Friday, September 25, 2009

My Argument AGAINST Nutty City Charter Ballot Amendment Cutting City Council Salaries in HALF!

As posted earlier today on this blog, the Neighborhood Councils Action Summit is on October 3rd at 8am.

It's promoted as, "a bold grass-roots attempt to find out if the traditional Congress of Neighborhoods could be organized in a way that gives a stronger and more meaningful voice to the councils." Proming, "less talk and more action, giving you a chance to speak out on real city issues that are too controversial to be on the program at the Congress of Neighborhoods. These are, in many ways, the issues that City Hall doesn't want you to discuss."

The major issues include:

1. Purising a City Charter Amendment for the ballot that would cut the salaries of city elected officials in half.

SO LET'S TALK ABOUT 1. And when I say talk, I mean perhaps surprise some people. And it's not something I could say while running for office. Not because it would look like I didn't want to take the cut myself (because publicly and in all interviews I said that I "WOULD" take the cut), but because you would think I was only saying it as someone who didn't want to take the cut, as a candidate running for the seat to be cut in half.



And this is coming from the person who has spent more time telling the whole city how inept, irresponsible and shady they are. BUT I'M NOT SOME JERRY SPRINGER, YAHOO, MOB-MENTALITY ACTIVIST LIKE A LOT OF THE OTHER NUT CASES WHO JUST LIKE A GOOD BATTLE AND ENJOY THE SOCIAL COMMUNITY SPIRIT AT ALL THE MEETINGS THIS WILL TAKE...AGAIN, for a lousy $1.2 million.

It will cost about a million to get it on the ballot. Why not just raise the same amount of money and stick it in the general fund.

Because do you really want the people who are in charge of all the money and safety and quality of your life pissed off and angry because they just had their livelihood cut in half by the people depending on them.

I know people feel $189,000 is a lot of money and people LOVE to repeat over and over how they are the highest paid council in the country. So what? Someone has to be the highest paid and L.A. is the biggest city from a geographic standpoint (because NYC may be more populated, but is a tiny, geographically.) SO SOMEONE HAS TO BE HIGHEST PAID AND THE BIGGEST CITY WITH THE BIGGEST JOB IS THE HIGHEST PAID. It's not like the Cincinatti City Council is highest paid and you live in Cincinatti.

Secondly, I know public employees think the position of City Council is just a public service position like any other city worker. GIVE ME A BREAK. It's not like hiring someone to do electrical wiring or clerk work. It's a highly specialized job and even though it's an elected position, if it were in the private sector, it's not like you could just take out a classified ad and interview people off the street. (Although I know a lot of people think you can do that, based on what I heard in this past election campaign season.)

If this job were in the private sector and you evaluate how much money (size of the economy being overseen); the type of responsibility and time required including weekends and all the material and items you have to stay abreast of.

It would probably pay $250,000 MINIMUM in the real world. So maybe and argument could be made for $150,00...$125,000 since it's a public service job...but give me a break...HALF?


AND, if ANYTHING, you would have to make it for all future elected officials, because I really don't think you can cut their salaries in half while they are in office because the job was offered at that rate. YOU KEEP RE-ELECTING THEM. THEY ALL GET RE-ELECTED. AND YOU ELECT THEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. YOU SHOULD CUT YOUR OWN SALARIES IN HALF.

Imagine if there was the right candidate with all the experience and would turn your district into Disneyland as Councilmember. Wouldn't it be worth paying them $189,000? They spend millions on meaningless surveys that don't do a thing. So it's not the amount of money.

And it is a lot of effort for only $1.2 million in savings when you have billions in low hanging fruit out there.

Why don't you just admit it. You are mad at the current crop of City Councilosers and want to punish them by cutting their livelihood in half. Why not just egg their house? I think that feels even better. You could do what I just did. Go to every single meeting you can over three years and five months and talk as much as you can on every item you can until you expose them and everyone hates them and wants to cut their salaries in half.

But a move like cutting salaries in half isn't something you do to punish a bunch of irresponsible losers who can't take charge because they are all greedy cowards with no souls. Because there will be others who we have to assume and hope will come along and $90,000 isn't fitting, in my opinion.

AND IF YOU COULD EASILY CREATE A MOTION TO CUT IT WITHOUT ALL THE EFFORT OF A BALLOT MEASURE, I GUESS I WOULD SUPPORT IT, BECAUSE IT MIGHT MAKE SOME OF THEM RESIGN, OR NOT RE-RUN. BUT, when you add up all the time, money and effort for the "drip in the bucket" incidental savings versus the billions that needs to be's a HELL NO, CRYBABIES!

Can you PLEASE pick something of actual community benefit instead of something to please a bunch of Jerry Springer fans who can't agree on anything beside the obvious, "Cut em in half!" Now THAT'S something EVERY wacko can agree on.

NOTE: Thanks for making my post on Deming's 14 Points the MOST CLICKED post today in the State of California on's ranking of 100 California news blogs. ;0)

Today's Most Clicked - (State of California)

Zuma Dogg's NUMBER ONE CALL For City Hall Reform (And I Don't Care If You Don't Like It!)
L.A. Daily Blog (

Follow by Email