SCV Talk · Archive
Nine years of the Valley’s town square · 2006–2015
SCV Talk
September 9, 2011· scvtalk.com · WordPress (SCVTalk 3.0) · Wayback capture

Santa Clarita’s Bad Reputation

By Jeff — Jeff Wilson

Like a foul emanation left behind in an elevator, the City of Santa Clarita’s decision to seize the COLA libraries against overwhelming opposition has left a stink that’s wafted all the way to Sacramento. Witness Republican State Senator Bob Huff reference Santa Clarita’s (about 1:45 in) hasty decision to privatize its libraries:

An embedded YouTube video appeared here in the original post. View the original — embeds are preserved as links in this archive.

Whether Huff’s account of what happened in the SCV is strictly accurate is beside the point. Perception is reality in politics, and the perception is that Santa Clarita’s seizure of the COLA library system was hasty, against popular opinion, and poorly executed. To other cities in California pondering library privatization and to boosters (and providers!) of privatized government services, Santa Clarita’s process has to be a case study in what not to do.

Maybe that explains why Mayor Marsha McLean penned that spin-tastic column last week in the Pasadena Star News. The City has to rehabilitate its image state-wide, or to put it more vulgarly and keep with the stink  theme, polish the turd.

In any event, Huff’s prescription for such bad decisions is to vote the bastards out of office. We know that won’t happen here next year  because incumbents are virtually invulnerable, which is  what enabled the City to bulldoze this through in the first place.

But let’s say it could. Let’s say all the people who were upset about the library take over got together and elected two or three new Councilmembers.

The problem is, at that point, the libraries are still privatized. And it’s a major hassle and very disruptive to go back. Very few government services that have been privatized ever go back to being truly public. Even with three new Councilmembers and a sympathetic Bob Kellar, going back to COLA (or firing LSSI & hiring real city employees) would be a difficult task.

That’s why I think AB 438 is a good bill, even if it does remove some local control. The cities should have to jump through extra hoops before they do something radical, controversial and anti-democratic like Santa Clarita did.

Comments (36)

