March 23, 2011 – Daily Brief

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Ignoring 10,000 petitioners, 26 speakers, and the unlikely alliance of local Tea Partiers and liberals, the City Council plowed ahead last night on the library takeover insisting that opponents of the move were misinformed. Approved on a vote of 4-1 (Kellar dissenting), the Council approved $1.3 million in spending on materials and furniture/equipment for the libraries, which it will take over on July 1. I HEART SCV, SIGNAL
Meanwhile, the County of LA has approved a motion that would require cities that want to withdraw from County libraries to obtain the approval of voters first. Mike Antonovich noted that the motion is in reaction to the City of Santa Clarita, which seized the three County libraries “despite extensive public opposition.” SIGNAL
And over in Camarillo, LSSI has hired its first real librarian to manage services for that city, which withdrew from the VeCo library system earlier this year. This is probably the model we’ll see implemented here VECO STAR
Also at last night’s Council meeting, rare approval for a development project. Several Sand Canyon residents spoke in glowing terms about the new Vista Canyon development, which will be built off Sand and Lost Canyons with a mix of high density, commercial/retail space, and small homes. Most of the Sand Canyon residents said they liked the project because they were tired of trekking to the west valley for services and entertainment.
An 18 year old Valencia High School student was found dead in Frazier Park on Monday morning. The student, David Duncan, was a resident of Frazier Park and was found dead in a neighbor’s backyard. Authorities aren’t sure what killed him but cold weather might be a factor. Both his parents are teachers at Valencia High and the students at the school are in shock according to KHTS
And in the riverbed off Soledad Canyon Road and Camp Plenty, a man was found dead yesterday. The shirtless man is thought to have been a transient and NBC4 says there is “talk” of him being swept away down river during Sunday’s storm SIGNAL, NBC 4
The Santa Clarita Christian School community is so small that some teachers and students have known Rudy Acosta since he was in first grade. They talked about the 19 year old medic who died in Afghanistan last week at a memorial service on Tuesday SIGNAL
Elizabeth Taylor is dead LA TIMES
Chilling quote from Anthony Bedgood, the target of that hate crime in Saugus last weekend: “Right at that moment, you definitely fear for your safety. You’re watching your car explode in front of your eyes and wondering, `Is somebody out there looking for me?”‘ No arrests have been made so far. DAILY NEWS
The Creekside improvement project dedication has been delayed CITY BRIEFS
The community of Eagle Rock is being swamped with “illicit” massage parlors after Los Angeles failed to implement a new state law regulating massage therapists. The breakdown is due to the fact that LA doesn’t ask parlors to prove they’ve been licensed by the state. The City of Santa Clarita recently revised its parlor ordinance based on the same law but our ordinance contains enforcement provisions LA TIMES
Jim Holt, the Signal’s investigative reporter gets flattered by the attention showered on him by Cameron Smyth SIGNAL
Cougar News site suggests whiny COC students consider taking the bus or riding their bike to avoid the parking problems plaguing the campus COUGAR NEWS
Reminder: the Santa Clarita Century Bike ride is next weekend. A family ride, 25 mile ride, 52 and 100 mile rides are all available and the event is growing. This year over 500 riders have signed up SIGNAL

Comments (35)

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 8:02 am

Admitting your mistakes is a sign of greatness. So I was not surprised to see the city council plow ahead with the library take over. What concerns me more is that Frank Ferry used past instances of the city council ignoring the wishes of the community as justification for the library take over and worse, using the library take over as justification for ignoring the wishes of the community in the future.

NateMarch 23, 2011 at 8:49 am

Admitting your mistakes is a sign of greatness? I think you are confusing “mistake” with something being unpopular. Something can be unpopular and the right thing to do and some thing can be very popular and a horrible idea or flat wrong. This is the breaks with a representative democracy. ——————————–> “There are many qualities that make a great leader. But having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.” ~Rudy Giuliani “There is probably a perverse pride in my administration… that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. And I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public opinion.” ~ President Obama “Chasing popularity, he noted, is like chasing a vapor. It is here today and gone tomorrow. Instead, you have to make decisions based on principle and let the chips fall where they may.” ~ George W. Bush “I know it is unpopular. I know the timing is unpopular. I know the whole thing is unpopular. But I believe it is the right thing.” ~Bill Clinton

MikeMarch 23, 2011 at 9:14 am

Are you on team Berta here? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-u8nJ8SxEkUg/TYly88TwUhI/AAAAAAAAA5U/ZB2WMoHW8LY/s1600/Speakers.jpg

NateMarch 23, 2011 at 9:22 am

I am not on team mullet… even if we agree on anything. How Berta comes to the conclusions she draws is an automatic fail non-starter. I am pointing out that popularity doesn’t equate to something being right or wrong. If popularity is all someone has as “proof” that they are right then… then are they right?

