Category Archives: Los Angeles City Government

Los Angeles City Government, Public Records Act Pragmatics

In 1983 Public Opposition To The LAPD Political Espionage Unit — Public Disorder Intelligence Division — Was Strong Enough That The Police Commission Dissolved It — And Then-CD5 Repster Zev Yaroslavsky — One Of The Politicians Spied On By LAPD — Sponsored An Ordinance Which Excluded PDID Intelligence Files From The Much-Hated Investigative Exemption — Which Means All Of Them Must Be Released On Request! — Unless They’re Exempt For Other Reasons Than Investigative — But Even More Interesting — Maybe One Of The Most Interesting Things About The Los Angeles Administrative Code — Is That Yaroslavsky Specifically Precluded LAPD From Making A Burdensomeness Exemption Claim — Which Says That In 1983 LAPD Was Making Exactly The Same Kinds Of Bogus Exemption Claims They Love So Much Now — But Not About These Spy Records!!

Leave a comment

There is a lot of interesting stuff in the Los Angeles City Charter! And I didn’t realize it before, but the same is true of the Los Angeles Administrative Code! It turns out that the LAAC includes a local version of the California Public Records Act. This differs here and there from State law, and some of the differences are really interesting.

Let’s take a look at LAAC §12.21. This is the local version of CPRA §6254, which is the main list of exemptions. The infamous §6254(f) is the so-called investigative exemption, which basically allows the cops1 to refuse to release any records which can properly be described as “investigatory or security files.” And the local LA version, found at LAAC §12.21(f), is roughly the same albeit localized.

With at one exceedingly important exception! But before that, some background! The LAPD Public Disorder Intelligence Division was established by Chief Edward Davis in 1970, apparently as a reaction to the Watts Uprising in 1965. The PDID infiltrated hundreds of progressive political groups and also spied on electeds from the Mayor to the City Council.2 According to historian Max Felker-Kanter:3
The PDID operated as an updated Red Squad gathering “practically all” information on “potential threats” and storing as much information as possible. It was, in other words, a comprehensive surveillance program that significantly expanded the department’s intelligence operations.

Continue reading In 1983 Public Opposition To The LAPD Political Espionage Unit — Public Disorder Intelligence Division — Was Strong Enough That The Police Commission Dissolved It — And Then-CD5 Repster Zev Yaroslavsky — One Of The Politicians Spied On By LAPD — Sponsored An Ordinance Which Excluded PDID Intelligence Files From The Much-Hated Investigative Exemption — Which Means All Of Them Must Be Released On Request! — Unless They’re Exempt For Other Reasons Than Investigative — But Even More Interesting — Maybe One Of The Most Interesting Things About The Los Angeles Administrative Code — Is That Yaroslavsky Specifically Precluded LAPD From Making A Burdensomeness Exemption Claim — Which Says That In 1983 LAPD Was Making Exactly The Same Kinds Of Bogus Exemption Claims They Love So Much Now — But Not About These Spy Records!! →

Share
LAUSD

The California Department Of Education Released Its 2020 List Of School Rankings — And AB1505 — One Of Last Year’s Charter-Control Measures — Requires LAUSD To Revoke Charters Of Any School Ranked Low Performing Two Years In A Row — The List Contains 22 LAUSD-Authorized Schools Ranked Low Performing — Which Means They Are Halfway To Mandatory Dissolution — Big Names On The List Include KIPP — Animo — Para Los Ninos — Magnolia — Convicted Felon Ref Rodriguez’s Baby PUC — And Many Many More — Schadenfreude Much??!

Leave a comment

One of the key components of last year’s AB1505, which modified the California law authorizing the existence of charter schools, is a requirement that chartering authorities must revoke the charters of any schools ranked “low performing” by the California Department of Education for two years in a row.4 The CDE released its rankings last month,5 and twenty-two of LAUSD-authorized charters ranked “low performing.”

