The Result of Apathy and Corruption
Yep.
Hundreds of residents of one of the poorest municipalities in Los Angeles County shouted in protest last night as tensions rose over a report that the city’s manager earns an annual salary of almost $800,000.
An overflow crowd packed a City Council meeting in Bell, a mostly Hispanic city of 38,000 about 10 miles (16 kilometers) southeast of Los Angeles, to call for the resignation of Mayor Oscar Hernandez and other city officials. Residents left standing outside the chamber banged on the doors and shouted “fuera,” or “get out” in Spanish.
It was the first council meeting since the Los Angeles Times reported July 15 that Chief Administrative Officer Robert Rizzo earns $787,637—with annual 12 percent raises—and that Bell pays its police chief $457,000, more than Los Angeles Police Chief Charlie Beck makes in a city of 3.8 million people. Bell council members earn almost $100,000 for part-time work.
City Attorney Edward Lee said the council members couldn’t discuss salaries in public without advance notice. The council then adjourned for a private session. About an hour later, the council members returned, and Hernandez read a statement saying the city would prepare a report on the salaries and seek public comment at the next council meeting, scheduled for Aug. 16.
Residents shouted in protest. Lee said he would have the room cleared if people continued to speak out of line. Police Chief Randy Adams said the fire department wanted to end the meeting because the crowd outside was blocking the door.
I think I need to apply for dog catcher there - should make about $200,000 falling in line with the other salaries.
How do you hide the salaries of public officials - especially such outrageous ones as those?
The governor of CA makes $206,000 a year!! The admin officer of one CA county is making 3.5x more than the GOVERNOR! Wow.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 2227 hrs
This is a big time scandal or at least it should be. My guess is that voted Democrat in the last election, so it wouldn’t be surprising.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 20, 2010 at 2349 hrs
Yeah, because conservatives are never guilty of fraud or embezzlement, Dan, but for the countless examples that Google provides in just two seconds of searching.
Frankly, I kinda think this is awesome. $787k? How effing asleep at the wheel are citizens if an administrator can pull in nearly $800k a year? Even better is that the contracts of these administrators preclude them from being fired without cause (making too much money is NOT cause, and at this point, good luck arguing it was about something other than the pay), which means the city is going to have to a) pay out the nose for their pensions should they resign, or b) buy them out of their contracts.
It’s going to be positively epic to watch this unfold.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 21, 2010 at 0108 hrs
How effing asleep at the wheel are citizens if an administrator can pull in nearly $800k a year?
That was my initial reaction as well. And not that that’s incorrect or that they’re off the hook, but in another article on it, I saw that one council member was paid less than $10,000 - and apparently he had no idea everyone else on the council was making ten times what he was! On the one hand, maybe that further shows that most of the people there are just asleep at the wheel. But on the flip side, if these shysters were sneaky & slimy enough to keep it all hidden from a fellow council member, keeping it from the public would be trivial. BUT without question, no matter what - anyone who is a member of the local press should be banned from journalism & reporting forever.
RS - that’s all very much a “rule of law” perspective. Do you really believe that? Are you sure you don’t want to make an argument for fairness and what feels right and just?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 0329 hrs
The residents of Bell voted in 2005 to become a charter city. As such, the city is exempt from nearly every state statute regarding the structure of its local government. As such, the city council is free to establish its own salaries without regard to restrictions outlined in state statutes, and it may establish its own hiring procedures for city personnel.
This is not unusual in California. In fact, nearly every major metropolis in California is a charter city. And residents of charter cities are free to change the charter via referendum.
In other words, the residents of a charter city have an unusual degree of freedom to establish the parameters within which their government functions. And they also have a remarkable degree of freedom to change those rules, unlike California residents who live in general law cities.
Now, if those in charge of Bell were found to have been not in compliance with the charter, that might be a different story. But then again, courts have routinely held that the judicial branch doesn’t possess a great deal of power to make legislative bodies follow its own rules, and since the city is largely exempt from state guidelines there’s very little controlling authority coming from a higher unit of government.
