Post Friends My journal
cahiways_rss

Nov 2024 General Election Ballot Analysis (II): County and City (L.A.) Local Offices

Sep 27, 2024 00:00





It’s that time again. We’re closing in on the general election. Sample ballots are starting to go out. As people are already starting to make up their minds, I figured I should try to get this out as early as I could. Every election, I do a detailed ballot analysis of my sample ballot. This is where I examine each candidate and share my conclusions, and invite you to convince me to vote for the other jerk.  Because this is a long ballot, I’m splitting this analysis into a few chunks (note: links may not be available until all segments are posted):

  1. State and National Offices (excluding judges)
  2. County and City (Los Angeles) Local Offices (excluding judges)
  3. Local and State Measures (nee Propositions)
  4. Judicial Offices (County and State)
  5. Summary

Note: This analysis is NOT presented in the same order as the Sample Ballot (the ballot order makes no sense). I’ve attempted instead to present things in more logical order.

This part covers the Local Offices (excluding US Congress and State Assembly)


❧

County of Los Angeles

District Attorney

With the current rise in crime, especially retail “smash and grab” thefts (I’m sure you’ve heard about the theft rings), the current DA, George Gascón has been in hot water. This isn’t new for him.

Back in 2020, the last time Gascón ran, his primary opponent was Jackie Lacey. She had a raft of problems. She approached the job as a traditional tough-on-crime prosecutor, getting endorsements from the public safety crowd. This led her to fail to prosecute a number of problematic police officers. In particular, Gascón wanted to be hard on officer-involved shootings-which if you recall 2020, seemed to be everywhere (this was the summer of George Floyd). Lacey also had a death penalty problem. An ACLU report issued in the election year 2020 identified 22 people who were sentenced to death while Lacey has been in office, and all of those defendants were people of color. This is something the community was hypersensitive about.

Enter George Gascón. He was a former progressive San Francisco DA attempting to bring his ideas to Los Angeles. Gascón earned a reputation as one of the nation’s most forward-thinking law enforcement officials. While police chief in Mesa, Ariz., he spent years battling Sheriff Joe Arpaio over what critics called brutal and humiliating treatment of suspects and immigrant detainees. After a brief stint as San Francisco’s police chief, Gascón was appointed district attorney, championing a number of causes aimed at reducing prison populations and trying to rectify disparate enforcement against people of color. He wanted to get rid of cash bail, and work to reduce prison populations by getting more people the mental health treatment they need. He co-authored Prop. 47, which reduced some non-violent felonies to misdemeanors. He was willing to consider some sort of independent special prosecutor to investigate police shootings. His issues page at the time showed that he has successfully tackled sexual assault, environmental issues, law enforcement overreach, corruption, and fought for the victim.

But warning signs were there. He wasn’t endorsed by his former bosses in San Francisco; Mayor London Breed endorsed Lacey. Why? According to the LA Times, “she blamed Gascón and his posture of reform for the rash of car break-ins and other street problems that have dogged San Francisco, even as the city experienced a sharp drop in violent crime. Sound familiar? While naming an interim prosecutor to take over after Gascón stepped down to run in L.A., Breed maintained there was growing frustration for “the endless cycle of people getting arrested for dealing drugs, or breaking into cars, only to be released back out on the streets.”” Gascón responded that they prosecuted about 85% of those cases, and in many, the SFPD failed to get solid suspects. The Times reports that Gascón posits that the real reason for the animosity is “Breed’s endorsement of his opponent stemmed from personal animus.

This brings us to 2024. Gascón fell out of favor with some due to a perception that there is an increase in crime and in smash-and-grabs, and that he is failing to prosecute. What many fail to realize is that much of this is out of Gascón’s hands: The thefts are often below the legal limits for prosecution, and the stores don’t prosecute because it is cheaper to have insurance cover their losses than to pay for the lawyers. Further, the threshold for prosecution is $950 after Prop 47 (and Prop 36 doesn’t change that threshold, only the penalty for repeat offenders), and below that, the discretion to charge is often at the City Attorney level, not the County DA. But the people want someone to blame. Officer involved shootings have gone out of the news, and the public no longer thinks about disproportionate arrests of people of color. The most important thing: There has been insufficient time to see if Gascón’s measures are working. Instead, we’re seeing numbers from the pandemic (when crime increased), combined with individual perceptions being magnified.

