This is an archive of a past election.
See http://www.smartvoter.org/ca/la/ for current information.
LWV League of Women Voters of California Education Fund

Smart Voter
Los Angeles County, CA March 3, 2015 Election
Candidates Answer Questions on the Issues
Council Member; City of Los Angeles; District 4


The questions were prepared by the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles and asked of all candidates for this office.     See below for questions on Most Important Issue, Budget Shortfall, Your District

Click on a name for candidate information.   See also more information about this contest.

? 1. What do you think is the single most important issue facing the City of Los Angeles today? As Council Member, what would you do to deal with it?

Answer from Sheila Irani:

Our budget and the structural deficit hampers our ability to address the pressing needs from our aged out infrastructure, unfunded pension liability for our aging workforce, and the number of employees that we need to keep the City well maintained. We need to adopt pension reform, reduce our fully loaded labor costs by charging employees 15%-20% for their benefit premiums, and adopt a live within our means charter. We need to review taxes such as bed tax, car rental tax, gas tax and utility taxes to see if there is room for increases without slowing down our recovery. Move away from the GROSS receipts tax to at least a net tax (on profits) and aim for a statewide minimum wage over a municipal one that will drive businesses to surrounding cities to escape paying it. Economic vitality and growth stems from improving our education system especially with regards to STEM coursework so that our youth build their human resources that can be marketed for a superior wage. Let's have our top municipal employees offer job skill development in the City Colleges and High Schools.

Answer from Step Jones:

Step Jones for LA City Council district #4

What makes me different? I'm not interested in legislating your social affairs; my only tenet is that you don't harm other people.

Things your previous and present City Council do will continue to affect your life morally and socially, I believe we can make our own social and moral decisions.

Vaping, condoms, Iran, elephant trainers, creating days for different things: eg. renters day, El Salvador day, and Jiff the Pomeranian day, Rialto schools, Philippines independence, meatless Mondays, banning genetically modified crops in the City of LA, and Fresno.

I plan to focus City of LA's budget of 8 Billion dollars a year, not including forward obligations.

I believe the LAPD should be the highest paid police department in the country, and with being the highest paid zero tolerance in performing their duties.

Fire and paramedics should be the highest paid in the country, and with being the highest paid zero tolerance in performing their duties.

Streets need to be repaved.

Sidewalks need to be fixed.

Homeless should be taken care of with a coordinated effort between public and private agencies.

Parks need to be maintained and beautified.

Our streets need to be better illuminated in many areas and junk needs to be picked up.

Jobs.

Seniors.

There are serious issues in our City so it is imperative to stay focused on what's important to our lives.

I will not be engaged in your moral or social affairs.

Voting for me will be a vote to stop the non-sense so we can get back to running the City of Los Angeles.

Answer from Rostom "Ross" Sarkissian:

The single biggest issue facing the City is the City's structural deficit.

We consistently spend more than we take in because of the skyrocketing costs of pensions and health care. We will continue to face budget deficits until we fundamentally address these issues.

Answer from Tomás O'Grady:

I believe the most important issue facing the City of Los Angeles is sustainability. On our current track I do not believe that our future is sustainable, either environmentally or economically. New York City continues to innovate whilst LA, despite its creative capital, appears to stagnate. Our City Hall seems to stand in the way of innovation rather than encouraging it. Los Angeles could and should be the most dynamic city of the 21st Century, but we need fresh leadership to make that happen.

Answer from Teddy Davis:

The single most important issue facing the City of Los Angeles today is traffic.

As Council Member, I would push for Measure R 2.0, a county-wide half-penny sales tax on the 2016 ballot, with the following provisions:

(1) Connect the Valley to the Westside with transit; (2) Accelerate the subway down Wilshire; (3) Connect our transit lines to the airport; (4) Convert the Orange Line dedicated busway to rail; and (5) Build More Parking at Local Transit Stops

Let's get it done in 10 years instead of 30! Together, we can leave behind a more livable Los Angeles.

Answer from Fred Mariscal:

The CITY'S BUDGET DEFECIT

1- We need structural reform of the City's financial affairs by placing on the ballot a measure that requires the City to "Live Within Its Means."

This common sense amendment would require the city to develop and adhere to a Five Year Financial Plan, approve two year balanced budgets based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, and, over the next ten years, provide adequate funding for the elimination of the City's unfunded $10 billion pension liability and the repair and maintenance of our streets, parks, sidewalks, and the rest of our crumbling infrastructure.

Answer from David Ryu:

The single most important issue facing the City today is the disconnect between residents and neighborhoods. Right now, City Hall is not listening. Neighborhoods are the heart of Los Angeles, particularly CD4, but too often neighborhood interests are shoved aside by those with the deepest pockets and the loudest voices. This plays out in large and small ways, from broken sidewalks to development projects that end up decided by courts rather than residents and elected leaders.

I plan to deal with this as a Councilmember the same way I am running for Council - by listening to residents. CD4 residents' voice is my voice, and residents can expect to be in communication with me on the issues that matter most to them - development, mansionization, open space. Being elected to City Council is a position of trust, and I intend to fulfill that trust if elected.

Answer from Jay Beeber:

The biggest problem facing the City is the budget. We can't do anything unless we get our fiscal house in order first. I address this in my answer to the next question.

The next most important issue is over development. As a city, we have not done a good job in this area and it has negatively impacted our quality of life. City Council districts have traditionally been run like individual fiefdoms. This is especially true with regards to land use issues and development. Development projects which require zoning changes or variances are either approved or not at the whim of the Councilmember. Far from being a "nation of laws, not men", when it comes to development in LA, the "men" rule, not the laws. This must change. City Council members must be made to adhere to the zoning rules, and especially the Community or Specific Plan, and this must be enshrined in our city code and/or charter. We must also rein in the abuse of the 245 motion Councilmembers use to overrule the decisions of the planning commission. I would favor a prohibition on Council Members from using a 245 motion to overrule planning decisions for the benefit any political contributors.

