Editor's Note: If you support retaining the Southwest Museum as a a living museum, you can help by going to the Friends of the Southwest Museum's website  and joining their email and fax campaign.



Of all the dozens of city issues I've learned a lot about in the last year or so, the one that befuddles me the most is the Battle of the Museums -- Autry vs. Southwest.

As things stand, we have a really mediocre facility in the Autry in Griffith Park and a rundown facility in the Mt. Washingon/Glassell Park area that represents the oldest museum in LA, a landmark on the Eastside.

For all I've paid attention to the arguments on both sides, I can't understand why we can't have two wonderful museums dedicated to the artifacts and history of the Old West. The Southwest Museum's vast collection -- now owned by the Autry -- could sustain both museums as valuable community assets if there was the will and the money.

The showdown in this long war comes Tuesday at 3 p.m. in Room 350 before City Hall's Board of Referred Powers with both sides mounting intense campaigns by fax and email and mobilizing their supporters to attend.

It is a foregone conclusion that the board -- Janice Hahn, Ed Reyes, Tony Cardenas, Bill Rosendahl and Bernard Parks -- will green light the Autry's doubling its size and the Southwest Museum will get fixed up on the cheap and used as little more than classrooms.

I just don't get it.

The city's cultural and political leadership valued the Southwest and its collection so little they allowed the building to deteriorate and the collection to be looted until it reached the point that the Autry came in as the white-hatted hero with promises to restore it as a living museum.

But that isn't what happened. After the takeover of the Southwest, the Autry started making plans to operate only one museum, not two as promised.

It's a question of money, or the lack of it. The "Singing Cowboy" died at his Studio City home in 1998, leaving an estate worth hundreds of millions of dollars to his widow Jackie.

Despite promises the Autry Museum will eventually inherit a good chunk of the estate when Jackie dies, it has operated on a relative shoestring for many years and it's far from clear it has the money to expand the facility.

The questions I keep wondering about are these:

* If the Autry now can raise the huge sums needed to expand, why can't it raise the much smaller amount needed to restore and operate the Southwest?

* If the city's leaders think there is so much value in a first-rate museum celebrating the Old West, why did they neglect the Southwest for so long, why have they not come forward with money?

* Where's Hollywood? Don't the studios have a stake in promoting the Cowboy and Indians story anymore, in actually contributing to the city's cultural life instead of running away elsewhere to make movies on the cheap?

For my money, this conflict epitomizes the cultural poverty of the city and the lack of political will to create great institutions like Disney Hall and and preserve local institutions as well like the Southwest Museum.

City Hall could not start down that happy trail towards a greater LA on Tuesday by supporting the two-museum solution but don't bet on it.

Editor's Note: This is the full version of an opinion piece that appeared in the Daily News.

By Danielle Elliott with Michael Several
Community Correspondents

Paul Koretz was formally declared the winner of the Council District 5 runoff election on Tuesday - a victory that was not surprising except for the slim margin he won by over community activist David Vahedi.

Koretz was backed by the city's power structure: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, County Supervisory Yaroslavsky, two local Congressmen, the Board of Realtors and several city unions and others who stand to profit from his time on the Council. He had name recognition, serving 12 years in the State Assembly and as Mayor of West Hollywood.  And he outspent his opponent approximately 3 to 1.

But he didn't win the hearts and minds of nearly half his constituents, particularly homeowners and residents active in trying to make our neighborhoods better.

There were also voter irregularities. Normal polling places were changed at the last minute without notification. Voters were told they were not on the voting role and were not offered provisional ballots. Sixteen precincts were required to vote by mail only and the voters that tried to find a poll to vote only to be turned away.

The closeness of the election says something about the liberal Democratic district and the tenor of the City.

The east side where I live is a mix of residential and commercial - the goal of modern urban planning philosophy.

But city policy, despite the oft-repeated Smart Growth mantra, is causing dramatic changes in the neighborhood.

Little of the new commercial is for the local residents. You don't see the small markets selling fruits and vegetables and staples or hardware stores or shoe repairs.

