jackson scored a big hit here with his challenge to Carmen Trutanich to honor his pledge to pay $100,000 of personal funds to the Best Afterschool Program for Kids and place a full-page ad in every major daily paper with a picture of himself and text stating "I AM A LIAR." We got more comments on Trutanich's dilemma than anything else.

The What Would Reagan Do? blog got the ball rolling with their depiction of what Trutanich's advert will look like:

What Would Reagan Do? released this suggestion for one of
Carmen Trutanich's ads (Credit: What Would Reagan Do?)

Even if Trutanich reneges on his campaign pledge, his opponents are certain to use Trutanich's tacit agreement to allow himself to be called a 'Liar.' A novel campaign strategy.

Those defending Trutanich seem to think that name recognition will overcome Trutanich's ever-growing list of negatives, however, as several comments noted, Steve Cooley had no name recognition when he defeated Gil Garcetti, and Trutanich similarly had no name recognition when he defeated Jack Weiss.

Nobody would deny that Trutanich has name recognition, but as the comments pointed out, in Trutanich's case, it's largely negative and in today's electronic age, there's a healthy trial of negatives that are growing day by day, all of which are easily transmittable by Facebook and Twitter.

Trutanich made headlines yesterday with his lawsuit against Deutsche Bank, however, it was not long before Mulholland Terrace's Street-Hassle blog presented a highly insightful report on the serious problems with Trutanich's 'novel' legal theory. The obvious problem being the chilling effect of Trutanich's lawsuit, it could be enough to make it harder and more expensive for home buyers to get loans for property in the City of Los Angeles. 


The official ADDA website remains in an "account suspended" state, with no cheery email from President Hyatt Seligman offering any explanation to members. That must surely put the likelihood of DDAs agreeing to an agency shop further in doubt.

As always, the Dragnet invites President Seligman to send us his comments.


Fox News reports that Danette Meyers will hand over the Lindsay Lohan case to the City Attorney's Office. "Because the charge was reduced by the court to a misdemeanor, the district attorney no longer has jurisdiction to prosecute the case and, therefore, we will give the case to the City Attorney's Office," said Sandi Gibbons of the District Attorney's Office.

According to KFI AM640's Eric Leonard, City Attorney Carmen Trutanich said "It's gonna be handled like any other case in the office," Trutanich said. "I'm not going to assign it to a prosecutor, it's a misdemeanor case." As usual with Trutanich's statements, you have to read it twice to figure out what he meant by "I'm not going to assign it to a prosecutor, it's a misdemeanor case." At first read, it appears Trutanich only assigns prosecutors to non-misdemeanor cases which makes as much sense as his other famous mis-speak, "I don't have a dog in this goldfish bowl." You figure it out.


Anonymous said...

Trutanich personally assigns prosecutors to the hundreds of rape cases that the city attorney handles - the ones solved by DNA rape kit evidence which are too difficult for the DA to handle.

Anonymous said...

Don't be fooled by the silence of the ADDA. They are moving ahead with the agency shop vote. They got enough signatures somehow - even though everyone I spoke to says that they didn't sign the petition.

Now that they've decided they have enough votes to move forward, they will have to send every DDA from grade I through IV a ballot to vote yes or no on the agency shop.

I urge everyone to vote 'NO,' but the ADDA is hoping that most DDAs will ignore the ballot thinking it's just another one of those bs mailers written in gibberish, and they will pass the agency shop with maybe 150 votes.

Don't let that happen. Voting 'No" will not stop the ADDA board from continuing to be unrepresentative of the majority, but it will deny them the power to waste more of members' dues on their personal beefs.

A 'NO' vote might be seen as a vote of no confidence in the ADDA board, and perhaps force an election where some impartial and fair-minded DDAs can take on the task of representing all DDAs and working with the administration to improve our working conditions and benefits, instead of fighting bs battles to prove useless points.

It is time to change the way the current ADDA board has behaved, that will not change unless good people step forward and say 'NO.'

Anonymous said...

The ADDA has learned that stonewalling works. Notice how they have STILL avoided giving any sort of answer about how much money they plan to take from each DDA each month.

It's really very simple, there's no money for raises and judging from the silence, the ADDA plans to take a significant amount out of each paycheck. Get prepared to see less money each month.

OF COURSE, you guys could get organized and fight this thing.

Anonymous said...

Does anyone know how do I can stop paying dues to the ADDA?

I heard that because of the stupid dispute over performance evaluations or PERSA (? wtf) there cannot be any promotions as all the "meets expectations" stuff is now invalid.

Great work ADDA.

Anonymous said...

FYI, Marc Debbaudt sent an email to all ADDA members explaining the agency shop, so there's no mystery or secrecy.

If you want to know about the agency shop, then join up and pay dues like all the members do. If you don't want to join, then don't complain about being out of the loop.

I am sick of all these comments from the freeloaders who pay nothing and get all benefits of the ADDA's hard work. Membership has its privileges, so join up or shut up.

Anonymous said...

I think what Trutanich meant by "I'm not going to assign it to a prosecutor, it's a misdemeanor case" was that it was no big deal it's only a misdemeanor.

Must be great to work for a boss who belittles the hard work of his deputies by saying "it's only a misdemeanor." It probably explains why he uses volunteers to prosecute misdemeanors, he has such little regard for these crimes that they are not worth "assigning to a prosecutor."

