Friday, September 14, 2012

Friday Free For All - Jackie Lacey soars in DA race, Trutanich backers pay the price for betrayal

Jackie Lacey gains bi-partisan support in bid to become Los Angeles' next District Attorney

This from the Jackie Lacey Campaign:

The Jackie Lacey for D.A. campaign scored three more powerful endorsements today: Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina, former Los Angeles County District Attorney Robert Philibosian and United States Congressman Adam Schiff.

Lacey, who won the support of Los Angeles County's largest law enforcement organizations, is continuing to show tremendous bipartisan support in the race for D.A. Molina and Schiff are Democrats and Philibosian is a prominent Republican.

Gloria Molina, a pioneering elected leader, was the first Latina ever elected to the California Legislature. For the past 21 years, she has served with distinction as a member of the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Supervisor Molina stated: "With 26 years' exemplary experience as a prosecutor and top administrator in the District Attorney's Office, Jackie Lacey has the skills to be an outstanding District Attorney for Los Angeles County. Our county faces a number of critical criminal justice issues, particularly in managing the state's poorly planned "realignment," which will shift thousands of felons from incarceration in state prisons to the county jail. We desperately need a proven leader as D.A. to tackle these tough issues. We need Jackie Lacey."

Robert Philibosian served as Los Angeles County District Attorney from 1981 to 1984. Currently a leading legal practitioner, Philibosian is of counsel with the law firm of Sheppard, Mullin, Richter and Hampton.

"As a former Los Angeles County District Attorney myself, I know that leading this complex office is no job for someone lacking management experience," Philibosian said. "That's why I am proudly supporting Jackie Lacey, the prosecutor with the experience to be a great D.A."

Adam Schiff has served in the United States Congress since 2001, where he sits on the powerful House Appropriations Committee. Previously, Schiff served one four-year term in the California Senate and six years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Los Angeles office.

Schiff said in endorsing Lacey: "As a former federal prosecutor, I have some ideas about what it takes to be a successful District Attorney. Jackie Lacey combines an extensive record as a successful courtroom prosecutor with experience managing the day-to-day operations of the nation's largest local prosecutor's office. I proudly endorse Jackie Lacey for D.A."

For a complete list of Lacey's endorsements, visit her website at

#  -  #  -  #

Jackie Lacey tackles tough topics on KPKF's Uprising Radio

District Attorney candidate Jackie Lacey took to the airwaves Thursday morning on KPFK's Uprising Radio, hosted by Sonali Kolhatkar, to answer some tough questions as to why she believes she is the 'most qualified' to become LA's next District Attorney.

In the almost half hour long interview, Lacey gave a fascinating insight into how the daughter of an impoverished African American family who fled the racism and oppression of the South for California in the 50's, became her family's 'first kid' to go to college, eventually winning a scholarship to USC's School of Law. After graduating she joined the DA's Office rising through the ranks to hold the number two position in the nations' largest prosecutorial agency, with day-to-day oversight of the Office's 1,000 attorneys and 1,100 support staff.

As well as explaining the organizational structure of the DA's Office with a clarity sure to be appreciated by line deputies who often wonder what, precisely is the relationship between the DA, Chief Deputy,  Assistant DAs,  Bureau Directors, Head Deputies and Assistant Head Deputies , Lacey also explains her position on the topics that she believes are of the greatest concern to Los Angelenos; Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, Third Strikes reform, Death Penalty, Prison Overcrowding and the DA's recent crackdown on 'feel good' doctors who recklessly dispense prescription medication with often lethal consequences.

As to how Lacey feels about being the first female DA, and the first African American DA, Lacey explains that while she would be proud to break those barriers, she nevertheless feels that it is her twenty five years of experience in the DA's Office, twelve of which have been in senior management, that best qualifies her to lead the Office. She touts her endorsements by DA Steve Cooley, the LA Times, and LA's two largest police associations; the Los Angeles Police Protective League and the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs.