According to the LA Times, as soon as he got into office, Gascón changed the rules: “Prosecutors could no longer seek the death penalty or try juveniles as adults. A number of misdemeanor charges, including trespassing and simple drug possession, would no longer be filed. An overall focus on restorative justice would mean defendants would face shorter prison sentences, even in some cases where violence was alleged.” At his swearing in, he announced that he would end cash bail, institute a ban on prosecutors seeking enhanced prison sentences and show leniency to many low-level offenders. He would also a review of thousands of old cases to determine whether lighter sentences or prisoner releases should be sought. This was too much change, too fast. Listening to Gascón since then, he has evidently changed his approach … some. More on that later.

So what to look for here. Gascón’s office has become perceived as ineffective, and has lost public confidence. He may be effective, but if the public doesn’t believe it, that’s a problem.  The answer is not to go back to a tough-on-crime approach that targets minority groups disproportionately. With limited prison space and the cost of prisons, they need to be utilized smarter. Most importantly, we need to make sure we don’t use law-and-order as an excuse to fall into Trumpian hatred of the other, hatred of the poor, and hatred of minorities. This is an area where Trump is controlling the perception and the narrative for his purposes and because it serves his goals. Gascón did what he promised to do, but there may need to be a smarter, more politically adept replacement.

In researching this, I learned there is a vast difference between what the public thinks the DA does, and what actually happens. What we think is “Law & Order” in real life, with loads of trials. In the real world, 90% of cases are subject to plea bargains. This is the bulk of what the DA’s office does. So when you hear about drug or gang enhancements, each adding 10-20 years, those don’t happen in real life. What happens in real life is that those enhancements are used as cudgels to push people to plead guilty and take lesser sentences. The same with the threat of being tried as an adult. What this does is put innocent or naive folks into prison, where they fall in with the prison gangs. Is that the right approach?

In choosing between Gascón and his opponent: One expects a position that are tough on violent crime, and a plan to address the retail theft surge. But I also expect to see some reforms continued. I look at their position on cash bail, which is a problem because it allows white collar and wealthy criminals to pay their way out. A risk based approach is better, keeping people in jail based on the nature of the charge and the likelihood of the accused to flee. I look at their position on abusive police officer and officer-involved shootings. The DA should hold the police accountable when they abuse their positions. Lastly, I look at their positions on racial disparities in charging: is there a racial pattern in how they prosecute and the sentences they go after, understanding that some of this is coming from who gets arrested. I look at their positions on use of enhancements, and treating juveniles as adults.

Where I could figure it out, party affiliation is shown as / X, because they do show general philosophy. NPP = No Party Preference

◯ Nathan Hochman / →NPP

R

Hochman is a former federal prosecutor, U.S. Assistant Attorney General, and LA Ethics Commission President. He is endorsed by a number of former US District Attorneys and former DAs in LA and Santa Barbara. He has a detailed platform that is predictably tough on crime. I looked instead at his positions on the reforms that Gascón was specifically brought in to address: disparities in cash bail application, dealing with rogue cops, and racial bias in enforcement. He’s in favor of a risk-based approach on bail, but not a total elimination of cash bail. I disagree. I agree with the risk based approach, but if the risk is there, there shouldn’t be the option of cash-bail. All cash-bail does is provide an out for the wealthy. He does seem to want to prosecute police misconduct.  His platform does not address racial disparities in prosecution.

He claims to be running as an independent. He’s not. Wikipedia notes that Hochman was the Republican nominee for the 2022 California Attorney General election, ultimately losing the election to Rob Bonta.