In addition, for large projects, we should begin to view development from an area-wide perspective, not property-by-property. The are some areas of the city which are so overdeveloped that critical services, such as public schools, police and fire services, water and sewerage, as well as transportation infrastructure cannot reasonably handle the added impact of new major construction. Large development projects in these areas should be deferred unless those impacts can be mitigated.

We must also speed up the reforms to the city's Mansionization Ordinance. This ordinance, which was enacted in 2007 has never worked to accomplish what it was meant to do. We currently allow too much house to be built on too little property. This drives up the price of housing and makes LA unaffordable for the middle class. After seven years, the council is finally getting around to tackling this issue. But they tell us it will take another 18 to 24 months to come up with a new ordinance. There's no reason it should take this long to fix something that's been broken for seven years. I'll commit to pushing for changes to be finished within 6 months of my taking office.

I have pledge to have the most transparent city council office in the history of Los Angeles. I will:

1. Promptly disclose whenever my office is officially approached about a development project in CD 4, whether by the developer or any person or group representing the developer. This information will be posted on my Council office website. Neighborhood Councils and other groups (homeowners/residential/business) in the area of the project will be promptly notified to check for information on this website.
2. Follow up meetings with me or any of my staff regarding the project will also be posted. Post, on my website, my official schedule so constituents can see who I've met with and how I am spending my time representing CD4.

3. Immediately post any changes contemplated in CD 4 by any City Department that would make changes to the Community Plans, i.e. Bike Plan, Mobility Element, and Recode LA. Too often the majority of stakeholders receive no advanced notice of these changes.

4. Faithfully follow the policies for decision makers as outlined in each Community Plan in CD 4, as well as Policy 3.3.2 of the Framework Element.

5. Require the City to officially document and demonstrate that the infrastructure in the area of any contemplated project (requiring discretionary approval) will not be threatened in relation to user needs. This would include particularly critical services, such as water and sewerage, as well as public schools, police and fire services, and transportation infrastructure.

Answer from Joan Pelico:

Far too often City Hall has been an obstacle rather than partner to neighborhood revitalization, building new parks, bringing life to our historic buildings, attracting and retaining jobs and making good use of taxpayer funds. I am running because the taxpayers deserve better City services, deserve a more efficient City Hall and prioritizes customer service and job creation.

Three key issues I will address once elected are:

Bringing Real Customer Service to City Hall + On day one every resident and business in the 4th District will get fantastic, friendly, responsive and effective service from my office and staff. Public service is exactly that but somehow that message has largely been lost within the City bureaucracy. I believe part of implementing Mayor Garcetti's "back to basics" approach to government is assuring that every City employee has been trained in customer service, that every call to City Hall is returned within 24-hours if not within the same day, and that every service from pothole repair to bulky item pick-up has specific performance goals based on data, that performance is tracked and reported and that Department leadership is held responsible for that performance.

Finding Realistic Solutions to Fix Our Infrastructure + Streets, sidewalks, trees, water pipes, power lines, sewer pipes: these are the backbone of City and they are broken, crumbling, exploding and leaking. The good news is there are solutions. My passion is Public Works and I will continue the work I have already done to restore services like tree-trimming, expand street resurfacing through efficiency, partnership and partnering with the County and private-sector to acquire more asphalt and aggregate for less. I will expand ongoing efforts to bring transparency to DWP and will establish a goal and implementation plan to upgrade our water and power infrastructure. I have too much experience helping residents and businesses recover after DWP water pipes, over one-hundred years in age, exploded and spilled water and damage in all directions. Fixing our infrastructure is not just about cost-avoidance, liability and reliability, it is about creating a world-class city that has a solid, stable background where families and businesses can take roots, grow and flourish.

Development and the Ability to Bring Stakeholders Together + I have worked every day and will work every day to find solutions all sides can support but in the real world you often have controversy and passionate disagreement. Whether it is the development of a new hotel, a small restaurant asking for an alcohol license, or the finding the right permit parking solution, I have a track record of bringing folks together, easing tension and finding solutions. My ability to roll-up my sleeves, mediate disputes, and find solutions means projects will move forward fasters, it will mean less expensive litigation and it will mean a more business-friendly Hollywood.

Answer from Steve Veres:

The single most important issue that the City of Los Angeles faces today is the much needed reformation of the LADWP. With water mains erupting and closing down some of the busiest streets in the city and consumers waiting record breaking times for customer service reveals the inefficiency of the department. In order to eliminate such issues, I would start proactively fixing our city's infrastructure issue. The current water mains in use are over a century old and have been in dire need of updating. I would also strengthen the structure of oversight to prevent Angelenos having to wait for such unnecessary extended periods of time on the phone for a representative.

Answer from Wally Knox:

There is no way to protect LA's neighborhoods from over development without an enforceable legal planning framework. I will implement that framework in my Council District, and, if necessary lead a City-wide campaign to change the law.

Answer from Mike Schaefer:

Protecting us from abuses by the City, such as Parking: both amount of fines, issuing citations where it is not a clear violation, refusing 50% early-pay discounts some other cities offer, refusing to coordinate Registration Status with DMV computer forcing towed-car citizens to have to return to vehicle to obtain proof but not get car-release. The Council ignores the many small pictures affecting us daily, focusing only on the big picture.

? 2. The City Administrative Officer has estimated a $300 million budget shortfall for 2015-2016. What steps do you propose to deal with this problem and how much do you estimate each step would reduce the shortfall?

Answer from Wally Knox:

I am the only major candidate in this race NOT calling for complete elimination of the City's business tax. Eliminating that tax will blow a $440 to $470 million hole in our budget, explode the shortfall to almost $800 million and require massive lay offs of police, fire and other services. I propose a shift from the current gross receipts tax to a net receipts tax that raises the same amount of money to run the city.