Arguments about what feels fair and just are worthless, to me at least. Those are entirely subjective matters. By all accounts, the city manager has actually done a very good job in improving the quality of life and financial position of the city. Whether that’s worth $800ka year or not is purely a matter of opinion. There are people empowered by the residents of Bell to make that determination. If they don’t like it, they can amend the charter to restrict salaries and/or they can remove their elected officials from office.
Ain’t democracy beautiful?
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 21, 2010 at 0443 hrs
a) pay out the nose for their pensions should they resign, or b) buy them out of their contracts.
It’s going to be positively epic to watch this unfold.
C) Don’t pay the political bastards. They should be lucky to get out of the city with the anger this is sure to bring up. They have a contract you say? Too bad. Get out of here and take your thieving scumbag ways with you.
Poli = Many Tic = Worthless bloodsucking creatures.
This isn’t a result of apathy, this is a result of way too much government and people repeating the mantra of how important government people are. They’re getting exactly what they deserve and have voted for. Well here’s the government they so desperately need, enjoy it and pay up you citizens! You must not question it because government is better than you and hey, you NEED it.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 21, 2010 at 0837 hrs
My guess is that voted Democrat in the last election, so it wouldn’t be surprising.
Represented at State (30th Senate, 50th Assembly) and Federal (34th congressional) by Democrats. The area appears to heavily favor the Democrats - nearly 75% of the vote in 2008 went to that side of the ballot.
So what? Corruption is a bi-partisan.
Posted by Brian Dunbar on July 21, 2010 at 1042 hrs
800k a year for a city manager in a city less that 40k people??? That’s insane! I just moved from a city of 45k where the manager made 110k/year and grew up in a city of 70k where the manager made less than 200k/year. I know CA is an expensive place to live…but come on!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1106 hrs
Are any politicians really worth that amount? Rarely do any of them prove to be worth half that, and even that’s too much.
And you wonder why taxes are outrageous?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1341 hrs
The level of graft and corruption in this community is truly breathtaking… It makes me wonder how many other communities are facing issues just like this.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 1734 hrs
RS - thanks for responding, the background on the charter city & related info was really interesting. Though you seem to be taking the situation with a bit of schadenfreude. I suspect things would be a little different if it were actually your city government. Might not change your position, but certainly would your disposition.
Jay - your position is exactly counter to the rule of law, that contracts should simply be ignored. Does the same thing apply to…say the Lily Ledbetter case? Since it was most probably unjust and unfair shouldn’t we then ignore the fact there her complaint wasn’t filed in the timeframe specified by the law? Should we severely restrict gun ownership or even make possession itself a felony in high crime areas since it will surely result in fewer crime and deaths? So what if the Constitution says otherwise.
Do we follow the rule of law or do we allow the ends to justify the means sometimes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 21, 2010 at 2051 hrs
The Declaration of Independence says “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” So since that too is a “contract” does this mean I simply have to withdraw my consent to make these government people go away?
It also says “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it” Hmm, that doesn’t mention a contract it just says the people can abolish or change their government and that they have the right and responsibility to do so. Well isn’t that exactly what refusing to pay these bloodsucking politicians is?
If you’re government is too much for you to bear the people of that area have every right to rid themselves of that government, peacefully by withdrawing their consent, regardless of what little pieces of paper the politicians shuffled between themselves but don’t have one signature of the “governed” on.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 21, 2010 at 2350 hrs
So Jay allegedly loves liberty but believes that any agreement a government enters into can basically be walked away from unilaterally if voters decide they don’t like it. His version of liberty apparently includes the freedom to ignore one’s legally established commitments.
Even the most ardent libertarian would say that’s insane. Enforcement of contract law is one of the few things libertarians believe is a legitimate charge of government.
Altering and abolishing government doesn’t excuse voters from honoring the agreements that were entered into legally by officials that they themselves elected.
Posted by Recess Supervisor on July 22, 2010 at 0100 hrs
Altering and abolishing government doesn’t excuse voters from honoring the agreements that were entered into legally by officials that they themselves elected.