HIs endorsements are strong from the police and the DA side. They are weak from the civil justice side.  He lost the endorsement of former DA Cooley when he endorsed Harris for President. He had some closet Republican endorsements, but is not putting those on his website.



⚫

George Gascón / D INC

Let’s start with the obvious: There are lots of folks out there that hate Gascón’s policies. You hear it everywhere. You saw it in during the primary. You read about it on NextDoor. So, why oh why does Gascón have so many endorsements. Democratic clubs out the ying-yang. Labor unions. Elected representative. Significant leaders. Even The Los Angeles Times, which writes:

He is doing what he promised, and doing it well, despite intense and dishonest backlash from opponents inside his office and among right-wing politicians and pundits across the nation. L.A. County voters would be wise to reject the nonsense and keep Gascón on the job and criminal justice reform in place. […] Falsehoods about his policies, and about the apocalyptic landscape that Los Angeles has supposedly become because of them, are widespread - so much so that voters who supported him 3½ ago may have forgotten why. […]
L.A. voters picked him because he correctly saw the self-defeating nature of a system that does not know when to stop punishing. Studying the data, Gascón realized that punishment must be properly “dosed,” like medicine. Too much for too long, the numbers show, and the imprisoned offender is broken instead of corrected, loses the ability to responsibly reenter society and becomes more likely to reoffend. That phenomenon has endangered all of us for far too long - and it has perpetuated multigenerational racial inequities by disproportionately locking up Black and Latino Angelenos and leaving too many families without two parents present.
Gascón’s policies seek the most fitting rather than the longest possible sentences. This smart approach was such a departure from older, failed strategies that the MAGA right promptly distorted it into the false narrative that Gascón refuses to prosecute misdemeanors at all, and generally avoids prosecuting felonies.

What’s telling is who is missing: There are no law enforcement endorsements. In fact, the LA Police Protective League raised money to defeat Gascón in the 2020 election, and worked for his recall. The police do not like his reforms. It is clear he is doing more than (as they would put it) being soft on crime; he is clearly goring their ox and holding officers accountable, and not treading their statements as the word of God. I don’t see an endorsement yet from LAPPL in favor of a candidate, but they are clearly against Gascón.

The LA Times primary voter guide makes the ox goring clear: “Gascón’s first term has also been a success for the progressive bloc that vaulted him into office. Prosecutions of police officers for excessive force have become more of a focus, and seven people have been exonerated for crimes judges later ruled they did not commit. Gascón’s resentencing unit has also had a dramatic impact by shortening the prison terms of people who were sent away for decades as juveniles because they were tried as adults, though some say the program is moving too slowly.” This is why cops don’t like him: he’s holding them accountable.

Gascón doesn’t have a statement of priorities on his website; he doesn’t have a list of what he will change in his second term. However, if you listen to the LAist podcasts in the references below, you’ll see he has changed. He still rarely does the enhancements, but there isn’t a strict rule. He will now consider life sentences. He’s cautious on treating juvie’s as adults, but will if appropriate. He is learning. He does seem to be increasing his prosecution of smash and grabs.

Conclusion

Let’s start with some useful references:


This is a hard race to come to a conclusion on. On the one hand, there is the perception that Gascón is doing a bad job. This is shown from the recall effort and the clear feeling in the DA’s office. On the other hand, there is the question of whether that perception is reality. For if the perception was reality, then Gascón would not have gotten the LA Times endorsement or so many union and other endorsements. Something deeper is going on here.

Start by asking yourself: Is violent crime going up in Los Angeles County? I’m not talking about what you hear on the news, for the news covers what will bring the eyeballs. I’m not talking about what you read on social media. Again, eyeballs. The actual answer is: No. According to the LA Times, “In the latest sign that violent crime in Los Angeles is receding from a surge during the COVID-19 pandemic, LAPD officials on Wednesday released statistics showing double-digit percentage declines in both homicides and nonfatal shootings in 2023.” They increased during the pandemic (not a surprise, as enforcement was lower), but have dropped since. That article also said that the police chief also noted “robberies were down about 10%, but a greater percentage of those stickups involved firearms. Despite the positive statistics, the chief said he understood how some residents may be left feeling on edge by crimes including smash-and-grab thefts, which have been the focus of TV newscasts and social media posts showing people carrying stolen merchandise as they stream out of high-end stores.” Retail theft is up, but the number of cases filed is also up. Further, retail theft numbers are known to be misrepresented, and some of the issue is that stores do not find it worth their while to prosecute.