Answer from Tomás O'Grady:

A recent report released by Ron Galperin (one of my heroes in City Hall today) demonstrated that the Bureau of Street Services wastes money and does not utilize its resources properly. As with our nonprofit EnrichLA, my focus would be on delivering more product for less cost. I am adamant that we do not need to increase revenue, but that we need to reduce costs. I note my experience in public education - 5 years of academic increase at King Middle School coincided exactly with 5 years of reduced funding. As my Grandfather used to say, "you can throw money at something all day long but it is not going to fix the problem." With that said, an area that remains untapped is tourism dollars. We can do a much better job of not only attracting more visitors to this city, but also parting those visitors with their cash. My family and I visited London 2 years ago and I think we left $3,500 behind us. When you arrive at Heathrow airport it is very clear to visitors where they should visit and how they should get there. In Los Angeles, that is not the case. We need a comprehensive regional plan to direct tourism to various places across Los Angeles and encourage them to do so using public transportation. The other way to increase revenue is to increase tax collection. The way to increase the amount collected is to have more businesses generating revenue. We can make it easier for businesses whether they are restaurants, boutiques, startups, café's, etc., to open their doors. An example is a supporter of mine in Los Feliz, who owns 6 different hospitality businesses, ranging from a wine bar, to an oyster bar, and a boutique Bed and Breakfast. He told me that one year in, the Bed and Breakfast is languishing in permit hell. We can and should streamline this process to get more businesses opened and to begin collecting those tax dollars.

Answer from Steve Veres:

As an elected Trustee of the Los Angeles Community College Board, I oversaw the allocation and spending of $82.94 million dollars. I made sure that there was transparency, accountability and fiscal responsibility in every level of decision making. I plan to bring this experience into the City Council, to make sure that overspending and irresponsible fiscal decisions are not made again.

Answer from David Ryu:

There is no silver bullet to fix a shortfall of this size, so a solution is going to have to be multi-faceted:
1. Instead of just reducing the gross receipts business tax, it has to be fully replaced with a more equitable net income tax and then calibrated to match the City's needs.
2. The City has to continue to work on pensions - both fully funding our previous obligations, but also working to plan for future pensions going forward.
3. The City has been neglecting its infrastructure needs, and those costs will have to be addressed. I am an expert in reviewing and squeezing public budgets from my time on County Supervisor Burke's staff, and I will make sure that we are getting everything possible from our current budgets. But if they are insufficient, I will have the courage to say that and present the problem and solution to residents.

Answer from Joan Pelico:

Honesty is a critical factor for why the Chamber should support my candidacy. I will always be honest with you and I think our City budget should reflect that same honesty. I feel it would be dishonest to say we can simply strip away existing pension benefits and liabilities for today's employees. I support the second tier for new employees. I support negotiating greater contributions by employees to their own healthcare costs. I also think that if we are honest we have to acknowledge that despite that pension costs for legacy employees will be an enormous cost and we just have to deal with it + there is no magic solution to make it go away.

To address the structural deficit we have to limit future liabilities, both in terms of pension and healthcare but also trying to reduce the lawsuit buffet that is sidewalk slip and fall, lapd and lafd legal settlements. Most of all however we have to deliver services efficiently and we have to grow. Growth in employment and investment will do much more for improving our budget than yet another round of cuts to public services.

My five priorities for the budget include:

1. Challenging existing service delivery to do more with less + as I mentioned my passion is Public Works. The problem with our streets for example is not just an issue of funding. It is an issue of the equipment used, how the asphalt is purchased, inefficient labor rules and practices, and targeting individual problems rather than systematically upgrading our entire system. We can correct these issues and be able to do more with less.
2. Concentrating on core service delivery + when the economic downfall first hit, the City's response was largely to cut everything, roughly similar amounts and still continue trying to do everything and doing almost everything poorly. Our priorities should be public safety and infrastructure. Given the choice between paving another street or funding a well-intentioned but ephemeral special program the choice is clear, my choice will always be the core service.
3. Invest in and facilitate growth + This means marketing Los Angeles as a place to start a business. This means a permitting system that is rational, predictable and efficient. Changes such as electronic plans a records will save the City and applicants both time and money.
4. Implement the BTAC recommendations + I expect to see consolidation of classes and reduction of top rates to be in any budget I support. Reductions in business tax revenue will be more than offset by increases in sales and property taxes from increased business activity.
5. Use real data to program services and evaluate progress + The City has amazing parks and should provide programs that communities want and need in those parks. Unfortunately we parks programming based not on what surveys reflect or demonstrated need + we deliver programming based on what we did last year and what staff prefers. This is true in every single department. The world has undergone a big data revolution but inside the walls of City Hall decisions are still made based on inertia and oral tradition not hard facts. I expect departments to explain the cost per foot of new sewer pipe in our City versus others and the private sector, I expect us to set goals, meet them and improve year over year.

Answer from Mike Schaefer:

The big picture is our $30 billion shortfall in underfunded pensions, deferred public works as well as the estimated annual budget shortfalls just ahead during my four year term. We need to consult with LA's major academic minds, other government leaders(county, state, and non-Cal. entitles having similar problems), as well as competent city administrators to determine what's workable; I favor a partnership between city and property owners as to public works knowing result will enhance our values substantially.

Answer from Teddy Davis:

During the last decade, pension costs increased from 3 percent to 18 percent and are continuing to rise.

The growth in pension costs is adversely affecting the city's ability to deliver basic city services like fixing streets, repairing sidewalks, and trimming trees.

I have leveled with folks about the need for city employees to contribute more towards the cost of their pensions and health care.

We need to take on pension reform to ensure a secure retirement for workers and funding for basic city services.

