Monday, February 6, 2012

Trutanich's lies about police endorsements casts doubt on candidacy

Earlier reports about 'irregularities' in City Attorney Carmen 'Nuch' Trutanich's responses in an endorsement questionnaire issued by the Los Angeles Association of Deputy District Attorneys ('ADDA') gained the attention of the mainstream media. The Los Angeles Times today broke the exclusive story that Trutanich had lied to the ADDA about being endorsed by police agencies.

The responses Trutanich hand-delivered to the ADDA questionnaire were obtained by the Dragnet without Trutanich's knowledge. He probably did not think that anyone would bother to check the information to see if he was telling the truth, but when the LA Times received a copy, they were quick to do some fact-checking.

Trutanich listed 'key' endorsers who had not endorsed him,
together with a non-existent organization in response to the ADDA
Sources tell the Dragnet that when Trutanich realized that the Dragnet had obtained a copy of his questionnaire, he was sent into a tailspin of frantic phone calls apologizing to police agencies for his falsehoods.

The likelihood is that those police agencies who had been 'on the fence' about endorsing Trutanich will take the safe option of declining to endorse, rather than be tainted by association with the apparent dishonesty of the City Attorney's false claims.

One police officer who spoke to the Dragnet on condition of anonymity said "It's tough for a police officer, if you make a mistake on a police report the public defenders bring it up in every case and make you look like a liar." he said "I don't want to be associated with Trutanich after this. I hope my union endorses anyone else, or nobody at all. This is bad for law enforcement."

Interestingly, when Trutanich's cases against the Occupy LA protesters recently collapsed, Trutanich immediately blamed LAPD for 'paperwork errors.' In trying to explain away the endorsement  lies, Trutanich has blamed an unnamed volunteer campaign worker for making mistakes in the questionnaire responses.

Readers will note that while Trutanich is never hesitant to take the credit for the achievements of others, he always tries to shift the blame of his mistakes, misrepresentations and misdeeds to others. 



Anonymous said...

I think Nuch just had his "I can see Russia from my house!" moment.

Anonymous said...

It's more of a John Kyl moment, his statement on endorsements was "not intended to be a factual assertion."

Anonymous said...

Don't laugh at Nuch, he got waived on to the next level. Even if AFSCME doesn't ultimately give him an endorsement (which was unlikely to begin with) he can at least point to that moment. Nuch is the one with the reason to laugh.

Anonymous said...

Normally, by now a story on the dragnet about Trutanich would be followed by a bunch of posts in the comments sections about how stupid Berger is or how Trutanich is going to tear Berger to pieces when he gets elected. Those Nuchkins have grown awfully quiet. C'mon guys, lets hear about how Berger is bonkers or how he got it wrong.

Marc Debbaudt said...

Again, and again, the ADDA did not endorse Trutanich.

Because Trutanich, Ipsen, Grace and Meyers, openly declared themselves to be supporters of labor at the ADDA candidate interviews, all of them were invited to speak to the coalition of unions as to why they deserved labor's support. That was not an endorsement, and the ADDA has voted, thus far, not to endorse, at least not until after the filing deadline when all candidates are known. To my knowledge, other than an opportunity to persaude the coalition, no letter or declaration accompanied these candidates which said, hey, we support or like this person.

You can repeat this lie over and over, but it won't turn it into anything more than a lie. The ADDA did not endorse Trutanich, or anyone, yet.

Marc Debbaudt

Marc Debbaudt said...

Also, your article impliciiyly misleads your readers as to what Agency shop fee payers are entitled to. Now that the ADDA is an Agency, all DDAs must pay their fair share of bargaining costs, grievance costs, and generally the costs of operating the bargaining unit. However, only full voluntary dues payers, who pay approximately ten dollars I a month more, are entitled to full votin privileges, that is, the right to vote for officers and directors, the right to vote on by-law amendments, the right to vote in a pebescite if one is conducted, the right to vote to ratify or reject the next MOU/contract. Those who are not full dues paying members, butay only the agency fee, DO NOT get to vote on who the ADDA endorses, or if the ADDA endorses. So, if you want to influence the Board, being an AGENCY shop dues payers is insufficient. Join the ADDA as soon as possible so you will have voting influence.

Marc Debbaudt said...

Finally, I agree that the coalition should be told about Tutanich's misrepresentations re these endorsements. I assume they will be. But their big question won't be whether he lied re who likes him or not, but whether he truly does support labor and, obviously, they are in a better position to determine this than the ADDA because the City Attorneys are in a union and I assume they will inform the coalition thru their union leadership what they think of their boss. It won't be just a few city attorneys who have talked to a few DDAs, but the city attorneys as a whole speaking thru their bargaining representative. I think the answer to that question is much bigger then the one yor article dwells on.

Anonymous said...

Marc Debbaudt, it is hard for DDAs to understand what, precisely, the ADDA did or did not do regarding Trutanich. You have yourself admitted that the ADDA does a horrible job of communicating to members - most didn't even realize that their Agency Shop dues doesn't buy them a vote! That's quite a revelation, thank you.

But returning to the point, whatever the ADDA did regarding Trutanich must now be undone in the light of the lies in his endorsement papers submitted to the ADDA. Surely you agree? The ADDA cannot be seen to impliedly approve of such dishonesty, it taints the entire process.

Please tell members how they can ask the ADDA board to withdraw whatever they have given to this bold faced liar.

Marc Debbaudt said...

Contact Hyatt Seligman and Leslie Simon, the ADDA Liason to AFSCME, and voice your complaints. I have tried to explain what the ADDA did re endorsement. All the ADDA dis was say go convince the bigger labor group. The ADDA has not yet decided to try to influence the coalition as to who to endorse. We haven't told them, hey, we like Meyers or Grace or Ipsen best. I support the ADDA choosing someone and telling the coalition, this is who we think you should back. Why? Because that is what a real Certified Bargaining Unit would do. But we haven't done that, and by the looks of it, we won't, at least in my best guess, until the runoff, if ever. We won't get our act together to do it for the primary. Again, I think we should do it for the primary, but knowing the Board, we won't. Back to Trutanich, we didn't give him anything to take anything back. My best guess, he was going to the coalition anyway, and he will no doubt be answering the question re these endorsements there. I suppose the ADDA could hold an emergency meeting to withdraw the invitation to persuade the coalition, but good luck getting that together before 2/27 when the coalition meets. I'll send out an email to the Board expressing this request.

Anonymous said...

Thanks Marc, for the info. I do think it is important that the ADDA distances itself from Trutanich. He may have raised more money than any other candidate, but judging by the way the media is covering his lies in the ADDA questionnaire, they are not buying his excuses. He had to know that the Airport Police were never going to endorse him and the School Police were on the fence, now they are definitely not going to endorse him. Face it, he lied and he has a horrible reputation for telling lies.