It is an engaging  and insightful interview, and doubtless provides a preview of the issues likely to be discussed at next week's two District Attorney candidates' forums; the first co-hosted by the Metropolitan News-Enterprise and the  Italian American Lawyer's Association on September 19, at 6:00 p.m. at Casa Italiana, 1051 N. Broadway, Los Angeles, CA 90012, and the second being the Association of Deputy District Attorney's DA Candidates' forum on September 20, 6:30 p.m. at the Japanese American National Museum (JANM), 369 E. First Street, Los Angeles 90012.

Lacey appears to be on something of a roll these past weeks, with sources in her campaign revealing that she is leveraging the momentum she has gained by her slew of endorsements into almost nightly fundraising events. A recent event at DA Steve Cooley's home is understood to have been a 'resounding success' with over 75 influential community and law enforcement leaders in attendance, and the campaign is exceeding its fundraising targets to ensure a 'robust' campaign in the run up to the November election.

Trutanich backers pay the price for selling Los Angelenos a 'bill of goods' 

Pep Streebek joins the Dragnet
as a contributing blogger
Eagle-eyed Dragnet followers will have noticed that yesterday's post, blasting 'Snake Oil Salesman' Congressman Brad Sherman,  for trying to sell us a bill of goods in the form of failed DA wannabe Carmen Trutanich, was penned by Pep Steebek.

Steebek joins the Dragnet as a contributing blogger to help inform readers of the way political hacks try to foist their kindred spirits on voters. What, exactly, did Sherman think he was doing by supporting the loathsome, unseemly and consistently deceptive candidacy of Carmen 'the Clown' Trutanich?

Was it a case of sheer ignorance on the part of Sherman, that he had no idea of the well documented history of betrayal and deception by the man the LA Times called a 'Liar,' or was it that Sherman didn't care how unsavory and unsuitable Trutanich was for the position of District Attorney?

Despite Sherman's best efforts to fool voters into buying what he was selling, voters were able to see though the bullshit, and roundly rejected Trutanich's 'Hindenburg-like' candidacy. Sherman will likely pay the price for betraying the trust of voters when he faces his challenger in November.

Sherman, of course, was not alone in endorsing and supporting the lie laden candidacy of Carmen Trutanich. Termed-out Los Angeles City Councilmember Dennis Zine, who now aspires to become City Controller, showed the kind of reckless misjudgment that should disqualify him from holding the public trust, by not only backing Trutanich, but pulling his endorsement of Alan Jackson. Will Zine make the same kind of reckless decisions should he succeed in becoming City Controller?

Trutanich paid the price for betraying our trust when he was politically castrated on June 5. His lame attempt to hang on to the City Attorney job that he considered beneath him, will fail as miserably as his disastrous DA campaign. Thanks to the clarion voice of Streebek, those who were as foolish and arrogant to think that voters can be so easily fooled, will likely meet the same fate as Trutanich.  Brad Sherman, Dennis Zine, and a few others need to publicly apologize for the way they betrayed our trust.



Anonymous said...

Seems like Steebek should be putting the cuffs on you too. You were one of Trutanich's biggest supporters when you worked for him. Where's your public apology?

Anonymous said...

When Berger found out that Nuch was a lying sack of shit, he did something about it. It took guts to go on tv and radio and publicly call Nuch A VERY GOOD CON MAN! Sherman, Zine, Baca and a bunch of others knew what a piece of crap Trutanich was, but they kept on supporting him. That's why they deserve the same fate as Nuch.

Anonymous said...

Trutanich is an asswad. He is so hated and despised in the city attorneys office that he has to have security guards around him all the time - even IN the office. Why don't you report on what happened to the family bbq? Did you know that it was cancelled because Trutanich the asswad was ashamed at the embarrassingly low number of people who would have gone - last year was bad enough, but this year probably no more than 50.

Trutanich also couldn't get any freebie donations of booze or hot dogs, and he didn't want to spend his own money on people who not only hate him, but cannot do anything for him. He gave some lame excuse about his mother being sick for not having the bbq. It's the first time the CA's office hasn't had some kind of summer event - Rocky always made sure that happened. But Trutanich the Asswad couldn't even round up a crowd of his San Pedro buddies to make it look like he was still a contender.

