Comments
ERIC PREVEN'S NOTEBOOK - Tim McOsker (CD15) of the one-five emphasized, "I wanted to make sure this was a public discussion." However, if that were truly the case, maybe he would have scheduled the special meeting of the Personnel, Audits, and Hiring Committee at a more inclusive time than 8:30 AM on July 16 during a city council recess. McOsker, the chair, was joined by Curren D. Price, Jr. (CD9), but apparently could not get Hugo Soto-Martinez (CD13) out of bed.
Labor strife is zeitgeisty.
It's pretty clear hard to know about a quorum because the recording intentionally leaves off the roll call. The only public speaker to attend opened by referring to last week’s “payroll disaster” and said, ”We still have issues. LAPD are short and have not been made whole.” City staff and consultants, however, seemed happier and chirped away for nearly an hour alongside KPMG about the implementation of Workday [TM]. Over 45,700 paychecks were issued, most successfully.
City Speaker: True. Workday has a mechanism that Pacer did not have, which reconciles your schedule to your hours worked. Pacer was more forgiving. It didn't really care what your schedule entered into the system was; it paid you for the work that was entered into your pay recording. We had warned people all across the city about that difference. It's a security mechanism that actually helps ensure greater accuracy. So the vast majority of departments, in the vast majority of cases, corrected schedules that often were incorrect because there was no significance to that in the payroll system. And that's one of the things that really tripped us up in the police department. But it's a more accurate reading through Workday. It's a more secure approach through Workday, but it's a different approach through Workday.
Tim McOsker, Council Member CD15: So, would it be fair to say with this transition process, this very intense training we've gone through, we've actually changed some behaviors to have folks, to have managers, and everyone in the chain match the schedule in the system to the hours worked? And what we're identifying are those circumstances where that training hasn't been completed.
City Speaker: Yes, one can say that.
Tim McOsker, Council Member CD15: What else could one say?
City Speaker: Well, I'm saying it because sometimes humans make mistakes. We have so many folks involved in this. And so we're always a little unsure; someone may be on vacation, someone thought someone approved time, those kinds of items. But I think as a general rule, yes. It's not just a change in technology; this is a change in process.
Smart Speaker: I’d like to thank staff and Koretz.
County Downer:
Moderator: The first participant is Eric Preven. Unmute and speak into your phone.
Smart Speaker: Thank you, supervisors. I know you are going into a closed session today and we aren't exactly sure what about, but I was listening very carefully to the land acknowledgment. I read that the Kisz Nation who are referenced in the acknowledgment has filed a lawsuit against the Archdiocese, the county—that's us—and the nonprofit L.A. Plaza Artes y Culturas. This is very embarrassing. Apparently, 100 graves were piled together in the back of the property that we own, which is a direct violation of what they specified—
Sup. Lindsey Horvath, Chair: Our closed session item has to do with business related to the proposed Fire District measure. If you could focus on this item, that's what is on the closed session agenda.
Smart Speaker: Your closed session is about anticipated litigation, is that not—I'm sorry. You have interrupted me now. I will have to reorient myself. It is important to air out what these lawsuits are about because, as you know, you have amassed an enormous compounding liability like a massive credit card swelling out of control—
Supervisor Janice Hahn, of the fourth district who was just made chair of the Los Angeles County Metro, has committed to ride the 'relaxing' system. "Shocking!"
Smart Speaker: Also, I wanted to follow up on last week's meeting regarding the five-member Brown Act bodies and their committees. There was some inter-district disagreement and so we seek clarity from Dawyn Harrison, the stately County Counsel. I am prepared to wait and would be happy to donate some time to get an answer. Thank you for your diligence.
Executive Officer: Thank you, your time has expired. Next speaker, please.
Moderator: Our first participant is Eric Preven. Unmute and speak directly into your phone.
Smart Speaker: Yeah, thank you. FYI you were not supposed to go in to talk about item 5 without it being agendized as a closed session. I don't know if that's what you were talking about, that's not kosher.
For this item, there was some opposition. People from Castaic have said this is a non-sufficiently funded situation for years. Reducing the amount of service puts zones in a downward spiral and apparently a person who lives in 37 is opposed - I’m looking at a written public comment. By having public hearings in such an odd isolated way, without a typical board meeting agenda—well, as you can see, there are no public speakers. Mission accomplished! You do this on purpose, to push away the public, like Mommy Sheila taught you. And starting the day with a closed session to marinate people into a state of fury, hoping presumably that some would leave since there was no information about how long the closed session might last. Not nice.
