LA WATCHODOG-No, no, no. We are not talking about the corrupting influence of campaign contributions, at least not yet. Besides, that is not news even to the most uninformed Angelenos.
This year, the total cost to support the fifteen royal members of the City Council is an incredible $41 million, or over $2.7 million for each pampered member of the City Council.
But this $2.7 million per Council District does not include all the less than transparent slush funds created by City Hall, including those related to street furniture, the skimming of 50% of the proceeds from the sales of surplus City property, and oil pipeline franchise fees.
Nor does this $41 million include office holder accounts that are funded by generous benefactors.
Nor does it include contributions to pet projects, such as a library, animal shelter, or a park, which are designed to curry the favor of the local Councilmember.
This disappointing lack of transparency is only the beginning of the financial shenanigans as the Council’s budget lists positions for only 108 people. However, there are almost 300 employees listed in the City’s telephone directory.
So rather than having an average of six employees for each council district, there are 18 staffers, including a league leading 23 in Tom LaBonge’s office, a number which excludes independent contractors who are working on Tom’s legacy projects.
This implies that a good number of the Council staffers are being paid through the many slush funds or by raiding the budgets of other City departments to cover an estimated $20 million shortfall.
These budget shenanigans that are designed to keep us in the dark are unacceptable. But as we all know, transparency and accountability are not in the City Council’s DNA.
Just consider the recent $57 million giveaway to the wildly profitable $70 billion Westfield crowd for its Topanga development; the Council’s failure to engage in any meaningful discussion about pension and budget reform for fear of alienating the campaign funding union bosses; and its recent overriding of the West LA Area Planning Commission’s unanimous rejection of the over height variance for an over the top 42,409 square foot mega mansion on Bellagio Road in Council District 5 to accommodate two very generous real estate developers.
We must demand complete transparency of the Council budget, payroll, and slush funds, especially as it relates to funds from outside parties so we can determine whether our City Council is acting in our best interests.
We also must demand that the City Council require full disclosure by any applicant for any special favors, giveaways, or variances. This would include a ten year history of campaign contributions to any city, county, and state election, including ballot measures; a history of litigation in our state; and a discussion of the relationship of the applicant and its lawyers, lobbyists, and campaign consultants have with any elected official or City employee.
We must also demand a full accounting of the $18 million that has been contributed to our Councilmembers, including the relationship of the contributor and its bundlers and advisors have with our elected officials and City employees.
Until then, how can we trust the City Council, especially when they are going to be trying to hit us up for a $7 billion tax increase to fund the repair of our streets and sidewalks that they have deliberately neglected over the past decade?
(Jack Humphreville writes LA Watchdog for CityWatch. He is the President of the DWP Advocacy Committee, The Ratepayer Advocate for the Greater Wilshire Neighborhood Council, and a Neighborhood Council Budget Advocate. Humphreville is the publisher of the Recycler Classifieds -- www.recycler.com. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Hear Jack every Tuesday morning at 6:20 on McIntyre in the Morning, KABC Radio 790.)
-cw
CityWatch
Vol 12 Issue 23
Pub: Mar 18, 2014