Anonymous said...

So Jackie Lacey, alleged "union buster," has the endorsement of ALADS and LA Police Protective League, which are two of the largest police union locals in the country?

Anonymous said...

Hey 7:14 am, are you also including all the Deputy DA's (all those guys from the south county courthouses) and unions (including the County Federation of Labor) that sided with Trutanich and refused to abandon him until after the primary was over and his campaign was rotting like a corpse in the sun.

Anonymous said...

OMG, Lacey has a 12 point lead over AJ. How can that be if she is a union buster like Steve Ipsen and his ADDA Looney Tunes chorus say? There must be a terrible mistake, quick Dragnet, call the LA Times and tell them to tune into KFI's Coast to Coast program where Ipsen will call in and explain the vast union busting conspiracy. Gimme a break.

Anonymous said...

This blog was a lot more interesting back when you used to document all of Trutanich's entertaining missteps, instead of just churning out Lacey campaign drivel. I know Cooley's your boss, but this is getting embarassing.

And 9:58 pm, both candidates came out with polls showing they were leading in various regards. Essentially, the only takeaway from the polls is that there are a lot of undecided voters who do not like Lacey after they find out that she's a liar.

Anonymous said...

9:36AM, you are right, this blog is more entertaining when exposing Carmen the Clown Trutanich for being the liar that he is. But PLEASE, trying to suggest that Jackie Lacey is a liar? Nobody buys that, not the voters not the police chiefs and associations who support her, and as you will discover on election night, not the voters. 12 point lead according to 9:58PM, my guess is that it will be bigger, much bigger than that. Don't get me wrong, I like AJ but demographically, LA is going with Lacey, big time.

Marc Debbaudt said...

0n 9/18/12, last night, your ADDA Board, that is, the representatives of your certified bargaining unit, which was created to Bargain, and do what a union is supposed to do, that is BARGAIN, decided to recommend to you, the members, not to bargain. That is, they want you to vote to roll over the contract without negotiating, just like they did last year.

Perhaps you remember one of their arguments when they presented you with the first ever initial contract. One thing that your then President promised you to get you to ratify that initial contract, was it was only a year long and we would be right back into negotiating. Then the following year he recommended you roll over.

Now, that's what your board wants again. They want you to ROLL OVER. So, we get you to ratify the empty MOU by promising we will immediately return to continue the battle to improve your lot, but then we renege and dodge the very reason we were created,

So, your duly elected Directors, oops, I mean vacancy fillers, because several weren't elected, voted 7 [out of a 21 member Board with 4 vacancies] basically to recommend to you that we NOT do what we were created to do, that is, negotiate.

Here's the bottom line. As a Grade IV paying $75 per month, $33 of which is paid to AFSCME, or $900 per year per DDA, of which $396 per DDA goes to AFSCME, which. conservatively, is over $600,000 per year in dues collected, given 1000 DDAs at $50 per month, with $396,000 at $33 per month going to AFSCME. So, you got to ask yourself, why are you paying $600 to $900 a year in dues to a bargaining unit that won't bargain? Why do we exist? What's the point?

I will write to you about their reasoning and who is making the decisions and why, but basically these 7 would not wait for the seven absent directors, who apparently all had reasons why they couldn't make the meeting, or the filling of the 4 vacancies, for a full 21 member board to decide, but out of 17, only ten showed up and 3, including myself, voted no, that is, the 3 voted to negotiate and not to recommend that you ROLL OVER and pay dues for another year for nothing.

I'll I explain my reasoning why I think we should negotiate in more detail later. But, in a nutshell, it is this simple: why are we a bargaining unit if we are afraid to bargain? It is all about fear and a hope for a future benevolent dictatorship that dominates the thinking of these 7.

Maybe it is time to reconsider being a union if your union chooses not to be a union.

