Pages

Tuesday, August 2, 2011

Tuesday Topics

Judge Harvey Silberman Not Guilty of Bribery
The Los Angeles Times reports that Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Harvey Silberman was acquitted Monday of the charge that he had offered to pay an opponent to drop out of a 2008 election.

The panel returned the verdict finding Judge Harvey Silberman not guilty of a count of elections code violation after about a day of deliberation, ending a trial that marked a rare prosecution of a sitting judge. Silberman was accused of violating a law that makes it a felony to offer money to dissuade someone from running for public office.

Silberman, 54, broke into a wide grin as the verdict was read and silently mouthed "Thank you" to the jurors. He had faced up to three years in state prison if convicted.

More at the LA Times.

DA Campaign Fundraising Reports To Be Available On-Line
Interested parties will be able to assess the successes or otherwise of the DA candidates on-line "soon," according to sources at the Los Angeles County Recorders Office. Although the candidates have to report their fundraising and expenses for the six month period ending June 30, 2011, those reports were not due to be filed until August 1, 2011. Apparently, candidates can electronically submit their reports, a process that speeds up the on-line availability of the reports. However, the on-line availability of reports submitted by hard copy will be delayed while the data is manually entered.


City Attorney Staff Suffer 14% Pay Cut
Sources at the City Attorney's Office relate that all but a handful of "exceptional" or "essential" City Attorney staff will be forced to take 36 furlough days without pay, and that rather than actually be absent from the workplace on furlough days, they will instead have to leave work one hour earlier every day.

City Attorney Carmen Trutanich has not taken any pay cut, it is unclear whether he regards himself as either "exceptional" or "essential," however, we hear that many in the City Attorney's Office consider him to be anything but "exceptional" or "essential."

&tc.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

The Deputy City Attorneys are supposed to have a tough union. Why wasn't the Deputy City Attorney's able to stop these ridiculous furloughs?
PS - Harvey was guilty as hell, but he knew to have plenty of "buffer."

Anonymous said...

Wake up Fragnet, the Met News has scooped you on THE STORY of the day - They are calling Steve Ipsen unfit based on his recent conduct, never mind all his priors.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/editorial080211.htm

Go screw yourself Ipsen, you are a disgrace to the badge.

Anonymous said...

@1:02pm LOL Fragnet! Met News also has ltest fundraising figures from Danette Meyers failing campaign. She only raised $68k - not the half million she promised.

http://www.metnews.com/articles/2011/das080211.htm

Still, Meyers has probably raised 10x more than that asswipe Ipsen.

Anonymous said...

Wonder if Ipsen's latest stunt will hurt his federal lawsuit? Federal Judge Otis D. Wright II may not be impressed and start seeing how crazy Ipsen is.

Anonymous said...

Why should Nuch take a 14% pay cut? He and the top management staff are closer in job function to Senior Management Attorneys (MOU No. 32) than they are to MOU No. 29 (assistant & deputy city attorneys) who inflicted the 14% pay cut upon themselves. MOU No. 32 voted to take a 5% pay cut and agree to make a greater contribution to their pensions in exchange for future retiree health subsidy increases. Hmm, those terms sound familiar. Oh yeah, MOU No. 29 rejected those terms. How is getting indignant about Nuch's pay supposed to help MOU No. 29 members pay their bills? Dragnet is contorting a misguided union vote into weak sophomoric commentary on Nuch's leadership. Follow a new lead, Joe Friday. This one's dried up.

Anonymous said...

Ipsen fights for the rights of convicted sex offenders and white supremacist nazis - nice.

Anonymous said...

Wonder if the Met News wrote this article before they knew that Jackson and Lacey are way underfunded to run a credible campaign for District Attorney?

Trujillo is the only one of the three who has a chance, however, he'd better step it up because he'll need about $2 million dollars by next Spring in order to compete. That means he needs to raise $250-300,000 a month until the primary.

Considering it took him 5 months to raise $250,000, he's on track to come up way short.

Anonymous said...

Is Jackie Lacey dropping out?

Anonymous said...

WOW! The Met-News article on Ipsen is shocking! And it doesn't even cover the $160,000 liability that incurred when he cancelled the elections in 2008 (a few months after he came in 3rd in the DA's race).

Ipsen was not elected to the ADDA Board. He was appointed by the Board after the members voted him out.

An important thing to consider as members mull agency shop. Sounds like important Association business that should go up on all the ADDA bulletin boards.

Anonymous said...

Hey 1:23pm, don't you know how they play this game? Right now the Met-News is probably receiving a plethora of threats from ADDA thugs telling them they will be added to the federal injunction!
Yep, at the rate they're going all of Ipsen's enemies will be listed on the injunction.

Anonymous said...

Alan Jackson has spent almost all his money attacking Nuch, and has only $80K left after raising over $200K. Not smart. All he did was piss off Trutanich to the point where Nuch is now definitely running. Thanks a lot Alan.

Anonymous said...

@6:16PM - aka LOSER. AJ has proven 2 things by raising $230k. First, he's a more viable candidate than Danette, Bobby and (laugh) Steve "my best friend's a registered sex offender" Ipsen. Second, he's not afraid to look Nuch in the eye and call him for being a phony lying sack of sh*t.

If you look at AJ's campaign finance statement, you can see that he has not spent all his money on attacking Nuch, but has very wisely purchased air time at low rates before the presidential primary shifted, so he's in an excellent position, while Nuch is still wondering what to do, and how things have gone so horribly wrong for him.

Anonymous said...

Deputy City Attorneys did not impose 36 days of furloughs upon themselves. The furloughs were imposed in retaliation for not buying into the questionable claims and scare tactics that were used to gain additional concessions from other General Funded employees.

Approximately a year and a half ago, Deputy City Attorneys along with other civilian employees agreed to amend their existing contract to give concessions to the City in order to help the City with its budget. Rather than showing good will to the employees who made these concessions, the City reneged on its promises, and within a few short months, laid off city workers and imposed 26 days of furloughs to those same employees including Deputy City Attorneys. The City then came back for more concessions refusing to give any guarantees against layoffs, furloughs or seeking additional contributions. In fact, the language of the proposed amendment specifically allowed for the possibility of future increases - otherwise known as a "reopener".

In the meantime, the City continued to give major tax breaks to developers and gave bonuses and raises to LAPD failing to reign in 70% of its budget. The City also froze pension benefits for non-ratifying employees without providing a comparable benefit as required under California law.

In refusing to ratify the latest proposed amendment to their contract, Deputy City Attorneys have done nothing more than to seek fair dealing from the City and the administration.

Last year, despite drastic staff reductions and the imposition of furloughs, many Deputy City Attorneys continued to work through the furlough hours because of their sense of duty and responsibility to the City and its residents. In return for their dedication, they have been threatened and sanctioned for excercising their right to collective bargain. Comments stating that Deputy City Attorneys have inflicted a 14% pay cut on themselves are ludicrous.

Anonymous said...

12:01pm - you took a great deal of time and effort to basically state that the Deputy City Attorneys are being punished for the reckless way their grandstanding leader has run the office into the ground.

His antics have quite predictably caused most people inside City Hall and outside, to realize that Nuch is completely out of control, does not give a damn about the promises he makes, does not know how to run a government office, and doesn't care about you. I don't see Nuch taking a pay cut, nor any of his "essential" managers. I do see that loads of DCAs are jumping ship before it's too late.