Some Raw Data Behind The LA Times Story About Amy Wakeland Vengefully Stalling Payments To Jackie Goldberg As Payback For Goldberg’s 2019 Criticisms Of Wakeland’s Ties To The Charter School Industry — Copies Of The City’s Contracts With Goldberg — Copies Of Goldberg’s Invoices To The City Of LA — Which Include Various Signatures Approving Payments — I Can’t See A Smoking Gun Here But I Can’t See The Absence Of One Either — But I’m Bad At This — And Maybe You’re Better?!

A perspicacious reader analyzed the data presented here and summarized it in this chart, which shows quite clearly that there was a significant delay in paying Goldberg in early 2019, which is precisely the time we’d expect if Amy Wakeland did withhold money from Goldberg in revenge.

The other day the LA Times ran a huge story on Mayoral Consort Amy Wakeland and her various putatively charming quirks and Borgialities.1 And there, among the parade of horribles,2 was this story about Wakeland, Heather Repenning, and Jackie Goldberg:

One L.A. politician learned there could be a cost, quite literally, to getting on Wakeland’s bad side.

The conflict grew out of the 2019 school board race in which Garcetti and Wakeland backed his longtime aide, Heather Repenning, against Jackie Goldberg. A Los Angeles political mainstay, Goldberg told one campaign forum that she believed Wakeland, and therefore Repenning, had ties to charter schools, which she blamed for siphoning money from traditional public campuses.

Not long after Goldberg offered that critique, her pay — as the head of a Garcetti-backed program to hire more disadvantaged residents into city jobs — stopped for several weeks.

Goldberg was told by a member of the mayor’s staff that if she wanted to receive a $10,000 payment due to her, she should apologize to Wakeland for her campaign comments, according to a source familiar with the situation. Goldberg made the apology to Wakeland and, not long afterward, the city issued Goldberg her $10,000, said the source, who declined to be named out of fear of angering Wakeland and Garcetti.

Goldberg confirmed the source’s account but declined to provide additional details.

This is totally believable, of course. But very light on those details that Goldberg declined to provide. So I set out to find some! First of all, here’s the contract that Goldberg was paid under, along with some amendments:

Contract C-127980 — June 2016 between Goldberg and the Personnel Department for “personal services” having to do with her consulting about the Workforce Strategic Plan.
Contract C-127980 Amended & Restated — June 2017 reworking of the contract.
C-127980 Amended & Restated — June 2017 Second Amended & Restated version.
C-127980 Amended & Restated — May 2019 Third Amended & Restated version.

But this isn’t enough to figure out what that Times article was talking about. We also need records of payments under the contract, and for some reason the Controller’s office gave these to me very rapidly.3 So here they all are, these are invoices from Goldberg to the City, marked up by City staff. There does seem to be something unusual happening in 2019, but I can’t figure out what it is exactly. Maybe you can?! Also, if it’s easier, you can get the whole set via bittorrent.

Check #300651011-S14KONICAC516031715390.pdf

Check #300651011-S14KONICAC516031715390_text.pdf

Check #300684261-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2016-01_02.pdf

Check #300684261-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2016-01_02_text.pdf

Check #300695721-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2016-03.pdf

Check #300695721-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2016-03_text.pdf

Check #300730769-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2017-01.pdf

Check #300730769-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2017-01_text.pdf

Check #300761207- J GOLDBERG INV_ 2017-02.pdf

Check #300761207- J GOLDBERG INV_ 2017-02_text.pdf

Check#300711596- J GOLDBERG INV_ 2016-04.pdf

Check#300711596- J GOLDBERG INV_ 2016-04_text.pdf

EFT # 201810103160577-J GOLDBERG 1910066J030.pdf

EFT # 201810103160577-J GOLDBERG 1910066J030_text.pdf

EFT #201801103151677- J GOLDBERG INV_ 2017-04.pdf

EFT #201801103151677- J GOLDBERG INV_ 2017-04_text.pdf

EFT #201804043154304-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2018-01.pdf

EFT #201804043154304-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2018-01_text.pdf

EFT #201807183157990-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2018-02.pdf

EFT #201807183157990-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2018-02_text.pdf

EFT #201906123170186- J GOLDBERG 1910066J097.pdf

EFT #201906123170186- J GOLDBERG 1910066J097_text.pdf

EFT#201901163163998- J GOLDBERG 1910066J062.pdf

EFT#201901163163998- J GOLDBERG 1910066J062_text.pdf

check #300790040- J GOLDBERG INV_ 2017-03.pdf

check #300790040- J GOLDBERG INV_ 2017-03_text.pdf

check# 300790040-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2017-03 WC MEMO.pdf

check# 300790040-J GOLDBERG INV_ 2017-03 WC MEMO_text.pdf

payments_to_jackie_goldberg.pdf

  1. The quality of being like a Borgia in various salient but unlisted aspects.
  2. In this case the people are the horribles and they already happened to us, unlike the traditionally hypothetical parades of horribles so beloved of practical rhetoricians. E.g. ‘if you adopt that particular course of action I foresee a future in which those subjected to its merciless draconian requirements will soon be forced to climb out the window, head down to the Boardwalk, fall in with the wrong crowd, get arrested for smoking weed on top of one of those little pavilion things, and will have to be bailed out to the tune of about $5,000 each which is why I must recommend against your proposed “go to your goddamned room and don’t come out until Tuesday” policy, Mom.’
  3. Unjustified levels of paranoia aren’t possible when it comes to the City of Los Angeles and its appalling CPRA shenanigans. They’re worse than you think, no matter how bad you think they are. Heck, they’re worse than I think, which is also worse than you think and about as bad as it gets. They. Are. Very. Bad.
Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.