ValleyVote Update for 8-12-01 |
We are sending you this E-mail as you have requested to be notified concerning ValleyVote
I am sending this as you should know about the Sircan virus. It infects your computer by opening files attached to emails from known contacts. Please Note, No attachments are ever sent with an update from ValleyVote.
Do not confuse an attachment with a hypertext link such as this link to our privacy statement http://www.ValleyVote.org/Privicy.htm as these are safe.
I have received back for several persons on this list E-mails attached with the virus. The attachment will be a document with a double extension for example filename.doc.pif
DO not attached open files from anyone unless you are expecting them. NEVER open double name extension Always have the file name option turned on. If you do not the "good" portion on the double extension with be turned off and the fact that it is doubled named will disappear.
To check on this go to - settings - control panel - folder options - view tab - Files and folders - Hide extensions box MUST NOT be checked
You should have a active a virus program such as Norton or Mcfee on at all time with the update set to check and down load new virus definitions every few days.
For more information on the Sircam Virus see
http://vil.mcafee.com/dispVirus.asp?virus_k=99141
THE only thing worse than a city government that gets nothing accomplished is a city government that gets nothing accomplished and spends a lot of money in the process. That, sadly, is the kind of city government we have in Los Angeles. It's leadership by blab and hope: If we blab enough about our city's problems, we can hope that they'll take care of themselves.
The fruits of that philosophy speak for themselves.
Six years ago, city leaders started blabbing about the crisis of escalating workers' compensation bills. It brought in pricey consultants who issued hefty reports. It held the occasional meeting to blab some more. Then, city leaders did nothing, and hoped that the crisis would simply disappear. Guess what? It didn't.
Only six months into the fiscal year, the city is already $10 million over budget for workers' compensation claims. By the end of the year, the total bill could reach $100 million. That marks a nearly one-third increase since 1997. This explosion in costs could have been avoided. In 1995, consultants from the firm of Johnson and Higgins proposed several reforms that they estimated would save the city $55 million.
Two years later, in 1997, Coopers & Lybrand studied the system again, and reported that the city had failed to implement many of Johnson and Higgins' suggestions.
In 1999 -- another two years later -- City Councilwomen Jackie Goldberg (who has moved on to the state Assembly) and Laura Chick (who wants to move on to the post of city controller) held a joint meeting of the council's Governmental Efficiency and Personnel committees to discuss the subject some more.
But did the council implement any effective reforms as a result of those hearings? Not really, admits Chick. Heaven forbid that officeholders in Los Angeles should expect anything more from city workers.
So another two years of government procrastination have passed -- that's now a total of six -- and the public can look forward to the squandering of tens of millions of dollars more that should be used to pave the streets and sidewalks, stop the sewage spills, provide for adequate police and fire services -- to name just a few of the city's many basic needs.
Once again, City Hall took the easy way out.
By avoiding the workers' comp mess, it never had to fight with the unions about public employee benefits.
It never had to confront the HMOs about skyrocketing medical costs.
It never had to invest in safer public workplaces.
It never had to track down malingerers.
It never had to make any tough decisions or risk any unpopular choices.
Instead, it did nothing.
Blab and hope failed to fix the problems in the workers' compensation system, just as it's done nothing to address any of the myriad other concerns that City Hall has long neglected. And when politicians ignore problems, taxpayers end up paying for them and getting nothing in return.
Again, it's little wonder that half the people in Los Angeles want to see what it would be like to have a city of their own instead of one owned by special interests.
By Alexa Haussler Staff Writer
Despite years of warnings about employee abuses and consultant studies on how to fix them, the city of Los Angeles' bill for workers' compensation claims has soared by nearly one-third since 1997, records show.
City officials -- including Mayor Richard Riordan and the City Council's top budget watchdog, Mike Feuer -- have been blind-sided by the skyrocketing cost of claims by employees hurt or sickened due to job-related factors, having budgeted for a modest increase believing they had gained a handle on the problem.
But halfway through the financial year ending June 30, the city already has had to funnel nearly $10 million extra into the workers' compensation fund. Officials hope to contain the final figure to $14 million more than budgeted -- a total of nearly $100 million.
"Unfortunately there seems to be some backsliding on workers' compensation reform and there's always room for improvement," said Jon Coupal, president of the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association. "If there are existing studies showing that greater efficiency can be obtained, then those efficiencies should be pursued as quickly as possible to prevent harmful effects on the taxpayers."
Two consultant reports since 1995 called for the city to overhaul its procedures for greater efficiency and cost savings add more staff to process and review claims faster and improve oversight and initiate programs to help workers return to work sooner.
But many of the reforms, which came on top of the state's overhaul of the system, have not been carried out.
In March 1995, the consulting firm Johnson and Higgins made several far-reaching reform suggestions that the firm estimated could save the city as much as $55 million.
