New Blog Broader Focus
Hey all,
I will no longer be posting on this blog. The focus is a little too narrow. Instead I’ll be posting on my person blog space at SteveLFerguson.blogspot.com I haven’t been too happy with the WordPress format and hope Blogger will be a little better. Hope to see you there.
Nahabedian & Ramani Post Sites
New websites are out! www.VoteNayiri.com was unveiled early last week. The website lists endorsements, positions, as well as a link to contribute. Key endorsers include Councilman Paul Krekorian, State Senator Carol Liu and neighboring Assemblyman Portantino. This is defintely a strong showing out of the gates.
Another website has gone up recently. The website of Republican Sunder Ramani. www.RamaniforAssembly.com is clean and sleek. The lack of competition on the Republican side of the aisle has served him well.
Nahabedian in the Race
Okay add one more to the brawl…Nayiri Nahabedian has announced her candidacy for the State Assembly. Nahabedian, a member of the Glendale Unified School District Board of Education, brings a new perspective to the race. While both Westall and Nahabedian are both educators, Nahabedian has served the Glendale School District in an administrative capacity. This administrative experience will prove useful throughout the campaign.
I had a recent opportunity to interact with Ms. Nahabedian at the Burbank ANC Annual Christmas Dinner. She is both personable and well versed on the issues. Tired of the same old, same old, in Sacramento, Nahabedian hopes to bring a new level of energy to the office.
Personally, her experience on the Board of Education is a big qualification for me. It is one thing to run on ideas it is another thing to run with a track record of making things happen.
This is going to be an interesting race.
Westall in the Running
Andrew Westall's Photo From Andrew4Assembly.com
Andrew Westall, a Democrat, is in the running!
Don’t know much about the guy but his website is up and running. His website itself seems to denote that he’s the LA candidate. Sent from the downtown political establishment with love. Too eager to put up a website he left the “WHAT I CARE ABOUT” tab “Under Construction.” I have no idea whether or not Councilman Wesson’s district overlaps the 43rd Assembly District but if it doesn’t this candidate has little to no background or involvement in the district, besides his residency. Not saying it’s impossible just saying it’s odd. Not to underestimate him…I’ve seen the LA political machine…It’s a beast.
I did have a good laugh as a friend pointed out the following. This is a quote from his press release:
“My top priorities will be transportation, education, fire protection, and
government reform. One of my main objectives will be to build a trolley that
links the communities of Los Angeles with the cities of Burbank and Glendale,
a continuous dedicated public transit system from the subway and Orange
Line in North Hollywood to the Gold Line in Pasadena.”
Will he be fighting to protect the fires? Thought that was good…
Initial impressions not positive. You can see from the quote that his goal is to bring together Los Angeles and Burbank and Glendale. While not a horrible idea, at face value, my experience tells me that Glendale and Burbank want almost nothing to do with Los Angeles. Building bridges between communities and mass transit are good things but this candidate better have a more substantive message to the voters of Burbank and Glendale if he wants to be successful.
I’m Back
For those of you who don’t know, I have been working on Assemblyman Paul Krekorian’s campaign for the Los Angeles City Council. At the end of a five-month stint with the campaign, the team has come up victorious. The campaign itself was both impressive and beautiful, in retrospect, and it was an honor of a lifetime to be a part of. More on that later…but I will tell you it wasn’t easy.
Since then Burbank has been in the business of banning cat declawing, losing a Superintendent, and possibly removing Civil Service Board Members…All I can say is lovely.
When it comes to the loss of our Superintendent, I must say its a bittersweet thing. I met the man and thought he had great vision for our district. However, I did later learn that his leadership style was a little too confrontational. What really put me off was his proposed goals for the district. Yes, the district should set annual goals but, the goals should be constructive and achievable.
As a part of the Superintendent’s goals he planned to mandate A-G Requirements. A-G Requirements set out which high school courses must be taken and passed, before graduation, in order to be accepted to a CSU or UC. The implementation of this goal would have killed classroom-based extra-curricular activities (i.e. choir, band, yearbook and ASB) and other vocational electives for non-college bound students due to lack of time. As a result, you would have seen a decrease in attendance and increase in dropout rates because the elective classes that keep some of our students in school, would have been facing the chopping block.