If any one of these 22 schools ranks low next year LAUSD must revoke their charters. The California Charter School Association famously picks a few very low-performing schools each year and publicly advocates at LAUSD meetings for their revocation. This is a very, very friendly process the point of which is pure propaganda. The difference here is that no one’s asking CCSA’s opinion and there’s no opportunity for CCSA to spin this in their favor.

And these aren’t just a bunch of random unheard-of charter schools, either. Many of them are run by big name charter management organizations like KIPP, Animo, PUC, Para Los Ninos, and Magnolia. For extra schadenfreude, many of these schools are run by some of the most vocal privatizers, who will go on and on and on without evidence about their educational superpowers. Here’s a list of all 22 of the LAUSD-authorized charters that are halfway to their mandatory charter revocations. A bunch of these are sure to go down next year, so let’s keep watching!
Continue reading The California Department Of Education Released Its 2020 List Of School Rankings — And AB1505 — One Of Last Year’s Charter-Control Measures — Requires LAUSD To Revoke Charters Of Any School Ranked Low Performing Two Years In A Row — The List Contains 22 LAUSD-Authorized Schools Ranked Low Performing — Which Means They Are Halfway To Mandatory Dissolution — Big Names On The List Include KIPP — Animo — Para Los Ninos — Magnolia — Convicted Felon Ref Rodriguez’s Baby PUC — And Many Many More — Schadenfreude Much??! →

Share
LAPD, Public Records Act Pragmatics

Michel Moore Sent Me A Really Aggressive Letter — Saying That I Ask For Too Many Records — And They Can’t Understand My Requests — Because I Intentionally Make Them Impossible To Understand — And Moore Reads My Blog! — And Doesn’t Understand What He’s Reading! — Or Pretends Not To — And Throws My Own Words Back At Me — The Ones That Don’t Say What He Apparently Thinks Or Pretends To Think They Say —And Yet In 2012 When Some USC Prof Asked LAPD For 762,000 Pages — Yes — You Read That Right — LAPD Was All Like Sure Thing Herr Doctor Professor! — Is 6,000 Pages A Week OK With You Good Sir? — And A Quick Calculation Reveals That All My Requests To The City Probably Don’t Total This Much — And I Don’t Work At USC — So No Records For Me!

Leave a comment

You want to know how angry the LAPD is at me? Well, they are so angry that Chief Michel Moore, who apparently reads my blog obsessively but fails to understand most of it, wrote me a really aggressive, really disrespectful letter about how freaking mean I am to everybody and they’re not going to work very hard on my requests for public records going forward.6 No, really, read the letter! Cut through all the nonsense in there and all it really says is that they’re going to continue not filling my requests and lying about the reasons. But of course they’re doing that anyway, so it’s not much of a threat.

But let’s talk about why Moore is so angry at me! Start with the quality of my requests, and remember, this is Los Angeles Police Department Chief Michel Moore speaking: you frequently submit CPRA requests to the Department that are complex, vague, and/or overbroad, which create considerable burdens for the Department, and which significantly constrain the ability of some of the Department’s staff to fulfill their other work responsibilities and efficiently serve other members of the public.

This is interesting, because much of what he says is wrong. Some of it’s actually incredibly deceptive. First of all, I never write vague requests. I just don’t. What would be the point? Second, my requests are not overbroad, a word which in any case does not have an objective meaning in relation to the CPRA. Finally, it’s possible that some of my requests are complex, although I doubt it. I can’t think of any that aren’t straightforward.
Continue reading Michel Moore Sent Me A Really Aggressive Letter — Saying That I Ask For Too Many Records — And They Can’t Understand My Requests — Because I Intentionally Make Them Impossible To Understand — And Moore Reads My Blog! — And Doesn’t Understand What He’s Reading! — Or Pretends Not To — And Throws My Own Words Back At Me — The Ones That Don’t Say What He Apparently Thinks Or Pretends To Think They Say —And Yet In 2012 When Some USC Prof Asked LAPD For 762,000 Pages — Yes — You Read That Right — LAPD Was All Like Sure Thing Herr Doctor Professor! — Is 6,000 Pages A Week OK With You Good Sir? — And A Quick Calculation Reveals That All My Requests To The City Probably Don’t Total This Much — And I Don’t Work At USC — So No Records For Me! →