  1. GrandHernandezSeptember 9, 2011 at 11:37 am
    While I think the council could have handled the takeover a bit better, I think its unnecessary for this bill. Why apply these requirements to libraries only? The same could be said for any services that are contracted out such as bus drivers, landscaping, parking enforcement.
  2. JeffSeptember 9, 2011 at 11:40 am
    A similar process is required for those services already. AB 438 brings library privatization up to the same standards as those other services.
  3. RemStarSeptember 9, 2011 at 2:10 pm
    Jeff, that isn’t entirely correct. AB 438 sets library services apart from other services and establishes specific requirements. The only analogy is school bus service, which has not had an outsourcing since those requirements were imposed by a law signed by Governor Gray Davis. It will be interesting to see if Governor (and, importantly relative to this bill, former Mayor) Brown signs or vetoes this bill. At any rate, this bill does not apply to Santa Clarita, or to charter cities, or to cities already separated from County systems, or to County library systems. This bill only traps cities already in a county library system within that system. By the way, Senator Huff did not say he believed a city acted too quickly, he said opponents of the bill have told him such and that his response is that if that happens then you hold those officials accountable, but you don’t tie the hands of everyone. You are spinning another interpretation from Senator Huff’s words. To quote the powerful and wise Jeff Wilson from two months ago: “(As) an SCVer, I’m glad to see the libraries are opening on time. And as a blogger, I’m happy to move on from this subject.” Here, here. And, amen. Have a nice weekend!
  4. Angelo CandelabraSeptember 9, 2011 at 2:48 pm
    It will take the city going through the next municipal election cycle, in which both incumbents will be thrown back into office by healthy margins, before those who were injured by this takeover will be able to put it behind them and move on. Until then the muted wimpering will continue. (Speaking of the next city election, I’ve heard from a few sources that Laurie Ender has assembled a financing committee of 15 heavy hitters who have each been given the goal of getting 10 donations of $1,000 each, with the goal being for her to post cash-on-hand of at least $100,000 at the end of December. If she is near that number at that time, it’s game over before the campaign starts. Has anyone else heard about this and/or know who is on her finance committee?)
  5. LarMccSeptember 10, 2011 at 12:14 am
    Henry Mayo’s developer (G&L) ought to be good for another $30,000.
  6. Angelo CandelabraSeptember 10, 2011 at 7:58 am
    Yes, at least $30,000. That seems to be their standard budget for independent expenditures in Santa Clarita. Word is, though, that if David Gauny runs in 2012 they intend to spend the entire amount on a withering negative assault to “peel the bark” off of him that would forever kill his political aspirations “in the crib”. People seem to feel they learned from 2010 that running a positive campaign is not as effective as carpet bombing your opponent. As much as I love the details of political public policy, I must admit that I enjoy watching a good political slugfest.
  7. BertaSeptember 9, 2011 at 12:57 pm
    Jeff at no time does the speaker identify the city “which made a bad decision” as being Santa Clarita, nor does the speaker identify the source of his information on that subject. For all we know Das Williams or other union puppets provided that information. As to voting Council members out of office, even if the thousands of illegitimately obtained so called signatures cited as opposed on the petition presented to Council by Lynne Pambeck were to vote against the incumbents, that still leaves a whole bunch of folks who either support the current Council, our municipal libraries, the status quo, or whatever. The counties do not have to prove that the money paid by cities contracting with them for library services is being used exclusively to provide service to that municipality, is being spent wisely, is providing the services requested, is paying for the necessary and adequate amount of materials, etc. Why should any city choosing to change the manner in which library service is provided have to jump through hoops that the counties do not? Answer: Because the SEIU does not want cities to have the option of employing non-union workers, plain and simple.
  8. JeffSeptember 9, 2011 at 1:03 pm
    “Jeff at no time does the speaker identify the city “which made a bad decision” as being Santa Clarita” Is there another California City that bulldozed its way to privatization that I’m not aware of? Camarillo moved in that direction after much study and reflection…Ventura underwent a lot of study and input too. If Santa Clarita had achieved community buy-in for the privatized LSSI model prior to making the decision, Das Williams’ bill never would have been even proposed. It was purely a reaction to the mess in Santa Clarita that this bill took off and will ultimately be signed by Brown. Santa Clarita, in effect, ruined library privatization for everyone in the state by being hasty and foolish. LSSI can’t be happy about that…try selling your private library service to municipalities now.
  9. BertaSeptember 9, 2011 at 3:03 pm
    Jeff Remstar said “By the way, Senator Huff did not say he believed a city acted too quickly, he said OPPONENTS OF THE BILL have told him such and that his response is that if that happens then you hold those officials accountable, but you don’t tie the hands of everyone. You are spinning another interpretation from Senator Huff’s words.” I could not agree more…
  10. ExLibrisSeptember 10, 2011 at 8:49 pm