Answer from Sheila Irani:

1. Cap salaries to stop wage creep for retirement calculations and avoid overpaying department heads in return for political influence.
2. Stop wage increases until our deficit is tackled.
3. Increase retirement age and reduce percentage given for every year worked towards retirement calculation to no more than 2%.
4.Increase the City hotel tax to 17% and rental car fee tax;,charge taxes on rideshare "taxi" options (e.g. Lyft, Uber) and AirBNB style lodging. With 43 million visitors annually this will significantly increase revenues.
2. Attract a greater number of conventions, and music and award events that will require lodging, food, rental cars etc.and subsequent higher bed and sales taxes.
2. Increase amount employees pay for healthcare and other employee benefits.
3. Monetize assets: sell rights for millions to to light the sign a limited number of times a year, combined with secured access those evenings; allow for ads on LADOT buses, on trash cans in public areas, etc, charge for parking at congested parks.
4. Increase developer congestion mitigation fees to pay for parking lots and shuttles to bus/rail; building permit fees for large structures internalizing costs on infrastructure
5. Reduce starting salaries in departments that have high demand for jobs (e.g. LAFD).
7. Allow for more private contracting of services such as street repaving, cement work, landscape maintenance
8. Stop DWP sweetheart deals for Councilmembers and insure ratepayer fees are used for DWPs services and infrastructure for ratepayers
9. Reduce salaries of elected officials; $181,000 is the highest salary for a city councilmember in the nation.
10. Instead of building new parks in a city where real estate is so expensive why not work with LAUSD to use their playgrounds after school and on weekends and compensate them for it and offer programming through Beyond the Bell.

Answer from Step Jones:

Step Jones for City Council district #4

"Work out your own salvation" When I was growing up in La Porte, Indiana my mother had this huge needlepoint above the sink in our kitchen that had these words on it. You may think this needlepoint had religious overtones, but it really didn't. What my mother was trying to get through to the kids is mind your own business, and work to better yourself. Don't worry about what other people where doing, worry about what you are doing with your life. That brings us the current council, they spend a lot of time worrying about other communities and countries, instead of worrying about the City of LA. The council spent time on Iran, Fresno, the Philippines, as an example. What should we be worrying about and fixing is the budget of LA, which is over 8 Billion dollars a year. Really don't you think the City Council should keep its nose in Los Angeles? Let us talk about the elephant in the room, (although the City Council this year took up elephants and bull hooks, but the law doesn't take effect until 2017, so you have time to park your elephant outside the city. I know I am looking for a parking space now.) Of the 8 billion dollar budget over a billion dollars in going to pensions. Perhaps the City made bad deals in the past, but just because they made some bad deals, doesn't mean we can't take a look at what is going on the pension arena. Here is a peek at what is going on reported by the LA Times pensions per year. The median income in LA per person is $9,567. Deaton, Ronald F Department of Water and Power $317,876 Salas, Frank Department of Water and Power $290,707 Parks, Bernard C Police and fire $265,090 Lane, Kathryn E Department of Water and Power $217,843 Hokinson, Thomas C Department of Water and Power $207,891 Gascon, David J Police and fire $206,780 Driscoll, John Other agencies $205,794 Seaton, Bruce Other agencies $203,917 Davis, Julius I Police and fire $203,360 Gewe, Gerald A Department of Water and Power $199,906 Mathis, Darrell G Department of Water and Power $195,989 Bamattre, William R Police and fire $189,582 Neamy, Robert D Police and fire $187,752 Comrie, Keith Other agencies $186,368 Kawasaki, Lillian Y Department of Water and Power $181,848 Horii, Robert Other agencies $181,565 Carey, John Other agencies $179,001 Moore, Betty Other agencies $178,118 Mccarthy, Thomas J Department of Water and Power $175,612 York, Margaret A Police and fire $174,882 Pannell Jr, Willie L Police and fire $174,709 Manning, Donald O Police and fire $174,340 Pomeroy, Martin H Police and fire $174,238 Miyoshi, Kenneth S Department of Water and Power $173,705 Lee, Jerald Other agencies $170,088 Sporrer, Louis L Police and fire $169,737 Moore, Maurice R Police and fire $169,413 Bostic, Michael J Police and fire $168,650 Smith, Bradley Other agencies $167,751 Collins, Jack G Police and fire $167,293 Nichols, Norman E Department of Water and Power $167,129 Puglia, Frederick Department of Water and Power $166,541 Wickser, James F Department of Water and Power $166,062 Parker, Thomas P Department of Water and Power $165,763 Howe, Con Other agencies $164,873 La Chasse, Royal S Police and fire $164,722 Brunengo, Gino P Department of Water and Power $164,364 Bergmann, Ronald W Police and fire $163,976 Mattingly, Joseph Other agencies $163,652 Burt, Robert C Department of Water and Power $163,053 Burt, Raymond C Department of Water and Power $162,593 Gil, Robert S Police and fire $161,996 Spring, William K Department of Water and Power $161,852 Spease, Robert A Department of Water and Power $161,198 Weber, Kenneth G Department of Water and Power $161,085 Rock, Robert F Police and fire $160,805 Munson, Scott J Department of Water and Power $160,049 Koenig, Daniel R Police and fire $159,584 Mccarley, William R Department of Water and Power $159,382 Miera, Antonio Other agencies $159,325 Miroballi, Daniel E Department of Water and Power $159,151 Currie, Phyllis E Department of Water and Power $159,073 Powers, Norman J Department of Water and Power $158,923 Vernon, Robert L Police and fire $158,654 Duncan, Charles F Department of Water and Power $158,341 Mollinedo, Manuel Other agencies $157,983 Chase, Robert Other agencies $157,928 Clark, Stephen A Department of Water and Power $157,442 Leap, John M Police and fire $157,261 Mc Murray, James S Police and fire $157,261 Hamer, Bruce N Department of Water and Power $156,992 Kuebler, Bruce W Department of Water and Power $156,435 Parker, Junior L Police and fire $156,397 Furuta, Sam Other agencies $156,106 Parsons, Davis R Police and fire $155,625 Fratt, Jack Other agencies $155,592 Thomas, Thomas Other agencies $155,512 Howery, Donald Other agencies $155,471 Drummond, Craig G Police and fire $155,264 Giordano, Anthony E Police and fire $155,048 Miller, Donald Other agencies $154,399 Carter Jr, Cayler L Police and fire $153,784 Iannone, Marvin D Police and fire $153,484 Holmes, Fontayne Other agencies $153,411 Cathey, Dean E Police and fire $153,233 Mc Coy, Ronald A Department of Water and Power $153,104 Bisson, Wilfred W Police and fire $152,385 Roberts, Alfred J Department of Water and Power $151,627 Wah, Linda Department of Water and Power $151,622 Yamamoto, Noriyuki Department of Water and Power $151,526 Lorenzen, Thomas W Police and fire $150,667 Paniccia, Valentino Police and fire $150,611 Waters, Daniel W Department of Water and Power $150,419 Keddington, Leon H Department of Water and Power $150,263 Cotton, Eldon A Department of Water and Power $150,204 Butler, William K Department of Water and Power $150,187 Monk, B.C. Department of Water and Power $150,080 Sosa, Estella F Department of Water and Power $149,500 Pearce, Ward Other agencies $149,161 Martin, Robert S Department of Water and Power $149,148 Russell, Frances M Department of Water and Power $149,144 Evansen, Allen R Police and fire $148,572 Pinney, Garry Other agencies $148,518 Feldman, Jack J Department of Water and Power $148,349 Hillmann, Michael R Police and fire $148,304 Donohugh, Patrick Other agencies $148,192 Aguallo, Robert Other agencies $147,810 Schumann, John W Department of Water and Power $147,795 Vigue, James D Department of Water and Power $147,541 Yee, Stephen Other agencies $147,523 Banks, Ronald C Police and fire $147,298 Kodama, Mitchell M Department of Water and Power $146,796 Berg, Gregory R Police and fire $146,580 De Feo, Robert J Police and fire $146,574 Robles, Manolo C Department of Water and Power $146,515 Haase, Carl D Department of Water and Power $146,433 Gobler, Pat Other agencies $146,410 Johnson, Gerald L Police and fire $145,675 Noyes, Kent W Department of Water and Power $145,402 Millard, Robert Other agencies $145,061 Kroeger, Frank Other agencies $144,904 Shepard, Dorothy A Department of Water and Power $144,895 Custer, David E Department of Water and Power $144,522 Ward, William B Police and fire $144,292 Wong, Patrick P Department of Water and Power $144,011 Spratt, John M Department of Water and Power $143,955 Bastian, Robert B Department of Water and Power $143,474 Wemmer, Ricard C Police and fire $143,264 Blain, Alvin Other agencies $143,177 Williams, Gary S Police and fire $142,727 Merritt, Bradley R Police and fire $142,727 Peterson, Dennis E Department of Water and Power $142,288 Powell, F. Rennie Department of Water and Power $142,205 Wyss, Gerard A Department of Water and Power $141,856 Tubert, Patricia Other agencies $141,628 Scott, Gregory Other agencies $141,249 Bayne, John F Department of Water and Power $141,131 Kasner, Kenneth B Department of Water and Power $141,129 Howe, Merton W Police and fire $140,808 Holmes, Lawrence Other agencies $140,799 Dinse, Charles F Police and fire $140,564 Badgett, John D Police and fire $140,473 Mukai, Yoshiko Other agencies $140,446 White, John D Police and fire $140,366 Kroeker, Mark A Police and fire $140,366 Mahoney, Marilyn E Department of Water and Power $140,280 Wade, Barry M Police and fire $139,998 Billesbach, Jon L Department of Water and Power $139,887 Valkoff, Michaelyn Department of Water and Power $139,878 Hall, Vernon Other agencies $139,720 Jensen, Robert Other agencies $139,441 Escalante, Jessie T Department of Water and Power $139,400 Bonneau, Richard E Police and fire $138,961 De Vore, Charles L Department of Water and Power $138,876 Vallow, John R Department of Water and Power $138,671 Hansohn, Robert B Police and fire $138,622 Cudio, Carlo S Police and fire $138,534 Kawaguchi, Bobby H Department of Water and Power $138,471 Tillman, Donald Other agencies $137,956 Wong, Dora Department of Water and Power $137,644 Conner, Thomas Other agencies $137,641 Fricke, Allen D Department of Water and Power $137,547 Gates, Daryl F Police and fire $137,534 Cordova, Arnold R Department of Water and Power $137,477 Washington, Murdie Other agencies $137,401 Lawler, Gordon Other agencies $137,368 Callahan, John W Police and fire $137,058 Pesqueira, Paul S Police and fire $137,010 Gorman, Orpha Other agencies $136,895 Rowe, Stephen Other agencies $136,866 Wainer, Richard Other agencies $136,797 Sizemore, Marcella M Department of Water and Power $136,705 Buehring, Norman L Department of Water and Power $136,508 Longley, Edward Other agencies $136,452 Brennan, Gary J Police and fire $136,435 Lewis, Bayan Police and fire $136,362 Sturdevant, Thera Other agencies $136,157 Krokes, Lawrence J Police and fire $135,931 Orosel, James R Department of Water and Power $135,808 Haynie, Glenn E Department of Water and Power $135,580 Spitser, James Other agencies $135,467 Schlotman, Edward Other agencies $135,436 Georgeson, Duane L Department of Water and Power $135,316 Farrell, Edward Other agencies $135,256 Peters, Oscar Other agencies $135,125 Beck, George N Police and fire $135,116 Pentram, Robert A Department of Water and Power $135,065 Van Deest, Ronald D Department of Water and Power $134,625 Langewisch, Gary R Department of Water and Power $134,607 Platt, Raymond J Department of Water and Power $134,600 Bartel, Joan Other agencies $134,587 Hernandez, John Other agencies $134,433 Vranicar, Martin Other agencies $134,217 Werlich, John Other agencies $134,002 Bonaventura, Thomas Other agencies $133,756 Flodine, Ronald L Department of Water and Power $133,599 Lanski, Thomas A Department of Water and Power $133,401 Martin, Robert Other agencies $133,131 Hunter, Marciene Department of Water and Power $132,645 Forsyth, Robert C Department of Water and Power $132,429 Martin, Patricia A Department of Water and Power $132,282 Shiner, Philip Other agencies $132,276 Wilkinson, Michael A Department of Water and Power $132,255 Yoshimura, Robert Y Department of Water and Power $131,927 Reddick, Ronald Other agencies $131,922 Zimmon, Garrett W Police and fire $131,867 Hilker, Mary Lou Other agencies $131,861 Giles, Kenneth Other agencies $131,835 James, Curtis W Police and fire $131,595 Szymanski, Jerry C Police and fire $131,581 Birkenbach, Adam Other agencies $131,331 Frankle, Ronald A Police and fire $131,091 Simmons, Robert L Department of Water and Power $131,079 Olsen, Raymond A Police and fire $131,000 Ward, John Other agencies $130,877 Voors, David B Department of Water and Power $130,848 Lillo, Eric A Police and fire $130,545 Bustos, Richard Department of Water and Power $130,494 Hunt, Matthew V Police and fire $130,440 Mathieu, Odell Department of Water and Power $130,254 Carr, Robert W Department of Water and Power $130,253 Levant, Glenn A Police and fire $130,058 Culling, Claudia Other agencies $130,006 Littleton, Michael E Police and fire $129,953 Kalish, David J Police and fire $129,947 Mcreynolds, Laurent Department of Water and Power $129,821 Holland, Heber L Department of Water and Power $129,506 Davis, Judith B Department of Water and Power $129,450 Lembke, Eldred M Police and fire $129,413 Monroe, Jack L Police and fire $129,315 Dotson, David D Police and fire $129,303 Agopian, Robert P Department of Water and Power $129,253 Chambers, William M Police and fire $128,827 Kirkwood, Bernadette S Department of Water and Power $128,646 Whitney, Dennis B Department of Water and Power $128,506 Buccat, Michael W Department of Water and Power $128,503 Booth, William D Police and fire $128,479 Garcia, Benjamin C Department of Water and Power $128,274 Pardave, David Department of Water and Power $128,067 Kim, Paul M Police and fire $128,057 Davis, William P Department of Water and Power $127,943 Moran, William Other agencies $127,791 Langley, James Other agencies $127,666 Biagi, Delwin Other agencies $127,640 Glenn, Byron E Department of Water and Power $127,625 Ward, Mark S Department of Water and Power $127,507 Herrera, Jess J Department of Water and Power $127,258 Beal, Laura Johnson Other agencies $127,183 Culotta, Albert J Department of Water and Power $127,100 Cowen, Alan R Police and fire $126,831 Martinez, Frank Other agencies $126,828 Menkus, Royce Other agencies $126,824 Rollo, Bruce Other agencies $126,726 Osugi, Victor Other agencies $126,593 Pinder, Wilma Other agencies $126,461 Buchholz, Duane D Department of Water and Power $126,375 Really? Step Jones for City Council let's take on the issues that matter to LA. The City first and always.