They can walk away from those agreements at any time. They can leave the area. Then what? Will the local government then demand other local areas pay them? Will the local government decide that people who once lived in the area now must pay them? What happens if an entire area is abandoned, how do those government people get paid? Their little contract doesn’t force me to live in a certain area…yet.
Contract law is all well and dandy but when it comes to government, who can legally use force, the people do have the right to tell the government to get stuffed. You can deny what the founding words say but that is what they say.
Again, “governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” so if they no longer consent does that mean the government still has power? Do they need to continue to pay outrageous prices for that government?
I guess if government people can find enough suckers they can fleece them of everything they’ve got. “We have a contract that’s what it says!” Hogwash. Again, “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it”. Both quotes deal with GOVERNMENT not voluntary contracts that 2 or more individuals enter into. On those you can find a signature of all participants, can you find the same on government “contracts”? And don’t give me this mess about representatives, no person can represent another unless there is an agreement. An awful lot of people don’t agree to be represented by that individual, so does that count?
Even the most ardent libertarian would say that’s insane. Enforcement of contract law is one of the few things libertarians believe is a legitimate charge of government.
Not when it comes to government itself. Libertarians believe that government should enforce contract law between consenting individuals. Most libertarians believe that government itself cannot enter into those contracts so it can easily be changed or abolished. There is a difference between voluntary contracts between consenting individual and contracts that the government just decides to write up and then claims we’re bound by.
Altering and abolishing government doesn’t excuse voters from honoring the agreements that were entered into legally by officials that they themselves elected.
What if you don’t vote and don’t consent to those officials?
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 22, 2010 at 0724 hrs
What if you don’t vote and don’t consent to those officials?
Heh. Kind of like believing in God and the devil, huh? “If I don’t believe in the Devil either, why am I going to him?”
It is your right and your responsibility to vote. If you don’t, you have shirked your responsibility, not gained some right of dissent. Inferred in any Democratic form of Government is a consent to be governed by the legally elected official, whether he was your candidate or not.
Jay, I agree with you concerning contracts, this extra argument is poor, though.
Libertarians believe that mutually consented legal contracts should be relatively inviolate. An elected Government official that signs a contract that he created for his personal gain, or any work done under a condition where that was possible violates the intent of the constitution. I agree with Jay that if there were some sort of mythical upheaval where we cleaned up our Govenment, those types of contracts could/should be voided and I do not think it is hypocritical to Libertarian views to think this.
Heck, if the Government can abrogate legally voluntary contracts to pay its own constituents(UAW anyone?), they have already dispensed with rule of law. Isn’t that a reason for you ‘rule of law’ followers to join him in his belief that the current Government is no longer a Government by the people, for the people and that forcing change is our right and responsibility?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0851 hrs
RS:
So Jay allegedly loves liberty but believes that any agreement a government enters into can basically be walked away from unilaterally if voters decide they don’t like it. His version of liberty apparently includes the freedom to ignore one’s legally established commitments.
I think the only “agreements”(consent of two parties) the people are entering into are to allow elected persons to represent them in matters concerning the operation of their communities. Rarely if ever are the people consulted, or allowed to vote concerning politicians compensation, and this seems to be the only job where the employee gets to give themselves raises and benefits. We’ve seen where this leads, (Ament) and the greater majority of politicians are not ethical powerhouses. The citizenry needs protection from these parasites, or they will eventually rise up against them.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 0900 hrs
The citizenry needs protection from these parasites, or they will eventually rise up against them.
But didn’t the citizenry willingly give up some of this protection when they voted to become a charter city just a few years ago? (See RS post on the topic above). Presumably there were of advantages in California to being a charter city and being freed from the restrictions and protections of California laws of governance. Certainly one can always argue that the voters were misled or something, but really knowing that would require quite a bit more information that likely would be difficult to come by right now. I find it fairly compelling that the people gave their consent for this sort of thing when they voted for to become a charter city.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 22, 2010 at 1226 hrs
It is your right and your responsibility to vote. If you don’t, you have shirked your responsibility, not gained some right of dissent
I disagree partly. A right yes. A responsibility? No. You cannot create something like voting and then claim I have a responsibility to do it. You cannot offer up two piles of crap and then claim I have a responsibility to pick one of them. I choose neither….where does that vote go? Is there a NOTA column I’m unaware of?