In 1997, the consulting firm Coopers & Lybrand issued a study suggesting cost savings and stating that the city had made some improvements since the earlier study but that "the City has not fully implemented several suggested reforms and has been unable to exploit others."
Tab piling up
The increased workers' compensation tabs are piling up with other unexpected costs such as settlements of police scandal lawsuits and have prompted Riordan to urge city departments to step up efforts to contain costs.
Councilwoman Laura Chick, a candidate for city controller, has been in the forefront of calling for reforms and insists some real efforts have been made by city officials.
"When I have looked at how the city handles workers' compensation, I see here and there some good efforts on the part of good people," she said.
With former Councilwoman Jackie Goldberg -- now a member of the state Assembly -- Chick held a joint meeting of the council's Governmental Efficiency and Personnel committees in November 1999 at which they called for an aggressive program to improve worker safety programs and hold department heads responsible for reducing on-the-job injuries.
But even Chick admits that not enough has been done in more than a year's time.
"Overall, I see completely unsatisfactory progress made," Chick said. "We need to stop sitting on our hands, watching escalating costs from new trends, and saying `Golly gee, it's costing us more money, now what do we do?' "
Los Angeles poured $33.3 million into workers' compensation claims in the first four months of this fiscal year, which began July 1. If costs remain on that pace, the price tag will soar to nearly $100 million this budget year, higher than the $85.9 million budgeted.
Across industry lines, including government agencies across the state, workers' compensation costs are climbing. Experts attribute the rising costs to higher price tags for medical services and an increase in the number of services provided to each ill or injured worker.
Not more claims
Many businesses are struggling with increased premiums for workers' compensation insurance while government agencies, which generally are self-insured, are footing the rising bills themselves.
"In the end, those agencies and those companies that have good hiring and safety practices will not feel the burden of these benefit increases," said Sydney Kamlager, spokeswoman for the Employers Group, a nonprofit human resources organization.
Plus, state lawmakers have been grappling for several years with legislation to try to temper skyrocketing insurance premiums and medical costs.
Feuer, chairman of the City Council's Budget and Finance Committee, said the number of claims is not rising among city government employees, even though the cost per claim is increasing.
"The city is doing a better and better job every year of controlling worker-related accidents," Feuer said. "But there are factors beyond the city's control that are undermining our ability to keep costs under control even as we are keeping claims under control."
Deputy Mayor Peter Hidalgo defended Riordan's record, saying he has taken several steps to try to contain workers' compensation costs.
Under the new City Charter, the risk management department -- which handles claims -- in July was shifted into the mayor-controlled Department of Finance.
Plus, he said, the mayor beefed up risk management staff and launched a program to review all workers' compensation bills and refer possibly fraudulent cases to prosecutors.
"The mayor has a history of being a mayor who wants to focus on efficiency and to reduce those areas that we can control," Hidalgo said.
Am I supposed to feel better about having been forced to pay for the Democratic National Convention because some people made money off it ("DNC valued at $147 million," Daily News, Nov. 15)? Like almost all taxpayers, I didn't make a penny off it. But even if I had made thousands, it wouldn't be worth it. In the words of the great Libertarian Thomas Jefferson, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical."
-- Bradley Bobbs Van Nuys
By Rick Orlov Staff Writer
The Democratic National Convention cost Los Angeles taxpayers $35.8 million -- more than triple the original estimate and $14.1 million more than was budgeted, officials said Thursday.
In a report to Mayor Richard Riordan and the City Council, City Administrator Bill Fujioka recommended that the shortfall be made up from unappropriated and reserve funds and absorbed in department budgets.
He said the city would take in $2 million in bed tax revenue from the $147 million in business the DNC brought to the city.
Councilman Joel Wachs, a mayoral candidate sharply critical of public financing of the political convention, said the report confirmed his fears. "Surprise, surprise," Wachs said.
"It's the same thing all the time. People want something. They make huge assertions and use the figures as an excuse. It's so frustrating. These reports are done to justify what they wanted to do in the first place and use it to shield themselves."
Fujioka said the biggest expense was $17.6 million for services above normal levels -- primarily in overtime pay, supplies and equipment that had not been anticipated. The largest portion of this -- $11.6 million -- was for police overtime costs.
"The costs incurred by city departments were in direct support of and consistent with the (contract) with the . . . Democratic National Convention Committee, L.A. Convention 2000 . . . and the L.A. Arena Company," Fujioka wrote in his report, noting the state will provide $2.5 million for security costs.
Originally, the city had been committed to about $11 million in direct and indirect costs for the convention. That later was increased by $4 million when L.A. Convention 2000, known during the DNC as the Host Committee, fell short in its fund-raising efforts.
Fujioka said the breakdown for all costs includes $12.2 million for in-kind services, $2 million for transportation of delegates and $4 million spent by the Los Angeles Convention and Visitors Bureau.
A Riordan spokesman said the mayor considers the city's expense an investment. "Not only did the convention generate $147 million in spending it paid off tremendously in other areas," said spokesman Ben Austin, who served as spokesman for the Host Committee before and during the convention.
