Otherwise, the City will be in a bizarre "legislative limbo" in which his votes might or might not count depending on whether he is convicted.
After all, Alarcon wasn't indicted for just for any old felonies. Rather, he was indicted for lying about living in the district he supposedly represents. If he did not live there, he was never entitled to hold the office.
Think about that for a moment.
Do any of the votes he has cast count? How about votes he casts from now on? What if his vote is the deciding vote? If his vote sustains or overturns a veto concerning pension reform, do we have a giant "do-over" two years from now? Do we want to spend tax dollars litigating issues like that?
The City Charter does not require Los Angeles to endure legislative limbo while Alarcon's case slogs through the courts. It's time for someone on the City Council to show some true leadership and do what's good for the City.
How about it, Garcetti? Perry? Hahn? Huizar? Will any of you step up to the plate and do what's good for the City? Or will you instead follow the Cardinal Mahoney management model?
Alarcon issued a statement in which he tries to spin the charges as though they have nothing to do with his duties on the City Council. He claims, "the charges filed against me and my wife today relate to where we live, not to the work that I do as an elected Councilmember. I have not been accused of any wrongdoing in office . . . ."
That, however, is baloney. The charges relate to whether he should ever have been allowed to occupy office in the first place.
Until those charges are resolved, he must be suspended for the good of the City. Put another way, until the charges are resolved, Alarcon needs to stay home -- wherever that is.
I mentioned this at City Council meetings in the past.
ReplyDeleteEvery vote he cast was fraud.
Many new laws might need to be undone.
In our dreams, or...
ReplyDeleteCould this mean that the DWP rate hike, red light cameras, all city nonsense contracts, Broad's $99 downtown deal, and boycotting Arizona could be null and void?
Walter, for the council members to "step up to the plate and do what's good for the City" would mean a complete about-face that would be contrary to their nature! Don't hold your breath unless you hear that Cooley is going to summon them all and they come clean on what they know of Alarcon's true home. Did he host any parties that they attended in his "second residence"? Did others visit the "second residence" in the last few years? What do his utility bills show on usage habits? Did he get a newspaper delivered there and what does the post office have for mail delivery?
ReplyDeletePhil/Sandscripts, assuming he is found guilty, I think the city attorney would to review all his votes and motions to determine the result without his input.
What I don't understand is the city definition of domicile. He keeps saying that his permanent residence and domicile is at the Nordhoff house and that he's temporarily staying at the other house.
ReplyDeleteWhile I don't want to go out on a limb defending this guy, I'd like to understand his side of the argument.
Do the city rules allow for this type of dual house system for some interim period (obviously now stretched out for 2+ years)?