Share
LAUSD

Walmart Gave $325K To Waldorf Infused Gentrification Enabling Charter Conspiracy El Rio Community School — Just Dropped It In Their Checking Account Like A Bomb — Blowing Public Schools To Smithereens Three Hundred And Twenty Five Thousand At A Time

Leave a comment

It’s apparently pretty well known that the Walmart Foundation7 gives big ass grants to charter schools as part of their general project of undermining civil society.8 And it turns out they’re handing them out right here in Los Angeles!

Consider the case of the Waldorf-infused gentrification charter known as El Rio Community School. I recently obtained copies of their recent bank statements and right there in November 2019 you can see that big old Walmart Family deposit, just BAM! Straight into the checking account! Or see image below!!
Continue reading Walmart Gave $325K To Waldorf Infused Gentrification Enabling Charter Conspiracy El Rio Community School — Just Dropped It In Their Checking Account Like A Bomb — Blowing Public Schools To Smithereens Three Hundred And Twenty Five Thousand At A Time →

Share
Homeless Issues, Los Angeles City Council, Los Angeles City Government

A Brief Discussion Of How Homeless Encampment Sweeps Are Scheduled In The City Of Los Angeles — Or At Least Part Of The Process — The Whole Thing Is Driven By Housedweller Complaints — Filtered Through Council Districts As Political Patronage — LAHSA Involvement — Every Kind Of Outreach — Is Basically A Cover For Relocation — The Only Actual Goal

Leave a comment

A couple days ago it came out on Twitter that a lot of people in Los Angeles don’t understand how homeless encampment sweeps get scheduled and why, in particular how encampments to be swept are chosen. I promised to write a post about it, and here we are!9 Part of the reason for the delay is that the story is really complex, so I’m just going to talk qualitatively about how encampments end up being targeted by Council Districts and leave the rest for another post or two.10 For instance, the City has two kinds of sweep teams, which are CARE and CARE+, but I’m not going to talk about the differences,11 which are probably important, but not for this post.

Each Council Office has a staffer whose job is to work out their District’s sweep schedule with LA Sanitation. I think that ordinarily every request for a sweep in a given District goes through this San contact.12 The scheduling is done by email as well as by editing Google Docs, and the emails occasionally reveal the reason a given encampment is being targeted. Here are the sets of records this post is mostly13 based on. If you’re interested in the subject it’s really worth looking at these. There’s a lot more information there than I’m using here:

⬟ Some 2020 Emails Between CDs and LA San

⬟ Housedweller Complaints to Juan Fregoso About Echo Park Encampments — From 2019 and 2020

⬟ CD15 Emails With LA Sanitation — January through May 2020
Continue reading A Brief Discussion Of How Homeless Encampment Sweeps Are Scheduled In The City Of Los Angeles — Or At Least Part Of The Process — The Whole Thing Is Driven By Housedweller Complaints — Filtered Through Council Districts As Political Patronage — LAHSA Involvement — Every Kind Of Outreach — Is Basically A Cover For Relocation — The Only Actual Goal →

Share
LAPD, Municipal Ethics, Public Records Act Pragmatics

I Asked LAPD For Copies Of Their Official Podcast — LAPD Discovery Boss Kris Tu Refused To Hand Them Over — And Then Made Up A Bunch Of Obvious Lies About Why He Could Not Produce And Was Not Required To — And Then Told Me Actually He Could Produce Two Of Them — But I Would Have To Pay Five Dollars For A CD — Which He Would Mail To Me Or I Could Pick It Up In Person — All Of Which Is Not Only A Violation Of The CPRA — But Also Of The Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Laws — So I Filed A Complaint Against Him With The City Ethics Commission — And Also With His LAPD Supervisor — I Am Hoping That Such Complaints Will End Up Being An Alternate CPRA Enforcement Mechanism In The City Of Los Angeles

Leave a comment

UPDATE: This story is about my attempt to get copies of 24 episodes of an LAPD podcast. LAPD has so far refused to produce them to me but I independently found a way to download them from the Department’s podcast host. I uploaded all 24 to the Internet Archive and you can get copies at this link.