I feel for you guys at the CA's office. Trutanich has made such a joke of being City Attorney that I bet you can't wait to give him an early retirement party.

Anonymous said...

"10:25pm" has given us an incredibly insightful post. Concluding with the familiar "shut up" (read past postings by the union shills, "shut up" is a favorite phrase), he/she displays the usual contempt that the ADDA has for rank and file DDAs who are turned off by the ADDAs mismanagement and malfeasance. In essence, noting that only ADDA members have a right to an explanation, while the majority of DDAs who want to be left alone are entitled to no explanation at all. No anti-union or anti-agency shop poster could have presented such a concise and compelling argument to vote "NO" in the agency shop election. Well done.

REMEMBER, TO PROTECT YOUR PAYCHECK YOU MUST VOTE "NO" AND RETURN THE BALLOT. Throwing away the ballot will not protect your pay.

Anonymous said...

I am a member of the ADDA. I have NOT received Marc Debbaudt's email.

I refused to sign the petition when asked by one of the ADDA reps. I was in the middle of a conversation with a co-worker at the time, and he rep became quite argumentative about my refusal, accusing me of being 'undemocratic.' The reps' behavior created a very uncomfortable and intimidating atmosphere, as if to shame me into signing for something I do not believe in.

I suspect that the reason I did not receive Marc's email is that I did not sign the petition.

I believe that this is the current ADDA board's idea of democracy. It certainly is not mine, nor that of most DDAs.

If there are any other ADDA members who also did not receive Marc's email, I hope they will post a comment here, also indicating whether or not they signed the petition.

If, indeed, a member who refuses to sign the petition is then excluded from information about the organization that they continue to pay dues to, it looks like deliberate action by the ADDA board to silence free speech and stifle dissent.

It also occurs to me that the petition itself was designed to be undemocratic and unrepresentative; the petition only recorded the number of members who agreed to sign it, it did not record the number of members who refused.

I agree with the comments of 3:58AM, but IMHO, it's not just about protecting your paycheck, it's about preventing the ADDA board from being able to ride roughshod over the views of those who dissent.

Anonymous said...

Did anyone see what LA Superior Court Judge Charles "Chick" Horan said about the leadership of the judiciary? It was in the Met News Enterprise.

Horan said he “hope[d] that in the last couple of years, judges have learned that apathy and learned helplessness are very damaging to the judiciary, and judges need to take back their courts.”

To do this, he insists, “judges have to step forward and be involved,”

He could have been talking about the way DDAs just let the ADDA board continue to ruin the representation of line deputies.

We need to “step forward and be involved,” in order to take back their.” ADDA.

Stop the rot. Vote 'NO' when you get you agency shop ballot, and force a recall of the ADDA board. They cannot be allowed to continue to rule without regard for members.

Anonymous said...

8:01am - same here. Said no to petition and no email from Debbaudt. Not a coincidence is it? BTW, all this crap about the ADDA not being able to communicate that Seligman said in his message here is bs. Take a look at Marc's blog.


Anonymous said...

The ADDA and Hyatt are lying when they say that they are unable to communicate with members.

I took a look at Hyatt's email message that was published on Dragnet on March 3, 2011, and Hyatt blamed the communication problem on the County for not allowing the ADDA to use Lotus Notes.

Here is what Hyatt said:

"Our most fundamental problem is communications. It is embarrassing that in this electronic age, our union is hamstrung in getting its word out, but let's not lose focus as to why, good people.

The office has an electronic email system, Lotus Notes, that would be perfect for our union to communicate with each and every deputy in our represented unit instantaneously. Since we are under a fiduciary obligation to represent all deputies, union and non-union, we have asked management for years to use Lotus Notes for that legitimate business purpose in the interests of better morale and comity. This was most recently requested, again, at our first Joint Labor Management Council meeting about two weeks ago.

Unfortunately, the County and management have a very narrow interpretation of the phrase "County Business." So they have said no, so far. We believe the law and good, common sense is on our side, so we are trying to reason with them to agree or find a suitable alternative."

Clearly Hyatt is lying about not being able to communicate. He recently sent his own "Victory" email message about the stupid PERSA issue - which looks like backfiring as now there are no valid performance evaluations to base promotions on.

Now we learn that Marc Debbaudt sent an email about the agency shop to a select group of members who did not oppose the petition, but apparently deliberately excluded those who did not sign.

Next we find out that Debbaudt has a blog that he could use to let us know what's going on, but he obviously choses not to use it.

The ADDA website is in "account suspended" status, but no reason is given, suggesting that they cannot pay their bills and raising more questions as to the fiscal irresponsibility of the ADDA Board.

The conclusion is overwhelmingly that the ADDA Board wants to control the flow of information, and they're hiding behind the lame excuse that the County won't let them use Lotus Notes.

Blogs are free, Email is free, and now we know that the ADDA Board does use both those when it suits them, and then hides behind lame excuses to keep dissenters in the dark. There is no good reason why the ADDA should not be using every available means to honor what Seligman said was their "fiduciary obligation to represent all deputies, union and non-union."

This is a scandalous abuse of the trust that members place in the ADDA Board, and it has to end.

Anonymous said...

It's the crushing irony of this whole thing. The ADDA Board wants to run the organization like a private club, with only a privileged and loyal few entitled to receive information or express an opinion. However, they want to take money (exactly how much is purely a matter of whim with them) from everyone.