Answer from Rostom "Ross" Sarkissian:

In 2012, as former Mayor Riordan and other City leaders were openly talking about the possible bankruptcy of Los Angeles, then Mayor Villaraigosa presented to the council a series of 13 potential actions to eliminate the structural deficit.

These options included compensation reform, consolidation, Fire department reform, strategic outsourcing, use of part time employees, and public private partnerships, among others recommendations. This serves as a starting point in acting honestly to eliminate the City's greatest threat, insolvency.

Answer from Fred Mariscal:

1- We need to limit workers' compensation costs, improving the City's purchasing process and increasing productivity through technology.

2-I'm adding my voice and calling for a no cost-of-living increases for the City's workers and pushed for employees to pay 10% of their health insurance premiums.

3- We must identify and eliminate wasteful spending, and make City Hall more transparent. We need start thinking about hiring a "City Manager."

4- We need Pension Reform.

5- We need to make LA a more business friendly City. I'm originally from Mexico City, and I know of a lot of businesses and companies who would like to do business in Los Angeles.

Answer from Jay Beeber:

While I don't mean to minimize next year's projected budget deficit of $165 million, this amount is about 2% of the city's total operating budget. Surely, with a little more belt tightening, we can find this amount in wasteful expenditures and non-essential line items. We can also help make up the difference by being more proactive in collecting taxes and fees due the city. The controller has already identified a number of items that go uncollected such as fees that should be paid by utility companies that cut into streets to replace water or electric lines and the parking users tax that is often paid by motorists but pocketed by parking lot operators who accept cash payments. Another source of uncollected revenue are "in lieu" parking funds that property and business owners are required to pay in some areas of the city in lieu of providing enough parking. Often times, these fees that are supposed to be paid monthly are not paid at all and the city has no mechanism to track or collect these unpaid fees. Additionally, replacing burned out light bulbs with new energy efficient bulbs could save millions of dollars in city energy costs over the long run. No one item listed here will make up the deficit, but every little bit will help. I'm confident that if we combed through the last decade or so of Controllers' audits we'd find millions of dollars in recommended savings that were never implemented.