They have been displaced by businesses that target people who live outside the area such as restaurants, bars and trendy boutiques, exotic plant shops, and incense and candle stores. These aren't neighborhood mom and pops. They are owned by outsiders hoping to catch some of the gold from the oversized Grove, Beverly Center and Beverly Connection.

They don't have the same stake in the neighborhood and attract customers from other areas whose cars clog our streets and take up the limited parking that's available.

This invasion has given rise to strengthened home owners associations.  And it was here that Vahedi had his support.  The closeness of the election is a testament to the strength of the home owners associations as a political force.

They are voluntary organizations, community based, that are a bridge between people and their government. They are a countervailing force to the influence that money and connections distort public policy. They are seen by developers and government officials as anti-growth, insular and indifferent to the greater good.

But it is not development that residents oppose. It is the nature of the development and corruption of the development process that angers and frustrates the community.

A voice for disenfranchised residents who are true stakeholders in their communities and leadership in a City Council more committed to political theatre than good public policy is what the people who voted for David Vahedi wanted.

In his June 5, 2009, LATimes blog article Supervisor Zev Yaroslavsky wrongly called this resident backlash "Anti-Development Sentiment".  The readily accepted NIMBY terminology disguises the true sentiment of the resident stakeholder----Anti-Corruption Sentiment. There has been an imbalance in which special interests have used their financial resources to get their way.

The city has created a master plan to control development but routinely grants variances to its own rules  for those with political and financial clout, the same people who funded Koretz' campaign as they did his predecessor Jack Weiss'.

That's why residents are angry. There are too many liquor licenses, too many large high density buildings being permitted without sufficient infrastructure and not enough parking or attention to what the community wants.

With such a narrow victory, Koretz does not have a mandate to lead. Like Weiss before him, Koretz could continue down the path he has followed and hope to stay in office with the money and support of outside interests.

But he should take note of the trend. Weiss almost faced a recall and a neighborhood activist almost won the May 19 runoff.

The community is getting stronger and hopefully Koretz will reach out to homeowners and community activists and make use part of his team to balance his leadership and fulfill his campaign promise of standing up to special interests.

UPDATE: Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa will hold a 3:30 p.m. press conference with union leaders on the deal with city unions. His press release () calls it a "MAYOR-DEAL.doc

landmark agreement (that) will save $500 million over two years 
without layoffs through early retirements and raise deferrals" but 
no mention of what it will cost taxpayers.

Meeting behind closed doors, the City Council gave to unanimous agreement to give 2,400 city workers as young as 55 sweetened benefits if they retire early.

The vote was no surprise and requires the agreement of all six unions that make up the Coalition of Unions with 22,000 members. A similar deal is likely to be offered to police, firefighters and other city workers but not the DWP, which is expanding instead of shrinking despite the economic crisis.

"We can't afford not to do it," Councilwoman Janice Hahn told the Times after the vote.

Added Councilman Richard Alarcon: "We're doing our best to save city services."

The deal requires deferring cost-of-living pay raises for two years but requires the city make up the lost money plus a bonus in the following years. It also calls for unions to up their contributions to their pension fund from 6 to 6.75 -- far below Social Security contributions for far better benefits -- to fund the early retirement costs but doesn't impose the increase for two years and ends it in 2026.

The Times reported there are serious financial and legal questions about the deal.

Gary Toebben, president and CEO of the LA Chamber of Commerce, has called for a thorough financial analysis of the plan.

"The public deserves a very thorough briefing when the council gets out of their closed-door session about what impact this will have on the budget over the next five years," he said today. "Because, ultimately, the taxpayer will end up paying the bill. They're not in the room. But they'll end up paying the bill."

Still, the Chamber later issued a statement saying it "applauds Mayor Villaraigosa, the City Council and public employees union leaders for their hard work and dedication during these lengthy and difficult contract negotiations. Saving 500 million dollars will be very helpful during this period of economic downturn."

The Engineers and Architects Union, under siege from the SEIU which is backed by the mayor, issued a similar call and questioned where the plan would withstand a court challenge.