IHeartSCVMarch 23, 2011 at 9:31 am

Yeah, but popularity wasn’t all that speakers offered as proof–there have been indisputable mistakes (unforseen CC Library renovation costs, mistaken legal opinion on special tax, unforeseen additional start-up costs) and serious concerns remain, like whether there will be access to the COLA system. I think in this case, it’s both unpopular and a mistake.

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 9:56 am

Had you quoted someone great, I might have been impressed. Thee quotes you chose just prove my point.

DonRickettsMarch 23, 2011 at 8:20 am

It is clear that absent a court order no number of petitions, rallies, etc., will deter the Council from the privatization of the libraries. It will now incur millions of dollars in indebtedness to buy libraries which we (as County citizens) already own. It will operate the libraries with roughly half the budget the county spent (some of which will be profit for LSSI) and argue that this will improve services. I have this bridge for sale . . . The court’s decision on Monday dismissing the lawsuits that SOL and Ed Shain brought was on procedural, technical grounds and did clarify how the suits could be amended and proceed. The court, however, refused to allow amendment. The court’s rulings can be appealed. However, it is likely that, given the reasons for the dismissal, a successful appeal would be difficult and would, in any event, not resolve the cases until well after July 1. Although the way to a successful action has now been clarified, the dismissals would make it difficult for either SOL or Mr. Shain to file a new action. Such an action would have the best chance of success if brought by other persons or organizations. Given the unwillingness of anyone (but Ed Shain) to step up the first time around it seems unlikely that anyone will take up the baton now. Hello, LSSI. Don

LarMccMarch 23, 2011 at 8:32 am

Don - Frank Ferry called me. He is trying to reach you to buy that bridge. Ender is on board too! Looks like you have a buyer. I will be at the library 7/1 and expect to be dazzled beyond my wildest dreams.

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 8:42 am

It was embarassingly obvious last night, that even today, a full 7 months after Council’s original vote, that our so-called library ad HIV committee and resident library experts Laurie Ender and Marsha McLean are still glaringly ignorant of how libraries worked. Ender asked Hernández some kind of question of “standard book count” for libraries. McLean asked isn’t it true that our municipal libraries will be part of SCLC – just like the County! – so, won’t we have access to THE SAME inter-library loan system? And, she continued, the state is cutting the budget for cooperatives like SCLC, implying that COLA inter-library loans were going to suffer. Is she for real? Is she really the 5th district rep for the County library? And SHEispart of our adhoc committee which recommended this action? I am flabbergasted. For the uninformed, SCLC offers very little in the way of practical library loans – it’s website is cumbersome and not integrated, and item delivery is v.e.r.y. s.l.o.w. Check it out yourself – I did, back in December, when Ender wrote an op-ed piece for The Signal tauting it’s virtues. And then Hernández talks about how increasing items in the shelf will virtually eliminate the need for inter-library loans, anyway. First, where will we shelf these extra books? Librarians already depend on a certain percentage of books being checked out to provide shelf space for the collection. I use the Newhall library, and it’s shelves are already bursting at the seams. Second, the whole reason for inter-library loans is that no physical library could house enough books to eliminate the need for inter-library loans. In any case, I am going to hold Council and Hernández accountable to August remarks, which stated that if a patron wants a book not on our shelves, the City will have the resources to buy the item, have it delivered within 2-3 days, and then lend it to the patron immediately. Yeah. Right. Easily, I could put in a list of 20 books/week that are not on our shelves. And not new books; not cheap books. Old, rare and out of print books. Questions were not answered. Information was spun. Petition signatures were ignored and marginalized. Again. Money was thrown down rabbit holes. Half truths were purposefully presented. This Council and staff is going to do whatever it wants, and to hell with what the public asks. Except Kellar. He had the balls to call them all out on b.s. What a total and complete embarassment.

Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 8:44 am

Stupid auto-correct. Ad HIV committee? Ugh. Obviously I meant ad hoc committee. Le sigh.

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 9:44 am

Frank Ferry is an educator, so I assume he uses the library, but which branch? Valencia, Newhall, Canyon Country or San Fernando? And I need a pair of eye glasses like Darren Hernandez wears, that can turn hindsight into foresight.

Need for Involved CitizenryMarch 23, 2011 at 10:03 am

Just remember, Marsha McLean was the top vote getter in the last election. Go figure!

Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 9:37 am

What the heck do you mean by “10,000 petitioners”??? The library critics did not submit one single signature! Only a printed list of names and ZIP codes that THEY SAY were collected online. For all you know I might have been 5,000 of them.

Need for Involved CitizenryMarch 23, 2011 at 10:03 am

Your right Leon. Or there could have been 15,000 of them…

JeffMarch 23, 2011 at 10:07 am

I’m just going by what the Signal reported. Are they wrong? ” Many of those speakers were among the 10,004 signatories of a petition delivered to the city council Tuesday requesting that council members vote to stay the contract with LSSI and spend the next year reevaluating the decision made last August to withdraw from the Los Angeles County library system.”

Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 10:29 am

Jeff – You have correctly quoted what The Signal reported. To the extent that there were no “10,004 signatories of a petition,” then yes, The Signal got it wrong.

Coastal SageMarch 23, 2011 at 1:21 pm

Leon, might I point out my longstanding view, which you know, that “petitions” in the nature of the one relating to the library are legal nothings under California or Federal law. They accomplish nothing, except to express opinion to elected officials. As a consequence of “petitions” lack of legal impact, there are no standards which legitimize or delegitimize them. They don’t need blue ink signatures. They don’t need the signators names printed in legible handwriting. They don’t need addresses. Signing-on doesn’t need to be witnessed by anyone. However, if you ask people like former Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is asking Americans to “sign petitions” online on deficit reduction issues, internet petitions are legitimate expressions of public opinion. If you have doubts about the means by which electronic signatures were collected, why don’t you just meet with Lori or Lynne face-to-face, and ask them to prove it to you.

Berta González-HarperMarch 23, 2011 at 10:57 am

Warning: Long Post If the County of Los Angeles and other counties offer such a great deal and level of library services, then why on earth did Supervisor Antonovich have to forward the motion to pass a new law, AB 438, which would require voter approval for any city wanting to withdraw from the county library system? The city wishing to withdraw would have to WAIT for a regularly scheduled election (every 2-4 years) and garner sufficient votes to pass the measure albeit after extensive lobbying against any move to withdraw by the county, unions, phony claims and misleading wording on grassroots petitions, and all. But, and here is the kicker, “Nor does it (this law) provide a community voice when cities wish to leave a county public library system,” the motion states. By the way I think the Signal report is incorrect, Signal says, “however, it does not address certain existing withdrawal provisions applicable to the counties of Los Angeles or Riverside.” The reverse is actually the case: AB 438 “1. Support AB 438 if amended, to remove the existing withdrawal provisions that only apply to the counties of Los Angeles and Riverside.” I interpret this bill to say that we currently have withdrawal rules they now want to do away with. What say you Coastal Sage? Looks to me like Antonovich, and others, are very concerned that more and more cities across the state of California will leave their sinking ship county library systems. It appears as though he wants to make it more difficult and expensive by requiring more time between intervals for withdrawal and the need for elections, with there dismal voter turnouts so if the unions and others rally voters which they will, they are guaranteed no city can withdraw. Why not let the “free market” dictate? Because increasing numbers of communities across the country are going broke and trying to find ways to remain solvent and still provide the services that their residents need and want and are outsourcing some of those services away from “public” employees. It appears to me the City withdrew from the county library system just in time. I do believe Santa Clarita’s withdrawal was the impetus for this new law. The County of Los Angeles is losing its biggest library cash cow and wants to discourage others from following us. The new Mike Antonovich motion brought forward appears to be just another LAFCO type deal that puts so many requirements and hurdles in the way, making it nearly impossible for cities to withdraw from these cumbersome county systems without waiting years and spending millions on elections. The county employed the same discouraging type tactics when we wanted to become our own City. Our civic leaders pushed forward despite the opposition and here we are today. Anyone wish we had remained unincorporated county along with Dave Bossert? Not me!