Media portrayals can be misleading. They trot out individual cases (which are horrific) and victims that are in pain or have been treated badly (a bad thing), but they don’t demonstrate whether these are the exceptions or the norm. They want you to think they are the norm, but even the best run groups will have occasional problems, and any office the side of the Los Angeles DA is sure to have horrific cases that fall through. That doesn’t necessarily signal a problem at the top unless there is a clear causal pattern.

Increasing crime is a matter of perception, not necessarily fact. Just like the perception of the economy. Ask yourself next: Who is stirring the pot of that perception?  Police unions are known to be strongly Conservative, and the people on NextDoor tend to be the folks that love to carp about crime and thefts and everything about society going to hell. So it clearly seems there is a concerted effort to work against Gascón’s reforms. People want the gang and drug enhancements. But there is no proof that they actual deter crime in the first place, or that longer prison terms actually prevent people from committing crime again when they get out. Except for the most hardened, shorter sentences may be sufficient to convince them to turn around, and shorter sentences reduce the risk of the prison gang culture. Plus, prisons are a very expensive way to house someone and take budget away from other areas where it is needed; better to quickly rehabilitate and let people make it on their own.

But also, clearly, there is a strong sense of discontent in the DA’s office. Independent of Gascón’s law enforcement policies and priorities, his management style quickly irritated the rank and file. That’s not good. He might have the right ideas, but doesn’t seem to be managing their implementation well.  He also didn’t communicate his goals and intent well, and didn’t obtain buy-in before implementation. From reading all the different pages, it seems a lot of the problem was enforcement of a one-size-fits-all rule. He didn’t change the sense or the philosophy of the office (how people think - the corporate culture). He did a sharp turn and shocked people. What he needed to do was instill the new philosophy, trust his staff, and give them the discretion to do the right thing - be it lighter or harder. That seems to be changing.

So there are two schools of thought here. First, keep Gascón and hope that things will improve in his second term and the seeds he planted mature. Second, replace Gascón with someone who has better management skills and can improve the perception while still improving things.

There are a lot of troubling things in this race. First, there is all the hatred against Gascón (often invoking George Soros, which is coded-MAGA-hatred). There is the lopsidedness of endorsements: Al the progressive Democrats on Gascón’s side; all of law enforcement and DAs on the Hochman side. There is the suppression of the fact that Hochman has Republican endorsements. But there’s also the fact that Gascón has actually never been a prosecutor in court, and got off to a rocky start. I’d love to replace Gascón, but I’m not sure that Hochman is the answer. Further, the way Hochberg responds gives me a very Trump-y feeling, which I don’t like.

Then there’s Proposition 36, which will undo some of what Prop 47 did. WIll that change Gascón’s approach, or will he just fight it in court. We know what Hochman will do, as he’s being Prop 36. Is the answer to elect Gascón and pass Prop 36? Is that the real solution. There’s also the broad question of whether penalties or tougher sentences actually deter crimes, or whether the just fill the prisons? Filling the prisons does no good if the folks coming out have been changed for the worse by incarceration. As Kamala Harris says, we need to create opportunities and ways for folks to get ahead. Both candidates endorse Harris, which which will attack prosecution with an eye towards ensuring crime doesn’t occur in the first place, or doesn’t repeat.

