Although many folks don’t realize it, we have an election coming up in the City of Los Angeles. It covers about half of the council districts, some community college positions, and a number of city measures significant for financial purposes. I took a few minutes this morning to go over my sample ballot. Here’s my current thinking—as always, you are free to convince me otherwise:
- Council District 12: Currently the district is represented by Grieg Smith, who is retiring to go teach. Smith has done a reasonable job. There are six candidates vying for the open seat: Dinesh “Danny” Lakhanpal, Kelly M. Lord Jr, Brad Smith, Navraj “Singh” Singh, Armineh Chelebian, and Michell Englander. Englander is the front-runner, being Greig Smith’s deputy and having garnered a significant number of endorsements. To research, I read an LA Times interview with the candidates, a number of Daily News interviews (Lakhanpal, Lord, Smith, Singh, Chelebian, Englander), and reviewed the candidate’s web sites. Most of the candidates seemed to be saying the same things, so I focused initially on how effectively they said it. This narrowed the field to two candidates: Englander and Smith. Englander has the endorsements and has been effectively annoited; he knows how to deal with council but is also tainted by that association. Smith is more of a novice, but has good ideas. Both are local boys. Englander has more involvement with the LAPD; Smith is more neighborhood council. After looking at each’s positions on the issues (Englander, Smith), I think I’m coming down on the side of Smith. He’s emphasizing toning down development, looks to be someone who will cut more expenses, and most importantly, appears to have more of a valley focus.
Current leaning: Brad Smith
- LA Unified School Board, 3rd District: This is a battle between Tamar Galatzan (incumbant) and Louis Pugliese. Galatzan has done a good job on the board, but does have desires for higher office. Pugliese is a serial candidate for the school board, continually running and losing. Galatzan has a serious websites; Pugliese’s is a personal site off of Earthlink. However, his site has more issues discussed. Still, Pugliese just doesn’t connect with me, and I like what Galatzan has done and her attempt towards independence. Still, I wish I saw more of a focus on Valley schools and innovative ideas to save programs, address science and math education, and improve teacher quality.
Current Leaning: Tamar Galatzan
- Los Angeles Community College District:: Truthfully, I don’t care much about these positions. I guess I’d be more concerned if community college was really in my child’s future, but it isn’t. However, I did find a good article on the board in the Topanga Messenger… and well-timed, a story in the LA Times about massive waste in the community college district. No papers have issued endorsements on these races yet. KPCC 89.3 had the most information on each candidate.
Current Leanings: Jozef “Joe” Thomas Essavi (Seat #1), Joyce Burrell Garcia (Seat #3), Nicole M. Chase (Seat #5), and Erick Aguirre (Seat #7).
- Measure G: Fire/Police Pension Plan (Ballotpedia). This creates a new lower pension tier for new police and fire hires, but doesn’t adjust the pensions of existing officers. It is endorsed by both the Daily News and the LA Times, as well as the League of Woman Voters.
Current Leaning: Yes.
- Measure H: Contract Bidder Campaign Contribution and Fundraising Restrictions (Ballotpedia). This measure bans campaign contributions to candidates running for city offices from individuals who have bid or are bidding for city contracts of $100,000 or more. Daily News opposes; LA Times and the League of Women Voters support. A bunch of council members are opposed—no surprise there.
Current Leaning: Yes.
- Measure I: DWP Office of Public Accountability/Ratepayer Advocate (Ballotpedia). Creates the position of an executive director for an office of accountability to function as an advocate for DWP customers. Endorsed by the Daily News and LA Times. Opposed by VICA.
Current Leaning: Yes.
- Measure J: DWP Surplus Transfers to City Reserve Fund (Ballotpedia). Requires the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power to propose its annual budget earlier in the year. Supposedly established procedures for making surplus transfers, although those might be affected by Prop 26. Endorsed by the Daily News and LA Times. No opposition.
Current Leaning: Yes.
- Measure K: Governance for DWP: Didn’t qualify for the ballot.
- Measure L: Public Library Funding (Ballotpedia). Reassigns funds from the city’s general operating budget to the library system. Supported by Councilcritters LaBonge and Parks. Opposed by the Daily News, LA Times, and the League of Women Voters. I tend to agree with the opposition: much as I like libraries, this is not the way to fund them. It will only hurt the city in the long run.
Current Leaning: No.
- Measure M: Taxation of Medical Marijuana (Ballotpedia). Establish a City business tax rate for medical marijuana collectives of $50 per $1,000 of gross receipts. Daily News and LA Times are against. This is questionably legal, and raises the question of taxing what are obstensibly non-profits. If we had commercial distribution, maybe. Otherwise, I don’t think so.
Current Leaning: No.
- Measure N: Campaign Finance (Ballotpedia). Removes unconstitutional finance provisions. Daily News and LA Times endorse; the League of Women Voters has no position. This looks like a technical correction to me.
Current Leaning: Yes.
- Measure O: Oil Production Tax (Ballotpedia). Requires oil producers to pay a tax to the City of Los Angeles of $1.44 for each barrel of oil extracted from land located in the city. Daily News and LA Times oppose. League of Women Voters supports. I think I’m against this, not because I think such a tax is a bad idea, but (a) I don’t like having the rate in the ordinance, and (b) we should establish a rate that is roughly the same as the cities nearby, not double the rate.
Current Leaning: No.
- Measure P: Contingency Reserve Account (Ballotpedia). Establishs for the city an emergency reserve fund that will amount to 2.75% of the city’s general fund, that can only be tapped in the event of fiscal emergency. No opposition. Daily News and LA Times support. I see no reason not to.
Current Leaning: Yes.
- Measure Q: Employment Provisions (Ballotpedia). Makes changes in the city’s rules governing civil service hiring, especially the rules that govern hiring of public safety employees: (1) expands the automatic civil service exemptions to include Deputy Chiefs of Fire; (2) limits the number of qualified applicants testing for civil service positions to an adequate number to prevent examinations of unnecessarily large candidate pools; (3) eliminates the requirement for certifying all eligible candidates for appointment to a civil service position when the candidates’ scores are not reachable or when no hiring is taking place; (4) clarifies and standardizes the probationary period for police officers to accurately reflect its application to sworn officers from the Airport, Harbor and General Services Departments; (5) increases the length of emergency appointments to no longer than one year; and (6) extends the amount of time retirees may work from 90 to 120 days without increasing pension benefits. Daily News and LA Times endorse; League of Women Voters opposes. The Leagues position seems to be based only on the changes to civil service exemptions. To me, this strikes as some measures that could help the city financially when it needs it.
Current Leaning: Yes.
For a mid-cycle election and city-only election, there’s a lot on this ballot. Sadly, far too many people are likely not to vote. Still, for those in the area and who remember to vote, I hope this analysis is useful. Comments are always welcome. Convince me why I’m wrong.
