05-11-09, Herbert Molano Responds to Michael Morgan’s Community Commentary, “Critic from afar keeps singing same tune”

 

The response to my essay about the fire department compensation by Mike Morgan is indicative of a weakness in democracies in general - A public untrained and unfamiliar with critical thinking.  Mike Morgan along with many other community organizers in the foothills are proponents of having the city of Los Angeles stop the sale and development of the the Verdugo Hills golf course.  Somehow he, as resident of Glendale, can request or demand policy direction at another city but the reverse is not acceptable to him.  What's good for the goose is not good for the gander.

But a number of his arguments are so misplaced that it almost needs a whole course in basic reasoning.  I am a stakeholder in
Glendale and possibly pay many times what Mr. Morgan pays in property taxes.  But my residence location should not have any bearing on the concept of making a democratically elected government accountable.  Any government whether in South Gate, Mexico, Venezuela, or the Sudan, when distant and unresponsive, is an affront to our dignity or to anyone who desires fair and equitable treatment.  Government waste, abuse or corruption, if unchecked, leads to other more distasteful and often cruel practices.

But if we accept the argument that we must be stakeholders before we take a reasonable stand, then all Californians and residents of the
U.S. would have the right to voice their opinion about how Glendale spends taxpayer dollars.  The city government takes in millions of dollars of taxpayer money from the county, the state and the federal government.  As such, we are all stakeholders in this process.

But there is linkage that is arguably stronger.  
Glendale's practices in defining pay and compensation is justified on the compensation levels at other cities.  Those other cities would also look to Glendale for guidance on their pay and benefits.  We are therefore linked in a symbiotic and spiraling compensation scheme where the pay rate of one city's employee group increases the compensation of the others.  So anyone living and paying taxes for any other city would have a justification to challenge any other city to try to stop pay increases based on comparisons rather than on performance standards, as it should be.

Here is another troubling issue with Mr. Morgan's positional statements - That a landlord who resides in another city would have no say in the governance where his income property and investment are located.  Anyone who would consider Mr. Morgan's logic as acceptable would, in effect, deny our advocacy as property owners.  With over 62% Glendale's residential population living in apartments and the preponderance of those landlord-investors living outside Glendale, we could have the majority of residential and commercial property owners paying taxes and not have commensurate influence in city affairs.  The idea of taxation without representation was a sore point in this country's revolutionary spirit if I recall correctly.

Mr. Morgan brings out another incredibly obtuse reasoning.  That because I supported candidates that did not win an elective office at the last election, then I should have no justification for any advocacy.  Irrespective of my support of a few winning candidates in the past: Drayman, Najarian, Quintero, you cannot logically hold a philosophical or ethical concept simply based on an electoral outcome.  Maybe Mr. Morgan would have sided with the ethical points of view of Governor Wallace in
Alabama, or Huey Long in Tennessee or many others in American history who abrogated our constitutional rights on their way to the top.

The reasoning for my positions has been clear and long standing.  Taxation should be fair and equitable.  An elected government that directs our tax dollars has a fiduciary obligation to ensure that those funds are not wasted, it's disposition free from corruption or corrupting influences, and its distribution should improve the quality of life of all its residents.  Unfortunately Mr. Morgan has not been a voice for the quality of life of resident south of the 134 freeway where my advocacy has been strongest.  The disparity of such distribution of taxpayer dollars is evidenced in salient areas: Huge compensation and benefits to city elite unions and management, with an unfair burden to rate-payers with limited income.  Those rates are needed to sustain those exorbitant salaries and benefits that became evident to the public only after a
California Supreme Court decision.  The distribution of open space and parkland of Mr. Morgan's neighborhood is nearly ten times the parkland area of our most congested neighborhoods.  Mr. Morgan's open space advocacy apparently has a very limited reach.  What is so troubling is that only until Mr. Drayman was elected to office has Mr. Morgan bothered to show up at city council sessions for issues not related to those of the historical society.

To me, Mr. Morgan is not the real problem.  Part of the problem is a cult of personality that is now becoming associated with Mr. Drayman's strongest supporters, the lack of sensitivity to the thousands of residents who have little voice in the city's affairs, the ethnic divisiveness that permeates the politics of this city, and a general lack of exposure to critical thinking and city governance in general by the general public.

The messiness of democracy has been with us for thousands of years.  Plato tried to postulate an alternative in The Republic, but thankfully, Aristotle, and more recently Jefferson and our founding fathers would rather accept the weaknesses of a voting public, even when erratically emotional, than accept an authoritarian regime.  We need more citizen and resident participation in city affairs irrespective of Mr. Morgan's desire to limit the evaluation of municipal government only to those who agree with his unexamined positions.

Herbert Molano