I strongly strongly strongly recommend that folks listen to ☊ Part 4 of the LAist podcast before making up their minds. Here are a few key points:

  • Gascón (the County DA) is not responsible for prosecuting misdemeanors in the CITY of Los Angeles. That’s the LA City Attorney, who is prosecuting them. So all the low-level crime you hear about in the city is a red-herring with respect to the DA’s race. They are prosecuted in the city, and crimes haven’t gone down.
  • For first offensives and low-level crimes, heavy prosecution does not deter. Short sentences are better, which is Gascón’s approach.
  • Gascón is no longer using blanket policies. There is more prosecutorial discretion.
  • The 3.5 years since Gascón was elected is insufficient time to judge Gascón, especially when you can’t isolate the effect of his policies from other factors such as the pandemic, and cuts to police departments.
  • Both seem to want to prosecute the heavier felonies
  • Hochman seems to be a decent fellow, but it is clear his policies would result in increased incarceration, which is expensive. Studies have shown that sentences longer than 10 years really don’t have much more of an additional impact on repeat crime.

After listening to all of this, I don’t think we’ve had enough time to assess Gascón, and the push for Hochman is part of the larger fear that certain elements are pushing as a view of society. But there are harder on crime DAs in other cities, and they aren’t having a significant impact on crime. You want to impact crime, you need to go to the source: economics and housing. Get people in housing. Get them stable jobs that can support them. Stop the fentynal coming across the border. Go after gangs. These aren’t impacted by the DAs office. We can impact them with other things in the race, such as the housing and minimum wage measures.

Conclusion:



⚫

George Gascón / D INC.

❧

Los Angeles Unified School District

Member of the Board of Education - District 3

LA Unified District 3 includes the communities of Canoga Park, Chatsworth, Encino, Granada Hills, Hollywood Hills, Lake Balboa, North Hills, North Hollywood, Northridge, Mission Hills, Porter Ranch, Reseda, Studio City, Valley Village, Van Nuys, Woodland Hills, West Hills, and Winnetka. Essentially, it covers the West San Fernando Valley and the Hollywood Hills. The LA Times has published a voter guide to the district, which is worth reading.

Where I could figure it out, party affiliations are shown as / X, because they do show general philosophy. NPP = No Party Preference

◯ Dan Chang / D

According to his bio: Chang teaches mathematics at James Madison Middle School in North Hollywood. Prior to teaching, Dan led several improvement efforts within the Los Angeles Unified School District. In 2012, he cofounded the Los Angeles Fund for Public Education. The LA Fund rallied local artists to support LAUSD arts education through its Arts Matter campaign. His priorities are outlined on his website and the LA Times article and seem reasonable.  He has a small set of endorsements, but notably UTLA is not behind him. However, a group called “Kids First” is, and they are sending out tons of mailers. The LA Times endorsement of Schmerelson makes clear why there are so many mailers: “[Chang] has a long association with charter schools and school reform organizations, though he now teaches at a traditional public school. ” Ding Ding Ding. Chang is the Charter School candidate.

While researching this, I found an interesting OpEd on Chang. It described the damage that former board member Tamar Galatzan did, and how Schmerelson is working to fix it. This OpEd noted how Chang is embracing Galatzan’s endorsement, as well as endorsements of other board members, and how this is disqualifying for him.



⚫

Scott Mark Schmerelson / D INC

Schmerelson is the current Board member from the district. He has a fair number of endorsements. This includes the endorsement of the LA Times. He also has the endorsement of UTLA. I’ve reviewed his priorities and this goals, and they seem reasonable.

Conclusion

Chang is backed by the Charter School folks. Schmerelson is backed by the Teachers Union and the LA Times. Given I strongly value public schools and think Charters are a threat thereto, my choice is clear:



⚫

Scott Mark Schmerelson / D INC.

❧

Los Angeles Community College District

This is one of those inscrutable races.  Back in 2022, I wrote: The Los Angeles Community College District is the community college district serving Los Angeles, California, and some of its neighboring cities and certain unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County. It is the largest community college district in the country. The District is governed by a popularly elected seven-member Board.  Members of the LACCD Board of Trustees serve staggered four-year terms. In 2020, elections were held for Board Seats 1, 3, 5 and 7. In 2022, elections will be held for Board Seats 2, 4 and 6.