This is a story about two things. First, yet another instance of the Los Angeles Police Department violating the California Public Records Act in yet another completely novel way.14 Second, about a new tactic I thought of to enforce CPRA compliance by the City of Los Angeles in general and LAPD in particular, that I am trying out for the first time.

The idea is that some of the City’s violations of the CPRA are specifically designed to hinder me personally and that this is a violation of LAMC 49.5.5, which forbids misuse of official position to create a private disadvantage. On Friday, July 31, 2020, I filed a complaint against LAPD Discovery supervisor Kris Tu on this basis. Read on for details!
Continue reading I Asked LAPD For Copies Of Their Official Podcast — LAPD Discovery Boss Kris Tu Refused To Hand Them Over — And Then Made Up A Bunch Of Obvious Lies About Why He Could Not Produce And Was Not Required To — And Then Told Me Actually He Could Produce Two Of Them — But I Would Have To Pay Five Dollars For A CD — Which He Would Mail To Me Or I Could Pick It Up In Person — All Of Which Is Not Only A Violation Of The CPRA — But Also Of The Los Angeles Governmental Ethics Laws — So I Filed A Complaint Against Him With The City Ethics Commission — And Also With His LAPD Supervisor — I Am Hoping That Such Complaints Will End Up Being An Alternate CPRA Enforcement Mechanism In The City Of Los Angeles →

Share
Lawsuits, Los Angeles City Government, Public Records Act Pragmatics

I Have Been Forced Yet Again To File A Petition Against The City Of Los Angeles To Enforce The California Public Records Act — The Bureau Of Street Services Refuses To Release Emails About Those Illegal Anti-Homeless Planters — Which I Have Been Waiting On For Well Over A Year

1 Comment

Starting in 2018 gangs of astonishingly unhinged and utterly psychopathic housedwellers and some owners of commercial property began installing anti-homeless planters illegally on the streets of Los Angeles, aided, abetted, and assisted in their outlawry by City Council offices and LAPD officers. By April 2019 I had learned that not only were the planters illegal but that the City requires permits for placing structures or large objects on public sidewalks, none of which had been issued for these planters. So, via the California Public Records Act, I began asking for records.

In particular I asked for emails between BSS investigators and various CD11 staff. Later I also asked for copies of all citations issued by BSS from January 1, 2016 on for unpermitted planters and other structures placed on sidewalks. And after the usual months-long fruitless exchange of emails between me and BSS investigator Temo Llanes, filled with lies, errors, deceptions, and broken promises, the City of LA stopped responding to me at all. Hence the suit. Which you can get a copy of here if you are interested and there’s a transcription below. Stay, of course, tuned for more info!
Continue reading I Have Been Forced Yet Again To File A Petition Against The City Of Los Angeles To Enforce The California Public Records Act — The Bureau Of Street Services Refuses To Release Emails About Those Illegal Anti-Homeless Planters — Which I Have Been Waiting On For Well Over A Year →

Share
Business Improvement Districts, Los Angeles City Government

It Appears That The Chinatown Business Improvement District Has Failed To Gain Sufficient Support For Its Scheduled 2021 Renewal And Will Cease All Operations On December 31, 2020

Leave a comment

I would like to thank volunteers from Chinatown Community for Equitable Development for calling my attention to the monumental significance of these records.