My suggestion on this item is to keep the current assessment levels and seek a more modest increase. And may I suggest that you also try harder to follow the Brown Act? Perhaps County Counsel, Dawyn Harrison, could finally announce her historic interpretation of the Brown Act as it relates to Board committees.
Sup. Lindsey Horvath, Chair: Thank you very much. With that, both items have passed and we'll move on to item 5… I first want to turn to County Counsel Dawyn Harrison for clarification on the discussion on this item.
Dawyn Harrison, County Counsel: Thank you. Incorrectly earlier, discussing it in a closed session was stated wrong. It was corrected earlier by the executive officer, adjourning to a closed session to discuss anticipated litigation. I wanted to further state for the record that the board did not discuss the fire district measure in a closed session. Rather, what was discussed under anticipated litigation was an exposure to litigation.
Smart Speaker: So, why did the chair say that? Pfffft.
Ed Yen, Executive Officer, dealing with very difficult Supervisors.
Executive Officer: Next speaker, please.
Moderator: Madam Chair, there are no other speakers.
Moderator: The first participant on item 2 is Eric Preven. Unmute and speak directly into your phone.
Smart Speaker: I gave my comments on this item earlier, I thought, I was speaking about item 2. Now item 1 is the abatement of hazardous vegetation. Are we—is it okay if I speak on that? Now everything is so confusing.
Sup. Lindsey Horvath, Chair: No, we announced item 1 at that time. Now we're on item 2, you need to focus on item 2
Smart Speaker: All right, let me focus on item 2. Item 2 follows item 1, which I really wanted to talk about earlier. But I got screwed up and started talking about 2. All of this is about getting money from the public. What I thought was interesting was to have weights and measures involved, balancing things out. The fire department is the one with the serious structural problem. We thank Mr. Kurt Floren for helping to assess people. But I don't know how we'll solve all of the remaining problems and shortfalls.
Executive Officer: Thank you, your time has expired. Next speaker, please.
Moderator: Our first participant on this item is Eric Preven. Unmute and speak directly into your phone.
Smart Speaker: Thank you. The reinspection rate goes up to about $539 from $520. I note the exemption for restaurants that make CO2, Coca-Cola for example. They do deal with hazardous materials but in a limited way that people accept. This is a decent idea. The idea that not-for-profits don't have to comply with parts of this particular ordinance worries me. I know that the foundation of everything you do is safety and equity. I don't quite understand—I mean, I don't want to saddle not-for-profits with horrible fees, but you saddle everyone else with horrible fees. I'm wondering if that's kosher, even, to just decide, well, if they're not making money, they don't have to comply. I probably have that wrong, but feel free to clarify. Thank you for your diligence. Soda, by the way, is not very good for young people. FYI
Executive Officer: Next speaker, please.
Moderator: There are no other remote speakers in the queue to address the board.
Moderator: The first participant is Eric Preven. Please unmute and speak directly into the phone. And you may begin.
Smart Speaker: Yes, thank you. I was looking at this petition—I'm a little bit confused to be honest. Mayor Bass just vetoed the ballot measure about who serves on the LAPD police board. I don't think that there are any questions about rights over here.
Horvath runs a very tight ship when it comes to suppressing the rights. I would ask that the board consider - who would have the authority, like the mayor or governor, to veto a board item. Fesia Davenport? An elected CEO? I honestly don't know. Could an elected CEO veto something that the great Board of Supervisors wanted to do?
It’s a fair question. And I honestly don't know how this Board of Supervisors has been so proud of the triple-A bond rating, but simply unable to get the necessary resources for the fire department. How shameful but also impressive. Thank you.
Executive Officer: Thank you, next speaker, please.
Claimant Speaker: Okay, thank you for all the good things that you do. But I'll reiterate that those who want to play the race card need to drop that like yesterday. Also, to thank Supervisor Barger for bringing some civility and clarity into the conversation on more than one occasion. And to Eric Preven. Eric, I'm willing to go with you to file a criminal complaint with the State of California because I believe this body has felony liability as far as the obstruction of the people's many rights under the Act in regard to public address situations on that. I believe they need to do some jail time to get some real flavor. And well deserving of it, the arrogance and contempt that they have shown the people that they represent. A little jail time is long overdue. Thank you.
Smart Speaker: Jail? That seems harsh. I’ll settle for immediate compliance.
(Eric Preven is a longtime community activist and is a contributor to CityWatch.)