    “Santa Clarita, in effect, ruined library privatization for everyone in the state by being hasty and foolish. LSSI can’t be happy about that…try selling your private library service to municipalities now.” Not really. This bill does not apply to a county library that is considering outsourcing it’s operations. Nor does it apply to a city that already operates an independent municipal public library that it is considering outsourcing. Nor does it apply to “Charter Cities” that are considering withdrawing from a county library and establishing its own independent municipal public library. AB 438 only applies to “General Law” cities that are currently served by a county public library. So, ironically, this bill, if it is signed into law, would not impact the City of Ventura, a charter city which is represented by Assm Das Williams and is considering leaving the Ventura County Library.
  11. Timothy Myers SRSeptember 9, 2011 at 1:43 pm
    First, the “petition” was not actually a petition and the numbers were imagined. (This made me quite angry since I am all about accurate numerical analysis.) I would feel confident in saying the incumbents lost NO votes since I can almost guarantee the opposition would not have voted for them in any case. Second, only TWO incumbents have ever been voted off the City Council. One’s ex-wife ran a daycare center locally that employed a pedophile (during the campaign) while the second fell by an achingly close 15 votes to someone with SCV wide name recognition backed financially by the development community.
  12. Phil EllisSeptember 9, 2011 at 3:22 pm
    Wow, have I forgotten events. I wonder how many voters have memory lapses when they vote.
  13. Timothy Myers SRSeptember 9, 2011 at 12:59 pm
    Oh no he DINT!!! (do everything accept name Santa Clarita)
  14. WalkerSeptember 9, 2011 at 1:49 pm
    Yay! We’re famous. Hmph. The ironic part about the whole crappy library situation is that they can’t even do the basic stuff well. The only thing we were promised that we actually got were shelves packed with new releases. That’s a far improvement over the COLA system. Everything else, though, from staff knowledge to operations, craptastic in a pretty package.
  15. Coastal SageSeptember 9, 2011 at 2:08 pm
    What’s even sadder about Santa Clarita’s reputation for political corruption? The California Supreme Court apparently issued a 60 page opinion, in August 2011, indicating that elected officials have to have an actual intent to steal in order to be convicted of abusing public office. According to the Los Angeles Times, that opinion is the basis for a motion by lawyers for the 8 City Council and City Manager/Asst. City Manager defendants to dismiss the charges against them. See: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/09/bell-8.html The reality in Santa Clarita is that all local government bodies’ exercise of their powers “to help their friends” or in the case of certain staff members “to further personal career enhancing agendas or cover up mistakes” is done in a far more sophisticated manner than what the California Supreme Court has said is necessary to prove abuse of office. The reality is that in California there is no statute putting elected officials into the status of fiduciaries for the public or the public purse, which the highest standard of good conduct recognized under California law. An LA Superior Court judge essentially said the same thing to the Attorney General’s Office when its lawyers tried to “sue the Bell 8 to get the money back”. A bill passed and signed, here or there, like this library bill to reign in the sort of economic manipulations which were the real reason for the Santa Clarita City Council’s decision on the local libraries, is not going to change the fundamental problems of moral political corruption in California….and there’s no way a Legislature full of former local elected officials is going to impose the “fiduciary duty” standard on elected officials and public employees, especially in light of the wide berth granted to elected officials by the California Supreme Court’s new decision referred to in the LA Times story. Unless there is a successful taxpayer sponsored ballot measure, like Propositions 13 and its genre, imposing the fiduciary duty standard on elected officials and public employees, nothing will change. Sad but true: California is the New Jersey of the West.
  16. Phil EllisSeptember 9, 2011 at 3:21 pm
    A lot of generalities. What happended to specifics? Can you match actual events/facts to your vague allegations?
  17. Coastal SageSeptember 9, 2011 at 4:06 pm
    Start with your actions, Phil, once you were elected to the Hart Board. You contacted Santa Claritan’s employers, threatening that if they did not violate the Labor Code Sections 1101, 1102 and 1102.5 and tell their employees to “shut up” in their criticism of the Hart District Superintendent and Board, that you would retaliate against those employers. ‘ You were at the heart of the same sort of attempted unlawful conduct which happened to Kevin Korenthal recently. I guess that you weren’t listening at your crappy law school, “Golden Gate University School of Law”, when your torts teacher covered intentional interference with contract and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage. Phil, I wasn’t thinking about you today, when I wrote the comment above. However, you are the quintessence of the scummy illiterate threat makers who have perfected the “threaten employers” tactic which happens in Santa Clarita all the time, when those holding elected office don’t like what people say or do. For the uninitiated, here’s the law that Phil and his ilk seek to threaten employers into violating: “1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy: (a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office. (b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees. 1102. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity. 1102.5. (a) An employer may not make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy preventing an employee from disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. (b) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for disclosing information to a government or law enforcement agency, where the employee has reasonable cause to believe that the information discloses a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. (c) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for refusing to participate in an activity that would result in a violation of state or federal statute, or a violation or noncompliance with a state or federal rule or regulation. (d) An employer may not retaliate against an employee for having exercised his or her rights under subdivision (a), (b), or (c) in any former employment. (e) A report made by an employee of a government agency to his or her employer is a disclosure of information to a government or law enforcement agency pursuant to subdivisions (a) and (b).”