I think now is the time to be supportive of our Board of Education. They had no way of knowing this man’s leadership style. Happy to hear we’re moving on from this and wish the Board the best of luck in their search.
To the Civil Service Board…There is no reason to merit removals. Yes, they made a very controversial decision, but it was a decision that was based in logic. Could someone out there disagree with the decision they came to? Sure. But, that doesn’t merit their removal. Their removal, should it move forward, would severely undercut the independence of boards and commissions and would keep the type of discussions and disagreements that are vital to a city’s growth to a minimal.
On another front, expect me to be writing more about the upcoming Assembly race for our district. It’s going to be a blast.
A Deeply Saddened Commentary…
I can’t express how frustrated, upset, hurt and flat-out devastated I was yesterday when I learned about the loss of one Burbank’s finest, to his own hand. After hearing about it yesterday, I set down the phone and I broke down. There is absolutely no reason this should have ever gotten this far. My sincerest thoughts and prayers go out to Sergeant Gunn’s family and to all the members of the Burbank Police Department
This isn’t about politics folks. A man’s life has ended because we, as a city, failed to provide the right venues to file and address personnel complaints (both from internal and external sources) in a professional manner. Instead, slaps on the hand were delivered and incidents reported were swept under a rug.
We as city need to consider some pretty substantial reforms to restore the public’s trust in this municipality. Frankly, I’m beginning to believe we need an elected Police Commission with the authority to investigate any and all complaints lodged against the department. That means subpoena powers, the ability to review department protocols and confidential documents, and finally the ability to recommend an officer’s dismissal, if necessary, to the Civil Service Board (which could be appealed to the council).
Either way, I don’t know how we as a city can ever say we have learned from this whole mess without systematic reform.
“Every 15 Minutes” Decision Postponed
Last night the question of whether or not to continue the “Every 15 Minutes” was postponed. Unfortunately we must wait to see the fate of this program. According to the staff report BUSD wants out, citing very similar reasons that I had previously blogged about. Site administrators find it ineffective. Quoting from the staff report:
Department staff met with Dr. Jan Britz, Assistant Superintendent of Instructional
Services; Emilio Urioste, Principal of John Burroughs High School; and Bruce Osgood,
Principal of Burbank High School to discuss the program. BUSD staff have reservations
regarding the long-term impact of the Every 15 Minutes program, citing a lack of
supporting data, along with anecdotal experiences with post-program students in which
the students exhibited behavior contrary to the program’s goals. In addition, BUSD staff
expressed dissatisfaction with the amount of staff time and resources the program
requires from the hosting school. BUSD staff would like to discontinue the program at
this time; however, the BUSD remains committed to researching other alternatives with
lower costs and more long-term student exposure.
A decision to discontinue the “Every 15 Minutes” program will, according to the staff report save the city $7,500, which was set aside by the city for the program in the FY 08/09 budget year. It is my hope that the money that was set aside could be transferred to the youth services holding account ,where in concert with the district, the Mayor’s Youth Task Force could search out a program that would be better suited to address teen drinking and driving.
Why “Every 15 Minutes” Falls Short
Photo from the Kiwanis of the Burbank High Every 15 Minutes Program
As the council prepares to receive a presentation on the “Every 15 Minutes” program it’s important that the council weigh the program’s effectiveness.
First, I want to acknowledge that it took a lot of hard work from many different people to get this program up and running. That work should be recognized and applauded. But, like every program, continual reviews of its effectiveness is essential to keeping limited city resources on task and on target.