Based on a set of records I recently obtained from the Los Angeles City Clerk’s office, it appears that the Chinatown Business Improvement District has failed to gain sufficient support for its scheduled 2021 renewal and will cease to exist on December 31, 2020. On June 8, 2020 the Clerk sent a letter to the BID’s executive director, the famously unhinged George Yu, informing him of the pending expiration:

June 8, 2020
George Yu, President
Los Angeles Chinatown Business Council, Inc.
727 North Broadway, Suite 208
Los Angeles, CA 90012

Dear Mr. Yu:

The Greater Chinatown Business Improvement District (Chinatown BID) will expire on December 31, 2020 and must cease all BID operations after that date. The Office of the City Clerk is requesting a letter indicating the intention of the BID to renew or expire. If it is the BID’s intention to expire and not renew, this Office will require the following:

1. A letter from the Board President indicating intent to allow the BID to expire.

2. An inventory of all assets currently held by the Chinatown BID.

3. A timeline for winding down the Chinatown BID and an estimate of the associated costs.

Additionally, in accordance with Section 10 of Contract No. C-118431 between the City of Los Angeles and the Los Angeles Chinatown Business Council, Incorporated, all remaining revenues of the District, after all outstanding debts have been paid, derived from the levy of assessments, or derived from the sale of assets acquired with the revenues, shall be refunded to property owners in the manner described in Division 6, Chapter 9, Section 6.619 of the Los Angeles Administrative Code.

If you have any questions, please contact Eugene Van Cise of my staff at (213) 675-2960.

Sincerely,

Patrice Y. Lattimore, Chief
Business Improvement District Division
Office of the City Clerk
PYL:CG:RKS:ev

c: Honorable Gilbert Cedillo, Councilmember, District 1

Continue reading It Appears That The Chinatown Business Improvement District Has Failed To Gain Sufficient Support For Its Scheduled 2021 Renewal And Will Cease All Operations On December 31, 2020 →

Share
Business Improvement Districts, Los Angeles City Government, Venice Beach BID

Here’s Actual Proof That Los Angeles City Clerk Holly Wolcott Is Refusing To Sign BID Establishment Petitions For LA City Property Until Half The Other Property Owners In The Proposed District Have Signed — This Is Not Exactly A Policy But Her “Preference” — According To Clerk Staff Anyway — Also See The Extraordinary Petulance Of Gil Cedillo’s Weirdo Flunky Jose Rodriguez When He Learns About It — And Turns Around And Covertly Threatens Clerk Staffer Rick Scott For Bearing The Bad News

Leave a comment

This is a quick update on a technical but highly consequential issue regarding City of Los Angeles property included in business improvement districts. The state law is very clear that BID assessments apply equally to public property, which means that the City of LA gets to vote on BID formation and renewal. Furthermore, in 1996, when the modern era of California BIDs began, the City Council told the City Clerk to always vote yes unless specifically directed otherwise.

Which of course led BID proponents to include as much City property as possible within their boundaries since it made establishment very significantly easier given the guaranteed favorable votes from the City. This strategy reached a hitherto unseen level of absurdity in 2016 with the Venice Beach BID establishment process, in which City property constituted 25.05% of the assessed value and the non-City property owners who signed pro-BID petitions for only 27.26%. The BID would never have been established without the automatic yes from the City.

This already absurd outcome was surpassed in 2017 with the renewal of the San Pedro Historic Waterfront BID. The proponents in that case included huge tracts of essentially empty parcels belonging to the Port of Los Angeles. They brought the City’s proportion of assessed value to 37.24%, which left only 26.04% non-City property owners in favor of the BID. The case of the San Pedro BID seems not to have been widely noticed at the time, but of course the outcry over the Venice Beach BID was monumental, and the City’s role in ensuring its existence was discussed at great length.