Further, we have learned that your directors participated in discussing a transfer policy with management which is apparently about to be unilaterally imposed upon you all. The policy is meaningless, all though some of them feel good about it and want to claim "ownership." Frankly, these directors who represented you at these meetings were not even aware of the original transfer policy contained in the Personnel Policies manual, and the new policy is essentially the same. Shocking, right? This is who represents you, and I have had enough.

I call for immediate elections.

Anonymous said...

Don't stop there. I want to know which people voted to spend all that money on Steve Ipsen's legal battles. Throwing away all that money on some failed politician because he screwed up his own career was ridiculous!

Anonymous said...

Umm. . . . looks like the ADDA Board voted on something and the majority of the board members in attendance prevailed. Isn't that how it's supposed to work?

Anonymous said...

Yep, the majority present voted not to negotiate. I guess you are okay with that. The complaint wasn't that procedurally they couldn't do what they did, but that what they voted for was retarded and they couldn't wait to see what a full board would decide. So, I guess we learn what is important to you, certainly not the substance of the decision.

Anonymous said...

Okay, here's my 2 cents. That anyone would complain that any particular ADDA board decision is retardef is - at this point and time - absurd. These guys have been doing retarded stuff for years, why have a revolution now about it? Because one faction had its shit together at a particular board meeting an the other side didnt? Get real. Or rather, get used to the frustration your members feel.

Marc Debbaudt said...

The question why have a revolution now at this point and time is simple: Are you willing to continue to pay $600 to $900 a year of your salary to a bargaining unit that refuses to bargain?

Whatever you may have disagreed with in the past, right now the ADDA is recommending that you continue to pay them for not doing what they were created to do---BARGAIN!

This isn't a simple disagreement with one of their decisions. This is the ultimate question of why permit them to exist at all at your expense if they won't do the only thing they were created to do? That is what is ABSURD, like subsidizing a farm not to grow food.

I guess that's why you only invested 2 cents in that opinion.

I think the answer is: REJECT their recommendation and vote that they must negotiate or decertify.

I sincerely worked hard to help create a bargaining unit that would bargain, but your current majority leaders and their expensive representatives, AFSCME Council 36, who we pay $396,000 a year to help us bargain, prefer not to do just that.

Maybe we need an election for new officers who aren't afraid to bargain and maybe we need independence from affiliation with an expensive union that obviously enjoys a bigger profit when they get dues and don't have to battle with the county to earn them.

Anonymous said...

Debbaudt, excoriating and insulting your critics isn't going to earn you any loyal supporters. Especially if your critics are members of the union (I suspect that anyone who is wasting more than a glance on this comment section is a union member)

Your use of the "farm" analogy is telling. Yes, there are many times you don't want a farm to grow anything, like when they've overtaxed the soil and need a fallow period to recharge the nutrients. But it takes a bit wisdom to recognize that, and that's something more than engaging in a sophmoric screaming rant at your opponents when you don't get your way.

You apparently were on the the losing side of a board debate. Boo-Hoo. If the implications of losing this debate were as apocalyptic as you depict, you would have caucused, marshaled your numbers and "gotten your shit together" as the commenter at 6:40pm suggests.

Take a deep breath and come down from the cross, someone else needs the wood.

Marc Debbaudt said...

Yes, I completely disagree with the decision of the Board. However, I am not a cult leader seeking loyal supporters of my moods. I try to honestly and directly respond to criticism. I just don't see the meaningful criticism yet.

I presented to this forum a direct and simple principle, because followers of this forum complain they don't hear enough from the Board. My point was simple. Do you want your bargaining unit to bargain?

Does this rise to EXCORIATING and INSULTING? Because if that is really true, that's fine with me. But I don't see it like that, obviously.

I guess you find my point, that spending lots of money not to do what you were created to do, sophomoric and not as frustrating or offensive as I do. I guess it bothers me more than you. Which is why I responded.