Well, it’s 2024, so the odd numbered seats are up again.

Member of the Board of Trustees LACCD - Seat 1

◯ Baltazar Fedalizo

Strange: His website indicates he is running for Congress in 2024 in the 37th District as a Republican. Ballotpedia makes it clearer: He lost as a write-in during the Primary, and so now is running for LACCD Seat 1. I don’t think his focus is the LA CCD.



⚫

Andra Hoffman INC

Hoffman is already a member of the board of the LACCD.  She is part of “Build LACCD”.  She is the 2023 - 2024 President of the Community College League of California Trustees (CCCT). One gets the sense her focus is the LACCD. She is endorsed by East Area Progressive Democrats and the Stonewall Democratic Club.

◯ Peter Manghera

Manghera is a teacher for LA Unified. He previously ran for office in 1996 for the Water Replenishment District of Southern California, and lost.

◯ Cheyenne Sims

Sims is a first generation college student with a degree in African-American studies from the Howard University. According to her LinkedIn, she is a dedicated community service advocate with a background in community organizing. She received her AA degrees from West LA College, which looks to be her only community college connection.

Conclusion

Based on these candidates, if there wasn’t a skilled incumbent in the race, I might go for Sims to give her a stepping stone. But Hoffman looks head and shoulders qualified over the others. Conclusion:



⚫

Andra Hoffman INC

❧

Member of the Board of Trustees LACCD - Seat 3

◯ Nancy Pearlman

Back in 2022, when she was doing the special election for Seat 7, I wrote: “According to her campaign page, Pearlman is a broadcaster, environmentalist, college instructor, anthropologist, editor, producer, on-air personality, and outdoorswoman focused on environmental action. She served four terms as an elected official on the Board of Trustees of the Los Angeles Community College District. Knock LA notes in its endorsement of Iino, that Pearlman, an environmental activist and LACCD trustee between 2001 and 2017, was a vocal yet ineffective critic of the district’s failings during her 16 years on the board. The page for her campaign, off her “Official” website, is for her 2020 campaign, not her current campaign.  Her focus was really environmental, not the students. She’s also 74, and I think we need younger voices.”

This time, she’s endorsed by East Area Progressive Democrats, and she has updated her campaign page.

◯ Louis Anthony Shapiro

Other than his filing form, no details are online.



⚫

David Vela INC

Vela is currently a Trustee of the LACCD, and is on the BuildLACCD board. His bio on the trustee page doesn’t say much about what he has done for LACCD.  He was a professor. It is unclear, from his page, whether his focus is the LACCD, or this is just a stepping stone.  His FB page notes: “Locally, I devoted a decade to my community as a Senior Deputy to Los Angeles County Supervisor Gloria Molina. In this capacity, I oversaw the delivery of County services and two billion dollars in capital infrastructure projects in Unincorporated East Los Angeles. “

Vela is endorsed by Stonewall Democratic Club and the Victory Fund.

Conclusion

I think I’m going to stand behind my conclusion in 2022. Pearlman’s focus appears to be environmental. Vela has some capital infrastructure management experience that should be useful. Conclusion:



⚫

David Vela INC

❧

Member of the Board of Trustees LACCD - Seat 5

◯ Elaine Alaniz

Alaniz (Republican) ran for state assembly, and seemingly lost.

◯ Jason Aula

Jason last ran in 2022, when I wrote: Reading through his web pages, this fellow is all over the place. He states on his “Meet the Candidate” page: “a journalist and serve as ownership of multiple businesses. I am a prominent Long Beach State University alumnus where I campaigned hard to bring back the Division 1A NCAA football team and was a member of the rugby team as a student.” Really, “serve as ownership”? But NCAA football is a big thing to him. He wanted to bring it to Long Beach State, as well as Cal State Northridge and now LA City College and LA Trade Tech. Politically, he sounds like a Republican (“I believe in small government, free enterprise and individual liberty. My political beliefs are guided by the United States Constitution.”), but his other positions sound more progressive. He seems to be looking for a stepping stone into politics, having explored running for State Senate back in 2021. My gut tells me that’s his main goal. His positions related to the LACCD seem to be few: Bringing back football, keeping the Sheriff’s department on campus, and doing audits.