Coastal SageMarch 23, 2011 at 7:24 pm

Berta, the relevant Education Code section for cities in Riverside and Los Angeles Counties to withdraw from their county library system is currently Section 19116. (You can find the current version through the search engine at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html ) I went into the Legislature’s website, and the currently pending AB 438 makes only one change to Section 19116, adding the provision about cities having to get voter approval before withdrawing if a city intends to have a private company help run the city’s library by being the employer of the library’s employees. So at this point, nothing else is happening to Section 19116 as it regulates the process of cities withdrawing from the L.A. County Library System. The current draft of the bill is at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_bill_20110316_amended_asm_v98.html AB438 is still in the Assembly Committee on Local Government. As you may know, the place to look up the current status of any Assembly or Senate bill, or to see the current “public” draft is through the search engine at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html On any bill you want to follow, you have to keep checking, but know that it takes a day or two, after a committee hearing, to get the draft approved by the committee posted. I’ve seen bill text changed “live” in committee meetings, so in reality you never know what’s going on unless you’re sitting in the committee room. Even then, proposed revisions are not handed out to the audience. When this library fracas started, I researched the Legislative History of Education Code Sections 19100-19116, using the Legislative Counsel’s website, and learned as follows. The basic law Ed. Code Sec. 19100-19115 was passed a long time ago. Many counties opposed the bill, but the Legislature passed it anyway. Several years later, Riverside County and a withdrawing city got into quite a scrap over the price for library buildings, books and equipment, so Section 19116 was added, applicable to Riverside County only. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors vehemently objected. Section 19116 was designed to create an appraisal process for the price of the buildings and library inventory if the parties couldn’t agree. Then Claremont, operating under Sections 19100-19115 got into a scrap with L.A. County on the same valuation issue. As a result Section 19116 was amended, again, to put L.A. County into the same category as Riverside County, creating an appraisal process should disputes arise. As to that “L.A. County amendment”, L.A. County vehemently objected, while many cities supported the amendment. (That’s why the county is lobbying for AB 438 now. Their lobbyists cannot take an “official position” unless the Supes approve.) The votes in the Legislature, for and against adding L.A. County to Section 19116 did not break according to party lines, according to Assembly/Senate District lines, according to racial lines, according to community economic lines, or any other quantifiable lines. I can tell that from the names of the legislators who voted “against” L.A. County, including black legislators from local districts with no incorporated cities in them which could benefit from secession, and where the unincorporated residents could be hurt by the L.A. County Library System losing rich cities library tax money. That made no sense to me. One of my friends mothers was in the State Senate at that time of that vote, so I called her and asked her why the votes in both houses of the Legislature split in such odd ways. Her answer was “Campaign contributions”. From whom and for what purpose I do not know. The way AB 438 is worded right now, any Superior Court judge worth his/her salt could drive a truck through it, if a seceding city played its cards in the right order. It’s clear to me that AB 438 is an anti-LSSI bill, because right now LSSI is the only company which does the sort of outsourcing we are seeing. I have no doubt that the very skilled senior committee staffers in the Assembly and Senate can fix the holes in AB 438. The only question for me is whether the elected Assembly and Senate members will agree to the proper fixes in the bill and pass it. If the bill’s wording isn’t fixed, or if it doesn’t pass out of the Democratic Party controlled Legislature, then it will prove to me, once again that I am right in believing the SEIU is an incompetent union, in terms of representing small groups of employees. I’m allowed to say that because my spouse was forced to become a member when we were in college. They were lame in the 1970′s. They were lame in the early 2000′s when they unionized Northridge Hospital. They have been lame in this “library crisis”. From a union point of view, this library crisis is but evidence of the real crisis for the SEIU on the issue of outsourcing public employees’ union jobs. As a member of a union family (UMW and UAW) I am not allowed to publicly express an opinion on that topic, if I want to keep the peace.

Berta González-HarperMarch 23, 2011 at 11:16 pm

Coastal Sage thank you for sharing your legal expertise and experience.

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 11:02 am

I think the Signal is finally starting to get it.

ValCalMarch 23, 2011 at 11:21 am

RE: The funeral service of Rudy Acosta today. Please tell me there were no protestors there.

Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 11:48 am

Val– The prayer vigil for Pfc Rudy Acosta is scheduled for TOMORROW, Thursday, 6pm at Santa Clarita Baptist Church on Luther Drive in Canyon Country. The event will be held indoors, with an overflow crowd accommodated outdoors. We’re planning to provide a video feed to the crowd outside. The funeral services are scheduled for NEXT Thursday, March 31, at 10:30am at Santa Clarita Baptist, followed by an auto procession through town to Eternal Valley, where internment will occur at approximately 1pm. Those protesters have indicated they will attend one or both events.

4eyedsueMarch 23, 2011 at 1:38 pm

Do we have word on if the Patriot Guard Riders will be there as well? *help*

4eyedsueMarch 23, 2011 at 2:14 pm

answering my own question…kinda… the Patriot Guard Riders web site has Pfc Rudy Acosta listed under “Confirmed Missions” Waiting for my contact to tell us how, or if, anyone of us can, or should, assist.

Berta González-HarperMarch 23, 2011 at 2:41 pm

Thanks for following up and keeping us posted.

A stickler for proper verbiageMarch 23, 2011 at 1:54 pm

PLEASE — it is not “internment” — the correct word is “interment” … this is the same mistake The Signal makes constantly … look up the two definitions and then write a proper obituary.

Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 2:19 pm

Stickler – Right you are (interment). Stupid mistake on my part. Folks around here will tell you it’s not my first (even if it is). Another – well, not mistake, but rather an update: It’s SPC Acosta now. No longer PFC Acosta. He was posthumously promoted to the rank of Specialist.

Mr PerezMarch 23, 2011 at 9:43 pm

I never met him but all accounts are he was a positive influence in so many lives. Medics are a special breed of Soldiers who care for those around them and dont think twice about personal risk. A most definate shame to lose someone so young. May God bless him and comfort his parents, family, and friends.

cashMarch 23, 2011 at 1:09 pm

Was it just me, or did others notice that the Council shows total disrespect and contempt for those that expressed non support for the library, yet when Jim Backer called the GOB’s, including Wayne Crawford the SCV man of the year 2010, out to speak in favor of the Vista Ranch project, the council was all smiles. Hell the council and the audience even clapped for Tom Lee without the tap dancer admonishing anyone. This was sure not the case when the library issue was up. This should tell you that the council truly knows who is buttering their bread. Vista sailed right through. What a spectacle! As a side note, it is clear that Ferry was not humbled by his near death experience.

Coastal SageMarch 23, 2011 at 1:32 pm

Yes and dear Laurene was reading from a script which I doubt she wrote all by herself. She was reading concession deal points which she, or someone close to her, had negotiated with the project developer prior to the meeting.