  18. Order of the CoifSeptember 9, 2011 at 7:12 pm
    These excerpts below from the rage-infused rant above further illustrates the fact that Jennifer Kilpatrick, aka Coastal Sage, a convicted felon who was incarcerated in the mid 1990′s, suspended by the State Bar of California and prevented from practicing law, is a hateful and meanspirited person. And although both God and Karma have stricken her, rather than being humbled with each passing day she becomes meaner and more hateful. Tonight I must remember to pray for her redemption, because it must be a very unhappy existence being Jennifer Kilpatrick. “I guess that you weren’t listening at your CRAPPY law school.” “Phil, I wasn’t thinking about you today, when I wrote the comment above. However, you are the quintessence of the SCUMMY ILLITERATE threat makers who have perfected the “threaten employers” tactic which happens in Santa Clarita all the time, when those holding elected office don’t like what people say or do.”
  19. In Memory of Saugus SplasherSeptember 10, 2011 at 9:42 am
    Hateful and meanspirited Describes our old friend to a tee, right “Order of the Coif?”
  20. Street KnowledgeSeptember 10, 2011 at 12:56 pm
    CS did a bid? Kinda like KK. For what? How long?
  21. Mike MSeptember 10, 2011 at 2:56 pm
    While you pray for her redemption, try starting with forgiving past sins. Not sure what good you thought you were doing by bringing up a nearly 20 year old imprisonment, but it certainly turned me back off from your otherwise valid points about the personal language. Kinda hard to complain about personal attacks when you’re also mounting personal attacks.
  22. LindaSeptember 10, 2011 at 7:11 pm
    God and karma, eh? Which one caused the train accident? And what did the people who died do to deserve that? What a load of baloney. Christian, pray for yourself!
  23. Phil EllisSeptember 11, 2011 at 9:26 am
    Prove that I did as you assert. How about when where and how? Easy to tell lies behind a pen name. Care to use you own name when you spread lies? Grow a pair.
  24. CCSeptember 11, 2011 at 8:06 pm
    I knew that would be Phil’s response. His defense is to simply call anyone who calls him out a liar. He thinks that if he says it enough that people will magically get amnesia.
  25. Phil EllisSeptember 12, 2011 at 7:23 am
    So where is the proof? I knew that you wouldn’t respond with any – because you don’t have any. You remind me a playground bully, spewing lies while you hide behind your anonymity. BTW, why the personal attack on me in the midst of everyone else having a civil discourse. All, I did was ask you for specifics in your rant and you retaliate with a personal attack. Have you no character? Are you afraid of people asking you to prove your points. Should we look twice at everything you say?
  26. MikeSeptember 12, 2011 at 8:15 am
    Who’s anonymous here? I think just about anyone who cares knows who Coastal Sage is. She certainly hasn’t made any secret about it.
  27. Lori RivasSeptember 9, 2011 at 6:55 pm
    A couple of things: I may have been one of the supporters of this bill who informed Senator Huff’s opinion on a “certain city.” On July 6, 2011, I testified before the State Committee on Governance and Finance. You can hear the entire testimony here, skip to 1:18:00. http://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewvideo/2819 After my testimony, I supplied each committee member with a copy of a timeline of events, fully documented with City-supplied, original documents. If there is anything missing from my timeline, it is because the City either did not document, or failed to provide documents. As you can see from the video, there were only three people testifying in favor of the bill: myself, a librarian, and Assemblyman Das Williams. You will also see that there were over a dozen people testifying against the bill: lobbyists, lawyers, city representatives, LSSI employees. I can tell you that there were even more LSSI folks in attendance that did not testify, and do not show up on the video, but were in the room. For example, Mark Smith was my flight from Burbank to Sacramento. Also, I have been told that fully footnoted copies of my Sunday column in The Signal was given to all the state senators on Monday or Tuesday of this week, before the vote: http://savesantaclaritalibraries.wordpress.com/2011/09/04/city-hall-seems-to-be-changing-history-the-signal-9411-footnoted-edition/ So, those City-supplied documents could have informed Senator Huff of what went down in SCV. None of it changed his opinion, though. And he is an experienced council member, having served on the city council for Diamond Bar for a number of years. While on the city council, DIamond Bar even considered outsourcing to LSSI — even had a bid from LSSI, I believe, but, instead, used that LSSI bid to get better services from the County – that is to what he refers in the video when talks about giving city governments “tools.” Believe me, Senator Huff is well-informed on both legitimate city practices, and the specifics of contracting library services with LSSI. If my info is to what he is referring, when he says “supporters” and “a certain city,” I have every confidence that his experience and knowledge would have alerted him to the veracity, or b.s., of my documented timeline. Also, you have to know that LSSI, the League of California Cities, the cadre of anti-AB438 lobbyists, and even SCV boosters (Smythe, Strickland, et al) would have argued diligently against my timeline, and any other pro-AB438 arguments. That Senator Huff remained so convinced that “a certain city” rushed through the process that he would even mention it on the senate floor speaks to the convincing nature of the timeline’s evidence. The dude is conservative. He voted against AB438 for conservative reasons. There was absolutely no reason, whatsoever, for him to call out “a certain city” on the senate floor unless he felt the errors committed were egregious enough to give a public warning. I sent a “thank-you” to Senator Huff yesterday, for his consideration of what went down in SCV.