In 2024, he ran for state assembly, where the headline on his webpage was: “Announcement of a new A.S. ballot measure campaign to reinstate NCAA football at Cal State Northridge with an on campus stadium”

According to the Blue voter page: “Republican, anti-choice, Trump supporter“



⚫

Nichelle Henderson INC

Henderson is currently on the LACCD Board, and has a strong resume related to LACCD issues.

Endorsed by East Area Progressive Democrats, Emerge California, LA County Democratic Party, and the Stonewall Democratic Club.

Conclusion

Given the choices here: A strong progressive education advocate, or two current Republican with Republican party endorsement, the choice is clear:



⚫

Nichelle Henderson INC

❧

Member of the Board of Trustees LACCD - Seat 7

◯ Pamela Evans

Evans appears to be a compliance auditor, who was educated at an LACCD school.



⚫

Kelsey K. Iino INC

Back in 2022, I wrote: “Iino is an appointed member of the Board. Dr. Iino has been part of the counseling faculty at El Camino College (ECC) in Torrance since 2007. She previously served as a counselor and teacher at Citrus College and at Santa Monica College, holds an Ed.D. in educational leadership from the University of Southern California; a master’s degree in student affairs counseling and bachelor’s degree in sociology, both from the University of California, Los Angeles and an associate’s degree in sociology from ECC.  She was appointed in 2022 to complete the term of Mike Fong, who was elected to the state assembly.  Her campaign page notes that since her appointment to the LACCD board in April 2022, she serves on the Legislative and Public Affairs Committee, the Budget Committee, African American/Black Ad Hoc Committee, Gender Equity Ad Hoc Committee, and the Athletic Ad Hoc Committee, and is chair of the API Advisory Committee.  She wants to bring about student achievements by supporting increased accessibility to essential services and resources necessary for each campus. She also seeks to provide solutions to the housing insecurity, food insecurity, and the rising cost of living students face.  Her presence on the board supports diversity, giving voice to AAPI students. She has a large number of endorsements, including other CCD trustees. She has Knock LA’s endorsement.”

Iino is currently a trustee of the LACCD and is the current VP of the board. 2024 Endorsements: East Area Progressive Democrats, UFCW 770, and Working Families Party. She had a lot of backing in 2022. Another campaign link (FB).

◯ Robert Payne

Back in 2022, when he ran for Seat 6, I wrote: “Payne is a writer/educator. His campaign website makes some interesting accusations, including associations between Buelna and Trump. However, that doesn’t agree with the large amount of union and Democratic support for Buelna. In fact, Buelna seems to be anti-Trump [and in a response to that ballot analysis, Payne made clear he was anti-Trump as well]. So what is the explanation of Payne’s website material. It’s there in the little “*”: Buelna paid to be on most of those mailers, in an effort to reach out to Latino voters who often vote GOP (and voters who respond to mailers often fail to do any other investigation into their candidates). For many of these organizations, money talks louder than political positions. The sense I get reading Payne’s website is that he has a grudge. Why? It’s the wording and the style of the website. Phrases like “corrupted by the faculty political regime” are inciteful rhetoric. I want to see a serious website that proposes ideas, and shows the candidates background-not something that just rails against the other guy. It’s also telling that he’s not a strong enough progressive for Knock LA to come out for him.”

Conclusion

Payne has a strong interest in the LACCD, but I think when compared to Iino, he pales. Iino appears to be the stronger candidate. Conclusion.



⚫

Kelsey K. Iino INC



Share

https://cahighways.org/wordpress/?p=16915
Leave a comment

Previous post Next post
Up
Homepage Read journal... Full version Help Русская версия
© 1999-2024 LiveJournal, Inc.