Coastal SageMarch 23, 2011 at 1:28 pm

I was just sent a video link to last night’s Council meeting, where I watched its near ending. Mayor Marsha McLean repeatedly asked City Manager Ken Pulskamp how much it would cost the City of Santa Clarita to police the Jake’s Way annexation area. City Manager Ken Pulskamp repeatedly refused to answer her question. Her Honor the Mayor was clearly annoyed. I believe that Her Honor now sees who, exactly, is in charge of knowing critical information about Santa Clarita’s finances. It isn’t Mayor Marsha or the other Council members. Perhaps Mayor Marsha now realizes the reality that she, as well as 3 other Council members, are merely puppets.

cashMarch 23, 2011 at 1:38 pm

It was clear to me. Puppets is too polite! If I were mayor Kenny the Scamp would not have allowed to be off the hook. Even Marsha deserved and answer. She finally, FINALLY, asked a critical question and she was stonewalled!

LarMccMarch 23, 2011 at 1:43 pm

Can you please post the link?

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm

At the meeting last night, two council members demanded respect. Respect is not something you demand, it must be earned. And the only council member to have earned respect is not one of the ones demanding it. Stomping your feet and crying “Mommy and Daddy county won’t give me the libraries I want” does not earn my respect.

Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 8:02 am
Admitting your mistakes is a sign of greatness. So I was not surprised to see the city council plow ahead with the library take over. What concerns me more is that Frank Ferry used past instances of the city council ignoring the wishes of the community as justification for the library take over and worse, using the library take over as justification for ignoring the wishes of the community in the future.
NateMarch 23, 2011 at 8:49 am
Admitting your mistakes is a sign of greatness? I think you are confusing “mistake” with something being unpopular. Something can be unpopular and the right thing to do and some thing can be very popular and a horrible idea or flat wrong. This is the breaks with a representative democracy. ——————————–> “There are many qualities that make a great leader. But having strong beliefs, being able to stick with them through popular and unpopular times, is the most important characteristic of a great leader.” ~Rudy Giuliani “There is probably a perverse pride in my administration… that we were going to do the right thing, even if short-term it was unpopular. And I think anybody who’s occupied this office has to remember that success is determined by an intersection in policy and politics and that you can’t be neglecting of marketing and P.R. and public opinion.” ~ President Obama “Chasing popularity, he noted, is like chasing a vapor. It is here today and gone tomorrow. Instead, you have to make decisions based on principle and let the chips fall where they may.” ~ George W. Bush “I know it is unpopular. I know the timing is unpopular. I know the whole thing is unpopular. But I believe it is the right thing.” ~Bill Clinton
MikeMarch 23, 2011 at 9:14 am
Are you on team Berta here? http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-u8nJ8SxEkUg/TYly88TwUhI/AAAAAAAAA5U/ZB2WMoHW8LY/s1600/Speakers.jpg
NateMarch 23, 2011 at 9:22 am
I am not on team mullet… even if we agree on anything. How Berta comes to the conclusions she draws is an automatic fail non-starter. I am pointing out that popularity doesn’t equate to something being right or wrong. If popularity is all someone has as “proof” that they are right then… then are they right?
IHeartSCVMarch 23, 2011 at 9:31 am
Yeah, but popularity wasn’t all that speakers offered as proof–there have been indisputable mistakes (unforseen CC Library renovation costs, mistaken legal opinion on special tax, unforeseen additional start-up costs) and serious concerns remain, like whether there will be access to the COLA system. I think in this case, it’s both unpopular and a mistake.
Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 9:56 am
Had you quoted someone great, I might have been impressed. Thee quotes you chose just prove my point.
DonRickettsMarch 23, 2011 at 8:20 am
It is clear that absent a court order no number of petitions, rallies, etc., will deter the Council from the privatization of the libraries. It will now incur millions of dollars in indebtedness to buy libraries which we (as County citizens) already own. It will operate the libraries with roughly half the budget the county spent (some of which will be profit for LSSI) and argue that this will improve services. I have this bridge for sale . . . The court’s decision on Monday dismissing the lawsuits that SOL and Ed Shain brought was on procedural, technical grounds and did clarify how the suits could be amended and proceed. The court, however, refused to allow amendment. The court’s rulings can be appealed. However, it is likely that, given the reasons for the dismissal, a successful appeal would be difficult and would, in any event, not resolve the cases until well after July 1. Although the way to a successful action has now been clarified, the dismissals would make it difficult for either SOL or Mr. Shain to file a new action. Such an action would have the best chance of success if brought by other persons or organizations. Given the unwillingness of anyone (but Ed Shain) to step up the first time around it seems unlikely that anyone will take up the baton now. Hello, LSSI. Don
LarMccMarch 23, 2011 at 8:32 am
Don - Frank Ferry called me. He is trying to reach you to buy that bridge. Ender is on board too! Looks like you have a buyer. I will be at the library 7/1 and expect to be dazzled beyond my wildest dreams.
Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 8:42 am