The City Administrative Officer has recommended no raises or cost of living adjustments for City employees and that civilian workers will contribute 10% towards the cost of the City sponsored health plan. I not only support this but would work to achieve it. It's one thing to say you agree with something, it's another thing entirely to work to implement it. With regards to employees paying more into their healthcare costs, I'd push for an even higher contribution amount if we could get it. When I ran a five doctor veterinary hospital with about 40 workers, we offered health insurance at an 80%/20% split. This is about average for the private sector. There's no reason the city should be more generous with taxpayer dollars than businesses are in the private sector.

I also support the unanimous recommendation of the LA 2020 Commission to establish an Office of Transparency and Accountability to oversee the City's finances as long as the office had some real teeth and could act, rather than just make recommendations. We saw how the Ratepayer Advocate's role was watered down by the City Council and we need to avoid a repeat of that.

Pension Reform

In 2003 the city's share of pension payments was 3% of budget expenses. It is now over 21%. Granted, the much lower percentage in the early part of the last decade was due to the city underfunding the pensions, but even without that, we have had an explosion in pension costs due to elected officials giving unsustainable benefit increases and padding the city workforce. The city has underfunded the pension plans for over a decade and we realistically can't expect to fix the problem in the short term. However, we must begin the process now or it will be too late. First, the city must create a new tier of pension benefits for new hires and we must vigorously oppose any attempts to eliminate or delay this reform. This is critical or we will never get our pension costs under control. Second, we must hold the line on any salary increases. As salaries go up, so do pension costs as they are directly related. Third, the city must negotiate with the unions to get city workers to pay a larger share of their retirement costs. City workers get a guaranteed payout upon retirement regardless of what happens in the economy or the vagaries of the market. If employees wish to continue getting a guaranteed payout, then they must pay more into the system for this privilege. Currently, they have the best of all worlds + low pay in, no risk, guaranteed reward. That is an unsustainable formula.

In the long term, I believe we must move away from a Defined Benefit Plan system and move towards a plan where payouts are somewhat dependent on the return of the invested funds. For example an "Adjustable Pension Plan" could work to protect both workers' retirement benefits and taxpayers.

Further, I support the LA 2020 Commission's proposal to form a Committee on Retirement Security that will report its recommendations on how to "achieve equilibrium on retirement costs by 2020" Again, the devil is in the details and we must ensure that any such committee is made up of independent experts insulated from the influence of the unions and politicians.

? 3. What is the single most important issue facing your Council District today, and how would you deal with it?

Answer from Wally Knox:

There is no way to protect LA's neighborhoods from over development without an enforceable legal planning framework. I will implement that framework in my Council District, and, if necessary lead a City-wide campaign to change the law.

Answer from Mike Schaefer:

"Council District 4" is communities in-search-of-a-district, few common issues between Sherman Oaks, Los Feliz, Hancock Park, Koreatown, Silverlake and Toluca Park. We should redraw lines to have a more common-interest district. We need to cut staff of 20 by 1/3 and bloated council pay of $180,000 by 1/3, and require council president oversight of district staff-performance. Field deputies are always "on the phone" or "out in the field". Hollywood needs support for its business progress. So does every other of the many different neighborhoods in CD4. As a former 2-term Councilman, I know what's needed, do it now!

Answer from Step Jones:

The budget of the city. Spend my time working on the Budget and not your social or moral affairs, you can work those on your own.

Answer from Sheila Irani:

Overdevelopment and the resulting congestion and crime are deteriorating the living standards of many CD4 residents. Large scale developments need to pay for the costs of congestion and parking shortages. Their mitigation measures are rarely enforced and have little effect. Adopting elements proven to reduce congestion like shuttles to bus/rail, charging separately for parking from housing rent should be mandatory. Scaling back projects so that they are appropriate for the available infrastructure capacity. Developers may need to pay higher fees that can be dedicated for sidewalks, streets and tree trimming and for demand response vanpools. These vanpools will create better connectivity between commuters and rail stations and bus stops utilizing smart phone technology to reserve shuttles that will do group pickups/dropoffs in neighborhoods and connect to local stops. The cost is less than creating the thousands of parking spaces needed at transit stations, creates jobs for van drivers, uses existing "Uber" style algorithms that can be effectuated quickly and inexpensively and the funding can come from Measure R. Fees from higher permit costs will fund greater enforcement to insure that conditions are met before occupancy is allowed.

Answer from Teddy Davis:

The single most important issue facing Council District 4 is the breakdown in basic city services. I would take four steps:

1. Utilities owe the City of Los Angles $190 million for cutting up our streets. Let's collect that money and bring it back to our neighborhoods;
2. Fix the most severely damaged sidewalks using District 4 discretionary funds;
3. Hire an emergency tree trimming crew to take care of our neighborhoods; and
4. Increase employee contributions to their pensions and health care to ensure a secure retirement and funding for basic city services.

Answer from Rostom "Ross" Sarkissian:

Outside of the budget, the most important issue facing CD4 is the stifling traffic throughout the major transportation corridors and their attendant spillover into neighborhoods.

We can begin to deal with this issue by: 1. expanding the neighborhood bus system; 2. building more parking near transit stations; 3. synchronizing more lights and; 4. working with the private sector to integrate ride share options into the "first" and "last" mile of the public transportation process, which keeps riders from utilizing the options that are currently available to them.

Answer from David Ryu:

Apathy - this plays out in various ways. From low voter turnout and involvement in elections, to a disgust with government generally. Residents don't see their concerns being addressed, either when an out-of-scale and out-of-compliance house is built on their street, or when a large development project ends up in court.

I believe in government, and I've seen first hand the good work that government can do when it is responsive to communities rather than special interests. Residents will respond when they see government working for them - and that is how you fix apathy within the District.

Answer from Jay Beeber:

The biggest issues facing the district are traffic congestion, failing infrastructure, and development. I dealt with the development issue in question #1.

