LITTLE SNAPPERS: GIVING “GAUCHE” A BAD NAME AND OTHER AGITA INDUCING THINGS.

Summary: after being away for a while, I return with a brief post consisting of “Little Snappers,” short observations on the often absurd realities of our city.

Outgoing lame-duck mayor Kathleen DeRosa managed this week to give “gauche” a bad name.  

When California’s Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) fined DeRosa $2500 for a series of lengthy and systematic violations of California’s tough campaign finance and reporting laws, DeRosa responded to it with a fairly typical pattern of lies and deceit.  First, she denied the existence of an FPPC investigation in a Facebook posting which readers found if not offensive, certainly risible.  Then, in our local newspaper, DeRosa blamed all her problems on now-deceased city clerk Patricia Hammers. 

Oh, poor me, DeRosa whines, I’m just an innocent victim of my bad city clerk, on whose bad advice I relied.  (Of course the fact that Ms. Hammers acted in one of the most cynically unneutral fashions imaginable, complete violation of her obligations as the city’s chief election officer, was never properly investigated, largely because death intervened.)  While it is not inconceivable that Ms. Hammers’s tenure of office might not have survived a reelection bid this fall, throwing her under the metaphorical bus when she has no ability to defend herself strikes one as over the top, even for so craven a political operator as DeRosa. 

Perhaps I should rethink: DeRosa’s behavior isn’t just gauche, it’s sinister.

In greater Los Angeles, two veteran politicians find themselves in trouble for violating California’s law requiring a politician to live in the constituency he represents.  Both Democratic state Sen. Rod Wright and L.A. city Council member Richard Alarcon have found themselves under indictment for not actually living in the constituencies they serve.  Now, some in Cathedral City have expressed disbelief that an elected public official should be required to reside bona fide in the community.  Yet, under California law, it’s always been thus.

So, when rumors began swirling around our Valley that at least one local political elected official did not live in her constituency, ears began to perk.  Not only are rumors swirling, but other rumors, of recall, or of referral to law enforcement for prosecution, also began to swirl.  One local resident with some experience in the legal profession even suggested that local politicians who don’t live full-time and in good faith in their constituencies should be referred to the U.S. Attorney’s office for investigation for “honest services fraud.”  At all events, it’s not unreasonable for constituents to expect that their politicians will live full-time in the constituencies they serve.