It was embarassingly obvious last night, that even today, a full 7 months after Council’s original vote, that our so-called library ad HIV committee and resident library experts Laurie Ender and Marsha McLean are still glaringly ignorant of how libraries worked. Ender asked Hernández some kind of question of “standard book count” for libraries. McLean asked isn’t it true that our municipal libraries will be part of SCLC – just like the County! – so, won’t we have access to THE SAME inter-library loan system? And, she continued, the state is cutting the budget for cooperatives like SCLC, implying that COLA inter-library loans were going to suffer. Is she for real? Is she really the 5th district rep for the County library? And SHEispart of our adhoc committee which recommended this action? I am flabbergasted. For the uninformed, SCLC offers very little in the way of practical library loans – it’s website is cumbersome and not integrated, and item delivery is v.e.r.y. s.l.o.w. Check it out yourself – I did, back in December, when Ender wrote an op-ed piece for The Signal tauting it’s virtues. And then Hernández talks about how increasing items in the shelf will virtually eliminate the need for inter-library loans, anyway. First, where will we shelf these extra books? Librarians already depend on a certain percentage of books being checked out to provide shelf space for the collection. I use the Newhall library, and it’s shelves are already bursting at the seams. Second, the whole reason for inter-library loans is that no physical library could house enough books to eliminate the need for inter-library loans. In any case, I am going to hold Council and Hernández accountable to August remarks, which stated that if a patron wants a book not on our shelves, the City will have the resources to buy the item, have it delivered within 2-3 days, and then lend it to the patron immediately. Yeah. Right. Easily, I could put in a list of 20 books/week that are not on our shelves. And not new books; not cheap books. Old, rare and out of print books. Questions were not answered. Information was spun. Petition signatures were ignored and marginalized. Again. Money was thrown down rabbit holes. Half truths were purposefully presented. This Council and staff is going to do whatever it wants, and to hell with what the public asks. Except Kellar. He had the balls to call them all out on b.s. What a total and complete embarassment.
Lori RivasMarch 23, 2011 at 8:44 am
Stupid auto-correct. Ad HIV committee? Ugh. Obviously I meant ad hoc committee. Le sigh.
Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 9:44 am
Frank Ferry is an educator, so I assume he uses the library, but which branch? Valencia, Newhall, Canyon Country or San Fernando? And I need a pair of eye glasses like Darren Hernandez wears, that can turn hindsight into foresight.
Need for Involved CitizenryMarch 23, 2011 at 10:03 am
Just remember, Marsha McLean was the top vote getter in the last election. Go figure!
Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 9:37 am
What the heck do you mean by “10,000 petitioners”??? The library critics did not submit one single signature! Only a printed list of names and ZIP codes that THEY SAY were collected online. For all you know I might have been 5,000 of them.
Need for Involved CitizenryMarch 23, 2011 at 10:03 am
Your right Leon. Or there could have been 15,000 of them…
JeffMarch 23, 2011 at 10:07 am
I’m just going by what the Signal reported. Are they wrong? ” Many of those speakers were among the 10,004 signatories of a petition delivered to the city council Tuesday requesting that council members vote to stay the contract with LSSI and spend the next year reevaluating the decision made last August to withdraw from the Los Angeles County library system.”
Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 10:29 am
Jeff – You have correctly quoted what The Signal reported. To the extent that there were no “10,004 signatories of a petition,” then yes, The Signal got it wrong.
Coastal SageMarch 23, 2011 at 1:21 pm
Leon, might I point out my longstanding view, which you know, that “petitions” in the nature of the one relating to the library are legal nothings under California or Federal law. They accomplish nothing, except to express opinion to elected officials. As a consequence of “petitions” lack of legal impact, there are no standards which legitimize or delegitimize them. They don’t need blue ink signatures. They don’t need the signators names printed in legible handwriting. They don’t need addresses. Signing-on doesn’t need to be witnessed by anyone. However, if you ask people like former Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is asking Americans to “sign petitions” online on deficit reduction issues, internet petitions are legitimate expressions of public opinion. If you have doubts about the means by which electronic signatures were collected, why don’t you just meet with Lori or Lynne face-to-face, and ask them to prove it to you.
Berta González-HarperMarch 23, 2011 at 10:57 am