The only true responsibility anyone has is to themselves and their family/loved ones. I have no responsibility to participate in popularity contests in which I have no interest in the contestants. I may participate if I chose, but I am under no obligation to do so.
It is a dissent in a way. Since there’s no NOTA column on the ballot my non-vote is a vote for None Of The Above.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 22, 2010 at 1541 hrs
Back on topic….
The parasite government person is also eligible for $30 MILLION in pension payments for his retirement. I’m sure the town of 38,000 can easily afford to pay not only the $800,000 salary, but the $30 MILLION in retirement benefits as well.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 22, 2010 at 1940 hrs
Forgot the link
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66K6BX20100721
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 22, 2010 at 1942 hrs
Jay,
I understand completely where you are coming from (I have voted Rep once in my life and Dem never). However, where you are born and how you may feel about your Government does not absolve you of responsibilities that your nation has granted. If you are born under a Monarchy, you are ultimately responsible to the King for all of your actions.You cannot create something like voting and then claim I have a responsibility to do it. You cannot offer up two piles of crap and then claim I have a responsibility to pick one of them. I choose neither….where does that vote go?...
You have talked about, but apparently not realized option 3 from your example above. You have a responsibility to your Government to follow its laws unless you believe “whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it” . The constitution grants us the right to vote and the right to abolish any Government that seizes to follow the guidelines it has set forth. It is our responsibility to protect our own rights if/when the Government attempts to take them away. It is not anarchy to preach a Government overhaul, it is our right.
I use the term responsibility because of the way rights are spoken of in the constitution. If we do not treat protecting our rights as a responsibility, then there is nothing to stop any Government from taking them away.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 0918 hrs
I understand where you’re coming from. Right and Responsibilities can be two sides of the same coin. I just resent being told I have a responsibility to someone or something when I have no interest in them nor do I think anyone is born with a responsibility to anyone else. It’s philosophy and semantics at this point and something I’m sure we’ll never agree on.
Many people say not voting is not being responsible but I disagree. If you gave me an option to vote for None of the Above, then maybe I’d spend the time to go do it. The choices between the usual republican and democrat candidates that I see do not interest me so I don’t bother to vote.
It was fun the last few times I did vote. I wrote myself in for everything. Judge, Mayor, City Rep, DA, Sheriff (all unopposed races 4 years ago, not much to vote FOR in that one). I’ll bet they just tossed my ballot in the garbage though, so that’s why I no longer bother.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 23, 2010 at 0937 hrs
I guess the constituents made their point, three of the elected officials have tentatively resigned. Not that it makes a big difference seeing as how they will still keep their lucrative retirement packages they can collect at age 55. I believe Mr. Rizzo stands to collect $660.000.00 per year.
What a deal for these tax payers!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1238 hrs
I guess the constituents made their point, three of the elected officials have tentatively resigned
But what about the roads?!?! We can’t have roads without overpaid government bureaucrats filling out paper work!
Stupid crackers that don’t want to pay taxes to poor inner city children.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 23, 2010 at 1321 hrs
I don’t think we really disagree on the subject in any case and I think you know my point.
It is all philosophy(or just sophistry) if no one ever starts a process so if that is a responsibility, I am shirking it too. If there were a Dem for Prez, a Rep. for Prez and one other option that listed ‘Restart Government’, I would readily vote ‘Restart Government’. I wonder how well it would do.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on July 23, 2010 at 1509 hrs
If there were a Dem for Prez, a Rep. for Prez and one other option that listed ‘Restart Government’, I would readily vote ‘Restart Government’. I wonder how well it would do.
It would get it’s usual .5% - 1%, call that a victory that it’s message got out and then send you numerous fundraising letters claiming if you don’t help them now they’ll go bankrupt!
Oh wait I just described the Libertarian Party.
Posted by Jay4Liberty on July 23, 2010 at 1608 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134054
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 01:25 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 100
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 01:55 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).