"The convention was a success because it paid off financially for the city and will continue to do so for years to come. And it allowed the city to be in the national spotlight to shine. This was a tremendous success, no matter how you cut it."
Wachs said his anger is directed at officials who give cost estimates that are unrealistically low.
"What they do is low-ball us to get us to sign on, and then we can't get out of the contract," Wachs said. "I knew it was grossly understated. What we aren't looking at is the drain of resources on the rest of the city."
By PATRICK MCGREEVY
A Superior Court judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit by two North Hollywood homeowners who claimed that the city of Los Angeles overcharged residents, mostly in the San Fernando Valley, by about $125 million for sewer service.
Ivan Schinkle and Barbara Crawford alleged in the 4-year-old lawsuit that the overcharge was a result of a formula abandoned in 1997 that based the sewer fee on the assumption that 60% of water used by a home went into the sewer.
For Valley properties with large lots that use more water for irrigation, the formula did not provide an accurate estimate of sewer use, said Richard Fine, an attorney for the plaintiffs.
"The system they used was arbitrary and they knew they were overcharging people," Fine said, noting that the city later changed the formula, basing it on winter water use, when there is less irrigation.
However, a judge in 1998 ruled that the matter could not be pursued as a class-action lawsuit, so any damages would have been limited to those suffered by the two plaintiffs.
On Monday, Superior Court Judge David Horowitz ruled that the city method of calculating the sewer service charge is lawful, according to Assistant City Atty. Christine Patterson.
"He decided no refunds were occasioned because there were no overpayments," Patterson said.
Fine said he plans to appeal the decision.
Ron Deaton is a man of many names. Officially, he's the city's chief legislative analyst, the humble servant of the City Council aristocrats. Unofficially, he's the phantom menace, clandestinely manipulating the City Council. We've called him "the most powerful official in City Hall" and a "Machiavellian master."
Now Ron Deaton seeks another title: L.A. Webmaster. Under the guise of "open access," Deaton has proposed a plan for regulating Los Angeles' cable companies that would, conveniently enough, make the City Council the ultimate arbiter of which Internet service providers you can buy for high-speed hookups to the Internet via cable, and which ones you cannot.
All the telecommunications corporations that poured more than $500,000 into lobbying on the open-access issue last year, and an additional $250,000 in the first three months of 2000, would have to keep throwing money at City Council members or risk the wrath of the irascible Mr. Deaton.
There's a lot of money in dot-com land, and under Deaton's plan, much more of it would find its way to City Hall. Think of it as Ron Deaton's very own IPO.
There's nothing "open" about Deaton's proposal to grant some ISPs access to local cable lines. Truly open access would mean letting as many as 600 ISPs plug into cable, which would overwhelm the finite capacity of the cable infrastructure. [This is not factual as it just requires some equipment that the cable operator can charge the ISP's including their own. People and newspaper editors confuse transport (the cable) with content the TV shows or ISP homes like AOL ATT etc].
What Deaton has proposed is semi-open access. Cable companies would risk losing their Los Angeles franchises in two years if they failed to allow their local council members' favorite ISPs onto their system. How many ISPs? Which ones? How much of the total network capacity could they use?
Those questions, which normally in a free-enterprise system would be resolved by the companies, would instead be sorted out in back rooms for the advantage of council members, rather than the public, by -- who else? -- Ron Deaton.
Far from resolving the open-access debate, Deaton's plan would make it a permanent shakedown -- a never-ending cash flow from cable companies and ISPs fighting for bandwidth, all at the mercy of the City Council.
This is not a policy to ensure low-cost, high-quality service to everyone who lives in Los Angeles.
If the City Council intends to go through with Deaton's plan, its members first need to wash their hands of any potential conflict of interests.
There's only one way for Deaton's socialism to work: return every penny in campaign contributions that has flowed into the council members' coffers in the ridiculously tedious open-access debate from whence it came and take an oath to accept no more cash in the future.
That would ensure the purity of thought and motive of everyone involved.
It's a policy that should be applied broadly to all who would seek to buy economic advantage from City Hall: no money could pass hands.
Of course, such a clean government would earn the council's master a new name: Deaton the pure. And since it would strip him of his greatest source of power -- feeding the campaign treasuries of second-rate politicians -- it could also make him Deaton, the former.
See our Website and all the Updates are archived on our site.
Please note some of the links to source sties may go missing as the are some times removed by the original source - sorry!
** NOTICE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C., section 107, some material is provided without permission from the copyright owner, only for purposes of criticism, comment, scholarship and research under the "fair use" provisions of federal copyright laws. These materials may not be distributed further, except for "fair use," without permission of the copyright owner. **If you friends want to be added to our E-mail list please send an E-mail with ValleyVote as the subject. We share our e-mail list with no one. Charles Brink Webmaster. If you want to have your name removed from the list just reply with remove as subject |