Warning: Long Post If the County of Los Angeles and other counties offer such a great deal and level of library services, then why on earth did Supervisor Antonovich have to forward the motion to pass a new law, AB 438, which would require voter approval for any city wanting to withdraw from the county library system? The city wishing to withdraw would have to WAIT for a regularly scheduled election (every 2-4 years) and garner sufficient votes to pass the measure albeit after extensive lobbying against any move to withdraw by the county, unions, phony claims and misleading wording on grassroots petitions, and all. But, and here is the kicker, “Nor does it (this law) provide a community voice when cities wish to leave a county public library system,” the motion states. By the way I think the Signal report is incorrect, Signal says, “however, it does not address certain existing withdrawal provisions applicable to the counties of Los Angeles or Riverside.” The reverse is actually the case: AB 438 “1. Support AB 438 if amended, to remove the existing withdrawal provisions that only apply to the counties of Los Angeles and Riverside.” I interpret this bill to say that we currently have withdrawal rules they now want to do away with. What say you Coastal Sage? Looks to me like Antonovich, and others, are very concerned that more and more cities across the state of California will leave their sinking ship county library systems. It appears as though he wants to make it more difficult and expensive by requiring more time between intervals for withdrawal and the need for elections, with there dismal voter turnouts so if the unions and others rally voters which they will, they are guaranteed no city can withdraw. Why not let the “free market” dictate? Because increasing numbers of communities across the country are going broke and trying to find ways to remain solvent and still provide the services that their residents need and want and are outsourcing some of those services away from “public” employees. It appears to me the City withdrew from the county library system just in time. I do believe Santa Clarita’s withdrawal was the impetus for this new law. The County of Los Angeles is losing its biggest library cash cow and wants to discourage others from following us. The new Mike Antonovich motion brought forward appears to be just another LAFCO type deal that puts so many requirements and hurdles in the way, making it nearly impossible for cities to withdraw from these cumbersome county systems without waiting years and spending millions on elections. The county employed the same discouraging type tactics when we wanted to become our own City. Our civic leaders pushed forward despite the opposition and here we are today. Anyone wish we had remained unincorporated county along with Dave Bossert? Not me!
Coastal SageMarch 23, 2011 at 7:24 pm
Berta, the relevant Education Code section for cities in Riverside and Los Angeles Counties to withdraw from their county library system is currently Section 19116. (You can find the current version through the search engine at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html ) I went into the Legislature’s website, and the currently pending AB 438 makes only one change to Section 19116, adding the provision about cities having to get voter approval before withdrawing if a city intends to have a private company help run the city’s library by being the employer of the library’s employees. So at this point, nothing else is happening to Section 19116 as it regulates the process of cities withdrawing from the L.A. County Library System. The current draft of the bill is at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/11-12/bill/asm/ab_0401-0450/ab_438_bill_20110316_amended_asm_v98.html AB438 is still in the Assembly Committee on Local Government. As you may know, the place to look up the current status of any Assembly or Senate bill, or to see the current “public” draft is through the search engine at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/bilinfo.html On any bill you want to follow, you have to keep checking, but know that it takes a day or two, after a committee hearing, to get the draft approved by the committee posted. I’ve seen bill text changed “live” in committee meetings, so in reality you never know what’s going on unless you’re sitting in the committee room. Even then, proposed revisions are not handed out to the audience. When this library fracas started, I researched the Legislative History of Education Code Sections 19100-19116, using the Legislative Counsel’s website, and learned as follows. The basic law Ed. Code Sec. 19100-19115 was passed a long time ago. Many counties opposed the bill, but the Legislature passed it anyway. Several years later, Riverside County and a withdrawing city got into quite a scrap over the price for library buildings, books and equipment, so Section 19116 was added, applicable to Riverside County only. The Riverside County Board of Supervisors vehemently objected. Section 19116 was designed to create an appraisal process for the price of the buildings and library inventory if the parties couldn’t agree. Then Claremont, operating under Sections 19100-19115 got into a scrap with L.A. County on the same valuation issue. As a result Section 19116 was amended, again, to put L.A. County into the same category as Riverside County, creating an appraisal process should disputes arise. As to that “L.A. County amendment”, L.A. County vehemently objected, while many cities supported the amendment. (That’s why the county is lobbying for AB 438 now. Their lobbyists cannot take an “official position” unless the Supes approve.) The votes in the Legislature, for and against adding L.A. County to Section 19116 did not break according to party lines, according to Assembly/Senate District lines, according to racial lines, according to community economic lines, or any other quantifiable lines. I can tell that from the names of the legislators who voted “against” L.A. County, including black legislators from local districts with no incorporated cities in them which could benefit from secession, and where the unincorporated residents could be hurt by the L.A. County Library System losing rich cities library tax money. That made no sense to me. One of my friends mothers was in the State Senate at that time of that vote, so I called her and asked her why the votes in both houses of the Legislature split in such odd ways. Her answer was “Campaign contributions”. From whom and for what purpose I do not know. The way AB 438 is worded right now, any Superior Court judge worth his/her salt could drive a truck through it, if a seceding city played its cards in