"The [early retirement plan] that they're proposing is not legal," said Bob Aquino, EAA executive director, which represents roughly 7,800 city workers not included in the negotiations told the Times.

Editor's Note: Read the plan the City Council will vote on today to sweeten the package for 2,400 city workers to get them to retire early. It gives the unions until 2026 to repay the pension and other costs by raising their contributions from 6 to 6.75 percent during that period. The deferred wage increase element similarly will make city workers whole within five years. Will this really solve the city's budget and pension fund crisis?


EARLY RETIREMENT INCENTIVE PROGRAM (ERIP) MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL 6/25/09

1. The goal of ERIP is to separate 2,400 employees from City service as quickly as possible.
2. Benefit enhancements as provided on June 22,2009
(see attached). Add $15K to Scenario E.
3. Accumulated Sick and Vacation time will be paid out over two separate tax years.
4. Employees shall only have the retirement option to select ERIP during the window period (the
choice to select the standard LACERS retirement shall not be allowed during the ERIP window
period).
5. Window period of 45 days.
6. Management shall determine the order of the retirement dates for employees electing to retire
during the window period.
7. After all employees who enroll for the ERIP have retired through the program, the LACERS'
actuary shall determine the total cost of the ERIP by calculating the difference between the
increase in the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL) and the decrease in the Normal
Cost (based on the actual employees retiring from ERIP and including the backfill assumptions
provided by the actuary). This cost shall be an obligation of the Unions.
8. The additional cash components of ERIP shall be an obligation of the Unions.
9. Payment for the two obligations identified in items 7 and 8 above will commence on
July 1, 2011 and end on June 30, 2026 or until the sum of the obligations identified in items 7
and 8 are fully paid, whichever comes first. The payment shall consist of an increase in the
active employee retirement contribution rate of three-quarters (3/4) of one percent (0.75%).
10. The employee contribution rate for employees hired prior to 1983 (i.e. defrayal group) shall be
adjusted to 6% upon ratification of this agreement. Commensurate with item 9 above,
employees in the defrayal group (similar to all other employees) shall have their retirement
contribution increased from 6% to 6.75% on July 1, 2011. Savings from the elimination of
defrayal shall be credited towards the target savings figure (in items 7 and 8 above).
11. Once the City has recouped all costs associated with the ERIP as identified in items 7 and 8
above, the retirement contribution rate will be reduced by 0.75% to 6% for all employees.
12. As part of its Normal Cost calculation, the LACERS' actuary will provide an update on the cost
(identified in items 7 and 8 above) and savings (identified in items 9 and 10 above) so that
contribution rates may be adjusted accordingly to account for shortages and surpluses
collected towards the payment of the ERIP. The actuarial updates shall not occur later than
October 1, 2016, and October 1, 2021. The City and Unions will meet at least once annually
after the release of the actuary's report to assess the progress on eliminating the obligation.
13. Certain classifications will be excluded and/or capped at 20% (see attached lists).
14. Each Union shall conduct its own membership vote. Ratification by each bargaining unit must
be completed and the CAO notified in writing of ratification within three weeks of Council
approval. Units representing a majority of the LACERS members must ratify all of theEARLY
provisions of the retirement package. Compliance with this provision will be based on the
Wages and Count for full-time employees dated November 17, 2008.
15. An Early Retirement Incentive Program that is cost-neutral to the City is a critical element
of the parties' collaborative partial solution to the City's long-term economic viability.
Therefore, the parties agree that should there be a successful legal challenge to either
mechanism (end of defrayal or increased employee contributions) designed to ensure cost
neutrality, the parties will meet under the Mutual Gains process to discuss and agree on
alternative measures to ensure cost neutrality. Should the parties fail to agree on
alternative measures that will ensure cost neutrality within 60 days of the City's exhaustion
of all appeal options in the state court system against a successful legal challenge, the
City may invoke established bargaining practices to ensure cost neutrality as envisioned in
this agreement, i.e., payment of the actual incremental cost of the ERIP and any refund of
previous payments toward this goal required under the successful legal challenge.