Is the ADDA bargaining unit like soil that has been overtaxed and depleted of nutrients so it needs a rest? That's actually laughable and ironic. It may even be true, but supportive of my general point that we need new leadership and an election. Or, are the members overtaxed who have to pay for a bargaining unit not to bargain and lie fallow? Really, is condemning my apparently open-ended analogy the challenging intelligent response the concept of not bargaining by a bargaining unit deserves?

Frankly, the Board does what the Board does and my winning or losing at that level is irrelevant to me. I lost at the Board level again. I lose a lot there. I haven't given up yet. It turns out I tend to be in the minority. I generally don't care what the Board does, because most of what they do is irrelevant to the big issues. The only important losses to me are the big ones, like whether we negotiate or not, and these are ultimately decided by the members who ratify or reject their Board's recommendation. I'll have no problem accepting that decision because it is final. And I don't mind going to the members and telling them what I've learned while sitting on the Board. The members are ultimately free to decide their fate and pay for a bargaining unit not to bargain. That won't make sense to me, but so be it. Until that happens I really have no inclination to accept what the Board thinks when it thinks in a way I consider fear based and absurd.

It's real easy to be a forum reader taking pot shots anonymously. its also real easy to be a Board member that does nothing on a Board that decides or chooses to do nothing important to justify their existence. You, and this forum, complain you don't know what is happening at the ADDA. I told you and gave you my opinion. I really will be okay with whether you like me, my opinion, or not. With some of you there is no meaningful engagement in what should be a discussion about why we have a bargaining unit and what you want your Board leaders to do.

I'd like it if the members reject the recommendation and tell the ADDA to negotiate. Also, I'd like it if we had elections even if they result in my being replaced. That's a win win for me.

Anonymous said...

Debbaudt, take a deep breath and calm down.

You are missing the point. This is not about YOU. You are dealing with a bargaining unit comprised of lawyers. DUH. That is the “DDA” in “ADDA” for those who haven’t figured it out. We understand what bargaining is. And no, it is not a magical process where everything every morning is like Christmas morning and you wake up with bright shiny presents under a tree. It’s a two-way street and you can lose ground. Get an LA Times subscription. Read it. Many Public Sector unions are giving things up to avoid cuts and lay-offs. There is a cost/benefit analysis to laying down your ante and playing a round when you know there are only shitty cards left in the deck.

And remember, the members put up with a lot of stuff that the board does that, frankly, stinks. Many of us have come to expect that the ADDA Board is a fusion-fueled feces factory fomenting fresh turds on a daily basis. That fuels a lot of commentary on this board. There have also been accomplishments by the ADDA Board. That creates commentary too.

But we put up with it and move on. It’s not that anyone likes the stinky decisions. It’s just that people don’t want to go through the stress of putting up with repeat referendums and constant campaigns filled with obloviation and pontification. Grow up.

Anonymous said...

It is my understanding that the ADDA board members who want to bargain are also of the mind that we should not use AFSCME to represent ADDA in the bargaining process. Or at least not as the lead negotiators. Mark is that your position? You talk about wasting money, why would we not use the people we pay to bargain for/with us?

I understand that there are board members who want to roll the dice and open up bargaining where most if not all of the other county bargaining units are keeping the status quo, but it affects more than those board members egos, it could potentially and likely would adversely affect every members' pocket book that that is what the real issue is. Sometimes the cautious approach is the best approach.

Anonymous said...

It is my understanding that the ADDA board members who want to bargain are also of the mind that we should not use AFSCME to represent ADDA in the bargaining process. Or at least not as the lead negotiators. Mark is that your position? You talk about wasting money, why would we not use the people we pay to bargain for/with us?

I understand that there are board members who want to roll the dice and open up bargaining where most if not all of the other county bargaining units are keeping the status quo, but it affects more than those board members egos, it could potentially and likely would adversely affect every members' pocket book that that is what the real issue is. Sometimes the cautious approach is the best approach.

Anonymous said...

September 21 12:15 am: I have a wheat farm in Oklahoma that makes more money from the government if we don't grow wheat.