the right order. It’s clear to me that AB 438 is an anti-LSSI bill, because right now LSSI is the only company which does the sort of outsourcing we are seeing. I have no doubt that the very skilled senior committee staffers in the Assembly and Senate can fix the holes in AB 438. The only question for me is whether the elected Assembly and Senate members will agree to the proper fixes in the bill and pass it. If the bill’s wording isn’t fixed, or if it doesn’t pass out of the Democratic Party controlled Legislature, then it will prove to me, once again that I am right in believing the SEIU is an incompetent union, in terms of representing small groups of employees. I’m allowed to say that because my spouse was forced to become a member when we were in college. They were lame in the 1970′s. They were lame in the early 2000′s when they unionized Northridge Hospital. They have been lame in this “library crisis”. From a union point of view, this library crisis is but evidence of the real crisis for the SEIU on the issue of outsourcing public employees’ union jobs. As a member of a union family (UMW and UAW) I am not allowed to publicly express an opinion on that topic, if I want to keep the peace.
Berta González-HarperMarch 23, 2011 at 11:16 pm
Coastal Sage thank you for sharing your legal expertise and experience.
Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 11:02 am
I think the Signal is finally starting to get it.
ValCalMarch 23, 2011 at 11:21 am
RE: The funeral service of Rudy Acosta today. Please tell me there were no protestors there.
Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 11:48 am
Val– The prayer vigil for Pfc Rudy Acosta is scheduled for TOMORROW, Thursday, 6pm at Santa Clarita Baptist Church on Luther Drive in Canyon Country. The event will be held indoors, with an overflow crowd accommodated outdoors. We’re planning to provide a video feed to the crowd outside. The funeral services are scheduled for NEXT Thursday, March 31, at 10:30am at Santa Clarita Baptist, followed by an auto procession through town to Eternal Valley, where internment will occur at approximately 1pm. Those protesters have indicated they will attend one or both events.
4eyedsueMarch 23, 2011 at 1:38 pm
Do we have word on if the Patriot Guard Riders will be there as well? *help*
4eyedsueMarch 23, 2011 at 2:14 pm
answering my own question…kinda… the Patriot Guard Riders web site has Pfc Rudy Acosta listed under “Confirmed Missions” Waiting for my contact to tell us how, or if, anyone of us can, or should, assist.
Berta González-HarperMarch 23, 2011 at 2:41 pm
Thanks for following up and keeping us posted.
A stickler for proper verbiageMarch 23, 2011 at 1:54 pm
PLEASE — it is not “internment” — the correct word is “interment” … this is the same mistake The Signal makes constantly … look up the two definitions and then write a proper obituary.
Leon WordenMarch 23, 2011 at 2:19 pm
Stickler – Right you are (interment). Stupid mistake on my part. Folks around here will tell you it’s not my first (even if it is). Another – well, not mistake, but rather an update: It’s SPC Acosta now. No longer PFC Acosta. He was posthumously promoted to the rank of Specialist.
Mr PerezMarch 23, 2011 at 9:43 pm
I never met him but all accounts are he was a positive influence in so many lives. Medics are a special breed of Soldiers who care for those around them and dont think twice about personal risk. A most definate shame to lose someone so young. May God bless him and comfort his parents, family, and friends.
cashMarch 23, 2011 at 1:09 pm
Was it just me, or did others notice that the Council shows total disrespect and contempt for those that expressed non support for the library, yet when Jim Backer called the GOB’s, including Wayne Crawford the SCV man of the year 2010, out to speak in favor of the Vista Ranch project, the council was all smiles. Hell the council and the audience even clapped for Tom Lee without the tap dancer admonishing anyone. This was sure not the case when the library issue was up. This should tell you that the council truly knows who is buttering their bread. Vista sailed right through. What a spectacle! As a side note, it is clear that Ferry was not humbled by his near death experience.
Coastal SageMarch 23, 2011 at 1:32 pm
Yes and dear Laurene was reading from a script which I doubt she wrote all by herself. She was reading concession deal points which she, or someone close to her, had negotiated with the project developer prior to the meeting.
Coastal SageMarch 23, 2011 at 1:28 pm
I was just sent a video link to last night’s Council meeting, where I watched its near ending. Mayor Marsha McLean repeatedly asked City Manager Ken Pulskamp how much it would cost the City of Santa Clarita to police the Jake’s Way annexation area. City Manager Ken Pulskamp repeatedly refused to answer her question. Her Honor the Mayor was clearly annoyed. I believe that Her Honor now sees who, exactly, is in charge of knowing critical information about Santa Clarita’s finances. It isn’t Mayor Marsha or the other Council members. Perhaps Mayor Marsha now realizes the reality that she, as well as 3 other Council members, are merely puppets.
cashMarch 23, 2011 at 1:38 pm
It was clear to me. Puppets is too polite! If I were mayor Kenny the Scamp would not have allowed to be off the hook. Even Marsha deserved and answer. She finally, FINALLY, asked a critical question and she was stonewalled!
LarMccMarch 23, 2011 at 1:43 pm
Can you please post the link?
Joe GrandeMarch 23, 2011 at 1:46 pm
At the meeting last night, two council members demanded respect. Respect is not something you demand, it must be earned. And the only council member to have earned respect is not one of the ones demanding it. Stomping your feet and crying “Mommy and Daddy county won’t give me the libraries I want” does not earn my respect.