Here's my plan for reducing traffic:

1. Expand commuter transit lines - We need to identify where most of the commuter traffic flows from and to, and then create convenient transit options between those points. For example, we need to create dedicated transit between the West Side and the Valley. It's unconscionable that we endured a huge construction project on the 405 including roadway closures and the rebuilding of major bridges, yet our elected officials didn't think ahead and include the creation of a dedicated transit line similar to the Orange Line Busway which could then be converted to light or heavy rail once the funding became available. This was a major failure in leadership. We also need to complete the other transit lines currently on the drawing board, especially an east-west and north-south transit connection to LAX. In addition, we must begin to interconnect our transit system and create transit hubs where commuters can park conveniently or arrive by another convenient form of transportation such as a Dash Bus.

2. Eliminate roadway choke points - While it's true that we cannot build our way out of our traffic problem with significantly more roadway, we can improve what we have now to alleviate some of the major choke points. This includes fixing the 101 north to southbound 405 interchange by eliminating the jug-handle exit ramp that currently exists and building a "flyover" ramp to more efficiently move traffic between the two highways. Also, we need to fix the 101 south to the 101/134 split by adding an extra lane from the 101 onto the 134 providing three lanes exiting onto both roadways. We also have to identify and fix the engineering problems causing the continual back-up on the 101 south between Melrose and the 110. On the 101 north near Universal, the design causes a lane reduction south of the Ventura Ave bridge and the lane resumes on the north side of the bridge. This causes huge backups every weekday. We must redesign the roadway so traffic does not lose a lane in this area. On local roads, we need more dedicated left and right turn lanes with dedicated turn arrows.

3. Incentivize Telecommuting - A large part of our traffic problem comes during the morning and evening rush hours as hundreds of thousands of people travel to and from work. Currently about 5% - 6% of the workforce works from home. If we can increase that to 10% or 15% or 20%, that will significantly decrease traffic during commuting times. Technology has advanced to the point where this is entirely doable and many workers would eagerly join this movement as it would improve their quality of life. The city can lead on this issue by creating incentives and programs for city workers to telecommute. For the private sector, the city can create other incentives such as tax breaks and restrictions on regulations for businesses that increase the percentage of their workforce that works from home. The best thing about this proposal is that we don't have to spend billions of dollars building new infrastructure to accomplish it.

With regards to infrastructure, the City Council plays a very clever shell game with our tax dollars. First, they spend the money on something the populace would never vote for, such as the 5 year, 5% annual raise for city workers (30% overall) passed in 2007 by the city council along with Mayor Villaraigosa. Meanwhile, they starve our infrastructure of needed funds, allowing our roads and sidewalks to deteriorate to the point where we cry out for relief. Then they tell us we need to vote to raise our taxes if we want our streets and sidewalks fixed. We don't need another tax increase. Instead, I'd put a bond measure on the ballot to raise the needed funds to fix our infrastructure now rather than later. If we rein in our other costs and get the budget under control, we could pay for our infrastructure bonds out of the general fund, not by raising taxes.

Answer from Tomás O'Grady:

The reason I moved to this area was for its quality of life, and I believe that is currently under attack. From botched development projects, deferred infrastructure maintenance, confusing medical marijuana laws, to illegal billboards, we are not behaving in a sustainable, streamlined, or consistent manner. We are borrowing against our future both environmentally and financially. We need to streamline our processes, remove inconsistencies, address confusions, and prepare for our future.

Answer from Joan Pelico:

I am going to improve the delivery of services to our constituents. On day one every resident and business in the 4th District will get fantastic, friendly, responsive and effective service from my office and staff. I think what is more important is what I want to change about how Department staff treat the public. Public service is exactly that but somehow that message has been largely been lost within the City bureaucracy. I believe part of implementing Mayor Garcetti's "back to basics" approach to government is assuring that every City employee has been trained in customer service, that every call to City Hall is returned within 24-hours if not within the same day, and that every service from pothole repair to bulky item pick-up has specific performance goals based on data, that performance is tracked and reported and that Department leadership is held responsible for that performance.

Answer from Steve Veres:

a. I bring forth not only my strong grasp on public policy but refreshing energy and willingness to create a fully functioning, reliable and responsible leadership, which has not been exhibited in City Hall in the last couple of years. In order to get things done, I will take initiative, starting with public safety. In Council District 4, there is an ongoing unfortunate trend of property and violent crime. To prevent and halt these crimes I would like to get more officers and improve LAFD response time. The enhancement efforts of both the Fire and Police will result in a more efficient and effective response time, which would halt and even prevent such crimes.

Answer from Fred Mariscal:

DEVELOPMENT

I believe in Smart neighborhood oriented development that takes into account traffic, parking, and our quality of life. However a lot of the development around the District has been done without taking into account traffic, parking, and quality of life issues.

1-We need to make sure that developers take these issues seriously into account, and listen to their communities. I will protect our neighborhoods as I'm already doing.

2- Many areas are being hit hard with the 'Mansionization' of newly built large homes on small lots.

A) I support the reduced Floor Area [RFA] to limit the size of new construction and remodeled homes.

B) I support the creation of Historical Preservation Overlay Zones [HPOZ] to protect the traditional and historical character of neighborhoods who are threaten by Mansionization.

C) We need to plug the loopholes in the BMO's bonuses and exemptions that are allowing builders to construct homes far larger than 50% of lot size.

D) No new home construction under the ICO be allowed to exceed 50% of lot size, per the BMO amendment's changes.


Responses to questions asked of each candidate are reproduced as submitted to the League.  Candidates' answers are presented as submitted.

The order of the candidates is random and changes daily. Candidates who did not respond are not listed on this page.


This Contest || Home (Ballot Lookup) || About Smart Voter || Feedback
Created: March 31, 2015 18:06 PDT
Smart Voter <http://www.smartvoter.org/>
Copyright © League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.
The League of Women Voters neither supports nor opposes candidates for public office or political parties.