For a little background, the “Every 15 Minutes Program” is a simulation which is staged on high school campuses nationwide aimed at reducing drinking and driving among high school seniors and, in Burbank, juniors as well. A drunk driving accident is simulated out in front of the school. The “drunk driver” usually is played by one of the more well respected or popular seniors on campus. Sprawled out around the wreckage are bloodied reputable students and sometimes faculty. Some act as though they are injured others are to act unconscious or dead. Students of the junior and senior classes watch the scene from stadium style seating situated around the accident as paramedics and police personnel act out their response. The driver is given a DUI test and is arrested while victims of the accidents are in the process of being taken away on stretchers (dead and alive). Often, the jaws of life is even used to pry a victim out of the wreckage. This is all taking place as a stirring, prerecorded, 911 call is being played over loud speakers. It attempts to establish a very real image for the students present.
The program continues with students who participated in the crash scene and other students who were taken out of class (escorted by death at increments of 15 minutes to further illustrate the statistic) spending an evening sequestered from their parents. They are “dead.” There, extended education about the issue is given to this group of 30 or so students and they are then given opportunities to reflect on the experience as a group.
The next day a mock funeral service is held and all the juniors and seniors are in attendance. Eulogies from parents are delivered about their lost son or daughter. Afterward the participating students are returned to the student body. The entire thing is highly emotional.
That’s the program more or less. There are other aspects and I may not have gotten it 100% but, it is a pretty accurate description of the program.
This program is even filmed so viewers may see it at the council meeting.
So the question is: Why doesn’t it work? Why is the program ineffective?
While the program is moving many of the students are laughing under their breath as beer cans fall out of the car or as their best friend is having a hard time “playing dead.” The realistic allusion, although a good attempt, fails to get through the thick skepticism of the teenage mind. Most of the students are more fascinated by the CSI’s at the scene than the actual accident. The scared straight tactic is not working.
The Mayor’s Youth Task Force has even been presented with survey results which clearly show that teens still plan to drink and yes, some will still even drive under the influence. The data, provided by the school district, shows that the program is having little or no effect.
This program is still alive purely because of the broad array of support it has from the city, police department and some parents and school officials. Most of the support comes from ADULTS who felt an impact from their role in the program but we can’t forget the program is targeted for the teens. If students who would drink and drive before the program (which is a small number) would still choose to do so after the program then it is a loss and an inefficient use of city resources.
I am not anti-teen programs, in fact I have supported and been apart of the creation of many of the teen programs currently in place. However, especially in this budget climate, I want every dollar designated to teen issues to be used to create the greatest impact. This program is not doing that.
It is often said about this program, “If it saves only one life it is worth it”. I would agree with that however, if we are so infatuated by a program that could save one life that we miss a program that could save two we have failed the teens of this city.
Burbank Commissions Fight for Purpose
As a board member it’s tough to say this but…are the boards and commissions of Burbank becoming obsolete? This past week was the perfect example of the frustration of many of our community’s boards and commissions. Both the Civil Service Board and Police Commission are facing battles for purpose.
I’ll begin with the Civil Service Board. Year after year the Civil Service Board has had its authority slowly negotiated out of union contracts. Before, the board served as a quasi-judicial body which heard appeals of employee discipline and complaints. The board has been reduced, for the most part, to reviewing job classifications. Then this last week absolute chaos! Why? Well, the board executed its purpose, it protected the city.
The board voted unanimously to block the promotion of an officer who has been named in the current FBI probe of the Burbank Police Department. Isn’t that a common sense move? I applaud that boards discernment and wisdom.
Over time boards and commissions have played a reduced role in departmental oversight. I question whether this is a good thing. I don’t believe it is. The more policy decisions that are being made by boards and commissions, the more open the process is for the public. While I understand how long and much more complicated public input can make an issue, the benefits far outweigh the negatives.
The Civil Service Board had every right to make the decision it made. Sometimes “No” is the best medicine.
To the Police Commission. When there is a public meeting where members of the commission question their own purpose it severely weakens their image. The Police Commission is on the right track and is asking the right questions but it’s time for the council to give them clear authority and oversight responsibility. While the Police Commission has been criticized, and in some cases rightfully so, they have done a good job at beginning to establish a purpose for the commission in the future.
I wish the Police Commission much luck as they attempt to get clear direction from the council.
