Comments@THE GUSS REPORT-Why might a deeply troubled member of LA City Council allegedly have people solicit donations on his behalf if he is termed-out in another year and has zero chance of ever being elected to another office?
And what (if anything) was promised by that Councilmember in exchange for those donations, i.e. what is expected by those who might cough up cash for the carnal Councilmember, Jose Huizar, (photo above) infamously known for the FBI raid late last year of his home and City Hall office, as well as for a multitude of sexual harassment and retaliation lawsuits against the City’s deep pockets by an array of female city employees who worked in his office?
This is precisely what is happening on behalf of Mr. Huizar, though it is unclear whether those doing the soliciting are city employees on city time. But with the FBI, community advocates and an array of gadflies (several of whom are attorneys) zeroing in on Huizar’s every move, it is tough to imagine that he is still selling-out LA to wealthy Chinese land developers…anymore, that is. (Huizar has not been charged with any crime as of this date.)
An educated guess is that Huizar’s chickens are coming home to roost in the form of a serious cash crunch and a world of legal trouble for him here, now and on the horizon.
Despite an annual household income of at least $300,000, we know the following:
- In January, Huizar become ineligible to practice law by once again putting his license on inactive status with the State Bar of California. The primary reason why attorneys do this is because they don’t want to pay Bar dues or pay for and take Mandatory Continuing Legal Education (MCLE).
The problem this creates for Huizar (who is fond of telling people he is an attorney) is that with an inactive law license, he can no longer dispense legal advice while executing his job responsibilities as a Councilmember. This is the same pickle in which his colleague, Councilmember Paul Krekorian, finds himself. (Krekorian has twice been suspended by the Bar for failures to pay dues and take MCLEs, rendering him ineligible to practice law since 2015.)
- In late March, Huizar and his wife Richelle (who, in the wake of the FBI raid, abruptly aborted her brief campaign to succeed her husband when he is termed-out next year) sold their El Sereno rental home for $15,000 less than their asking price after a February sale for more money fell through.
- Huizar failed to save himself upwards of $125,000 in capital gains tax by failing to strategize before selling the house. The likely reason is because they did not anticipate the need to sell it; the Huizars put it on the market just 20 days after the FBI raid.
The sale of the home, built in 1930, will still result in a nice profit for the couple after fees and commissions are paid. But the telltale indicator of a cash crunch is that, as their non-primary residence, the Huizars could have avoided that 20% capital gains tax by simply renting out their primary residence and moving into the rental house for two years before selling it.
A couple where both spouses have law degrees from UCLA should know that kind of thing.
While some speculate that Mr. Huizar is liquidating assets in anticipation of a devastatingly expensive legal defense related to the FBI raid, others suggest he needs cash to settle the two latest lawsuits filed against the City by women formerly employed to work in his office. But why might Huizar need to pay settlements if the women sued the city for his alleged ongoing sexual harassment and retaliatory behavior?
It’s because in 2014, Huizar privately settled a sexual harassment lawsuit filed against the City by his former Deputy Chief of Staff and occasional paramour Francine Godoy. In that instance, while terms of the settlement were not made public, and the taxpayers did not pay Godoy to make the case go away, if anyone did pay her, it would have been Mr. and Mrs. Huizar.
Back then, the LA Times, always a slave to local politicians, published a column about the Godoy settlement misleadingly titled, “Settlement in Huizar sexual harassment case is at no cost to city.” But if readers didn’t go beyond the title, they would not have learned that the taxpayers paid up to $200,000 for Huizar’s legal defense.
It isn’t clear whether taxpayers are going to cover Huizar’s legal expenses for the most recent lawsuits.
But the big megillah might be this: If Huizar or his representatives actually received any of these solicited donations, they would need to be reported on his City Ethics Commission financial disclosure, known as a Form 700, which he hasn’t yet done. And it would need to be reported as taxable income, which wouldn’t be known by anyone other than the FBI, IRS and California Franchise Tax Board.
While my contacts say they resisted the Huizar donation solicitation, if anyone did give him money, they would have Huizar, and his young family’s future, over a barrel if he failed to report it at a time when he is increasingly isolated in City Hall with fewer options than ever.
With all the chatter at City Hall about equality and a safe work environment, why haven’t Mayor Eric Garcetti, City Attorney Mike Feuer, City Controller Ron Galperin and the rest of LA City Council, led by Huizar’s self-described “best friend” Herb Wesson, taken measures to re-assign all women working in Huizar’s office to safer environments? Isn’t their failure to speak out, let alone act, an implicit approval for others to mistreat the city’s female employees?
And what is City Hall’s defense if just one more woman in Huizar’s office, whether a city employee, lobbyist, vendor, volunteer, intern or taxpayer says #MeToo?
(Daniel Guss, MBA, is a member of the Los Angeles Press Club, and has contributed to CityWatch, KFI AM-640, Huffington Post, Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Daily News, Los Angeles Magazine, Movieline Magazine, Emmy Magazine, Los Angeles Business Journal and elsewhere. Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport. Join his mailing list or offer verifiable tips and story ideas at [email protected]. His opinions are his own and do not necessarily reflect the views of CityWatch.) Prepped for CityWatch by Linda Abrams.