  28. RemStarSeptember 9, 2011 at 7:43 pm
    Three people in favor and a dozen opposed, yet the legislature sided with the 3 rather than the dozen? Sounds like the public hearing on the library issue last summer. Ironic how voting against the crowd is lauded on one issue and condemned on another. Oh, sure, somewill say those 3 people represent hundreds or thousands or tens of thousands of others, which is something mocked when asserted by library takeover supporters. All water under the bridge, the die is cast, etc, etc. The time is now 14:59.
  29. Lori RivasSeptember 9, 2011 at 8:37 pm
    Apples and oranges, RemStar. We can start with the fact that AB438 was publicly introduced on March 16th — more than 5 months ago. We can move on to open debate in the state reps, debate which rendered changes to the bill. Then, we can move on to the July committee hearing, with more public debate, more bill changes, and another majority vote to move it forward. We just finished yet another debate on the state senate floor, and another majority vote for it to move forward. Lastly, the bill will need the governor’s signature. That is a lot of steps. That is a lot of debate and amendments. That is a lot of time for public input, both to state legislators, and media talk. And that was a lot of hurdles to jump, for approval to advance. Our city government didn’t even have the courtesy to vote separately on pulling out of COLA and awarding a 5-year contract, let alone allow for a public discussion of give-and-take. Apples and oranges.
  30. Cheryl PhillipsSeptember 9, 2011 at 9:28 pm
    You lost that one RemStar!!! That darn Lori keeps using pesky facts to present her case!
  31. Cheryl PhillipsSeptember 9, 2011 at 9:25 pm
    “Very few government services that have been privatized ever go back to being truly public. Even with three new Councilmembers and a sympathetic Bob Kellar, going back to COLA (or firing LSSI & hiring real city employees) would be a difficult task.” Jeff – not sure how difficult it would be. All of the following libraries who contracted with LSSI for a few years, then cancelled their contracts for a variety of reasons, seemed to move pretty easily into running their own libraries with their own city employees – Calabasas, Hemet, Jersey City, NJ, Linden, NJ, Fargo, No. Dakota and Lancaster, Texas.
  32. ExLibrisSeptember 10, 2011 at 8:41 am
    Going back to COLA is the most unlikely future scenario. Would COLA “repurchase” the buildings and books and send back a big check? Never. However, given the city’s clear commitment to library services, as measured by the facilities they’ve built and are building and the financial and political costs they’ve incurred, I expect that in 7 to 10 years they will “insource” the whole operation. Not out of unhappiness with LSSI but out of civic pride and a desire to fully integrate the library with the operations of the city. From my perspective as a public library professional who manages a branch of another city public library here in LA County, and as a SCPL customer, I’m impressed with the staff they have hired. Santa Clarita would be able to easily hire all of them, making for an easy transition. I believe they now have 11 MLS librarians on staff and will be at or over 14 when the new library opens next summer, putting them at the same MLS level as I’m told COLA employed locally. Sorry for such a long comment. Clearly my morning coffee has taken effect!
  33. Phil EllisSeptember 11, 2011 at 9:28 am
    Cheryl, I was told by a Calabasas council member that the change had nothing to do with dissatisfaction with LSSI – Rather, the city thought it was ready to run the library on tits own. Something that I see Santa Clarita likely to dosome years hence.
  34. LarMccSeptember 10, 2011 at 12:24 am
    Senator Huff is correct. The council represents us. If they thumb their noses at us all and make dumb decisions, we should vote them out of office. If we cannot vote them out, then enough people obviously do not care about how our city is being run and are fine with it. The last thing we need is the state making new rules to protect us from our local government. I plan to do as much as I can personally to get the no vote out against Ms. Ender. The library takeover was an example of how *not* to do it. It was terribly mismanaged. But let us deal with this at the local level and not expect the state to be our mommy on this one.
  35. Alan FerdmanSeptember 10, 2011 at 8:14 am
    Agree with it or not, the passage of AB438 demonstrates; when enough people are opposed to the way their elected officials make a decision there are methods, in addition to waiting for the next election and voting them out of office, to limit their authority. Santa Clarita’s senior staff and council members need to take a long hard look at what happened and make appropriate changes to their business practices.
  36. DazzledSeptember 10, 2011 at 8:39 pm
    I don’t give a damn about my bad reputation! You’re living in the past it’s a new generation!

Preserved as part of the SCV Talk Archive. Text is presented as originally published; presentation has been standardised for readability. The original capture is available at the Internet Archive.

Support