It hadn’t been clear exactly what was going on, but something regarding the voting of City property changed over at the City Clerk’s office after the San Pedro BID fiasco. I first heard about it in 2018 in relation to the Byzantine Latino Quarter BID when Donald Duckworth, BIDdological freak show specimen and BID establishment consultant, told his clients that the City of Los Angeles would no longer vote its petitions in favor of formation until 50% of the private property owners had already voted in favor.

As we’ve seen above, this would be a major change. If this policy had been in place in 2016 neither the Venice Beach BID nor the San Pedro Historic Waterfront BID would exist. But Duckworth is a liar and a fabulist and exceedingly unreliable, so while his testimony did in fact convince me that something was happening, it’s not really safe to assume that he’s telling his clients the full story or even accurately relating part of it.
Continue reading Here’s Actual Proof That Los Angeles City Clerk Holly Wolcott Is Refusing To Sign BID Establishment Petitions For LA City Property Until Half The Other Property Owners In The Proposed District Have Signed — This Is Not Exactly A Policy But Her “Preference” — According To Clerk Staff Anyway — Also See The Extraordinary Petulance Of Gil Cedillo’s Weirdo Flunky Jose Rodriguez When He Learns About It — And Turns Around And Covertly Threatens Clerk Staffer Rick Scott For Bearing The Bad News →

Share
Los Angeles City Government

Today I Was Forced By The Weirdly Parochial Outlaw Intransigence Of DLANC President For Life Patricia X. Berman To File A Grievance With The Department Of Neighborhood Empowerment — Not Against Berman Even Though She And Only She Is The Violator — Because DONE Doesn’t Accept Grievances Against Individuals — Only Against Entire Neighborhood Councils — Because I Asked DLANC Secretary Claudia Oliveira To Put Me On An Agenda To Talk About Berman’s Absolutely Shameless Flouting Of The Public Records Act — And The Bylaws Require Such Requests From Stakeholders To Be Honored — But Berman Refused — And Said I Would Have To Submit My Proposed Statement For Vetting — She Said She Would “Send It To Legal” — Which Suggests That She’s Either Lost Her Mind — Or Watched Too Damn Many Movies And Forgot That Not All Of Them Were Documentaries — Or Both Of Course — Which Seems More Likely

Leave a comment

This story is in some sense about the absolutely intransigent refusal of Patti Berman, president for life of the Downtown Los Angeles Neighborhood Council,15 to comply with the California Public Records Act. I’ll spare you the details of her violations for now,16 but they’re weird, unnecessary, and secretive. And she leads other board members into violating the law by rephrasing requests so that they can’t actually comply. It’s really bad, and DLANC records are really important,17 not least because they violate the Brown Act all the damn time, often18 via email.

But DLANC matters to me, and it has since they went to such horrific lengths to scuttle the Skid Row Neighborhood Council formation effort. So it occurred to me that, rather than moving straight to yet another lawsuit against the City of Los Angeles, I might give a presentation to the DLANC Board on Berman’s violations, on how she induced violations from other members, and some suggestions on how to comply with the law while also significantly reducing the work and time involved in responding to requests.19 Continue reading Today I Was Forced By The Weirdly Parochial Outlaw Intransigence Of DLANC President For Life Patricia X. Berman To File A Grievance With The Department Of Neighborhood Empowerment — Not Against Berman Even Though She And Only She Is The Violator — Because DONE Doesn’t Accept Grievances Against Individuals — Only Against Entire Neighborhood Councils — Because I Asked DLANC Secretary Claudia Oliveira To Put Me On An Agenda To Talk About Berman’s Absolutely Shameless Flouting Of The Public Records Act — And The Bylaws Require Such Requests From Stakeholders To Be Honored — But Berman Refused — And Said I Would Have To Submit My Proposed Statement For Vetting — She Said She Would “Send It To Legal” — Which Suggests That She’s Either Lost Her Mind — Or Watched Too Damn Many Movies And Forgot That Not All Of Them Were Documentaries — Or Both Of Course — Which Seems More Likely →

Share