Parent Advocates
Search All  
The goal of ParentAdvocates.org
is to put tax dollar expenditures and other monies used or spent by our federal, state and/or city governments before your eyes and in your hands.

Through our website, you can learn your rights as a taxpayer and parent as well as to which programs, monies and more you may be entitled...and why you may not be able to exercise these rights.

Mission Statement

Click this button to share this site...


Bookmark and Share












Who We Are »
Betsy Combier

Help Us to Continue to Help Others »
Email: betsy.combier@gmail.com

 
The E-Accountability Foundation announces the

'A for Accountability' Award

to those who are willing to whistleblow unjust, misleading, or false actions and claims of the politico-educational complex in order to bring about educational reform in favor of children of all races, intellectual ability and economic status. They ask questions that need to be asked, such as "where is the money?" and "Why does it have to be this way?" and they never give up. These people have withstood adversity and have held those who seem not to believe in honesty, integrity and compassion accountable for their actions. The winners of our "A" work to expose wrong-doing not for themselves, but for others - total strangers - for the "Greater Good"of the community and, by their actions, exemplify courage and self-less passion. They are parent advocates. We salute you.

Winners of the "A":

Johnnie Mae Allen
David Possner
Dee Alpert
Joan Klingsberg
Harris Lirtzman
Hipolito Colon
Jim Calantjis
Larry Fisher
The Giraffe Project and Giraffe Heroes' Program
Jimmy Kilpatrick and George Scott
Zach Kopplin
Matthew LaClair
Wangari Maathai
Erich Martel
Steve Orel, in memoriam, Interversity, and The World of Opportunity
Marla Ruzicka, in Memoriam
Nancy Swan
Bob Witanek
Peyton Wolcott
[ More Details » ]
 
LAUSD's Belmont, the most expensive school ever built, Combines ENRON and LOVE CANAL
LAUSD - the Los Angeles School District - has a winner, with millions - possibly billions before it's over - of dollars spent building a school on top of an earthquake fault and toxic dump. Will the people who were paid to put the school there send their own children. grandchildren, nieces, nephews, or children of friends?
          
The story of Love Canal has become the model for corporate greed, toxic waste, and public lies.

LINK

Love Canal is a neighborhood in Niagara Falls, New York. It officially covers 36 square blocks in the southeastern corner of the city. Two bodies of water define the northern and southern boundaries of the neighborhood: Bergholtz Creek to the north and the Niagara River one-quarter mile to the south.

Early history
The name Love Canal came from the last name of William T. Love, who in the early 1890s envisioned a canal connecting Lake Ontario and Lake Erie. He believed it would serve the area's burgeoning industries with much needed Hydroelectricity. After 1892 Love's plan changed to incorporate a shipping lane that would bypass Niagara Falls. Due to economic depression, Love's plan failed. Only one mile of the canal, stretching northward from the Niagara River, was ever dug.

Use as toxic waste disposal site

In 1920, Love's land was sold in public auction to the City of Niagara Falls, who began using the undeveloped area as a chemical waste disposal site. The city disposed of the waste from its thriving petrochemical industry. Later, the United States Army began using the site as well, burying waste from its experiments in chemical warfare.

In 1942, Hooker Chemical and Plastics Corporation, (a subsidiary of Occidental Petroleum) expanded use of the site, and by 1947, acquired the land for its own private use. In the subsequent five year period, the company buried 19,000 cubic yards (14,000 m³) of toxic waste in the area. Once the site had been filled to capacity in 1952, Hooker closed the site to further disposal and back-filled the canal.

At the time of the closure, the Baby Boom was at its height, and Niagara Falls was expanding rapidly. The local school board was desperate for land, and attempted to purchase a portion of the inexpensive property from Hooker Chemical. The board wanted to build a new elementary school in an area of the property that had not yet been used to bury toxic waste. The corporation refused to sell, but the school board pressed on, threatening expropriation. Eventually, Hooker Chemical capitulated, and sold on the condition that the board buy the entire property for a dollar. In the agreement, Hooker included a seventeen line caveat that explained the dangers of building on the site.

Shortly thereafter, the board began construction on the 99th Street School in its originally intended location. The building site was forced to relocate when contractors discovered two pits filled with chemicals. The new location was directly on top of the former chemical landfill.

In 1957, the City of Niagara Falls constructed sewers for a mixture of low-income and single family residences to be built on lands adjacent to the landfill site. New owners were not warned of the dangers when they were sold the land.

Residents began making repeated complaints of strange odors and "substances" that surfaced in their yards. City officials were brought to investigate the area, but did not act to solve the problem.

Health problems, activism, and site cleanup

In 1976, Lois Gibbs, the president of the Love Canal Homeowners' Association, led a community concerned about the health of its residents. The neighborhood had an extremely high rate of cancer, and an alarming number of birth defects. Children at the 99th Street School were constantly ill. With further investigation, Gibbs discovered the chemical danger of the adjacent canal. This began her organization's three year fight to prove that the toxins buried by Hooker Chemical were responsible for the health problems of local residents.

Throughout the ordeal, the homeowners were opposed not only by Occidental Petroleum, but also government of all levels. These opponents argued the area's endemic health problems were unrelated to the toxic chemicals buried in the canal. They believed the chemicals had been successfully contained within the former landfill. Since the residents could not prove the chemicals on their property had come from Hooker's disposal site, they could not prove liability. Homeowners continued to be ill throughout the legal battle, unable to sell their property and move away.

The 99th Street School, on the other hand, was located within the former boundary of the Hooker Chemical landfill site. While it was successfully closed and demolished, neither the school board nor the chemical company were willing to accept liability. This complicated matters for the homeowners' association, which was now battling with two organizations spending vast amounts of money to disprove negligence.

The organization had been frustrated by the lack of a public entity that could advise and defend them. These mostly middle-class families did not have the resources necessary to protect themselves.

By 1978, Love Canal became a national media event with articles referring to the neighborhood as a "a public health time bomb."

On August 7, 1978, United States President Jimmy Carter declared a federal emergency at Love Canal, but this was not enough to secure funds to move residents out of the area.

It was not until investigations by the scientific community, that it could be proven the chemicals were responsible for the ill health of residents. Geologists were recruited to prove that underground swales were responsible for carrying the chemicals to the surrounding residential areas. Once there, they explained, chemicals leached into basements and evaporated into household air.

On May 17, 1980, the EPA announced the result of blood tests that showed chromosome damage in Love Canal residents. Residents were told that this meant they were at increased risk of cancer, reproductive problems and genetic damage.

Two days later, residents became so frustrated that they held two Environmental Protection Agency officials hostage for two hours.

In response, the White House agreed to evacuate all Love Canal families temporarily until permanent relocation funds could be secured.

Eventually, the government relocated more than 800 families and reimbursed them for their homes. Occidental spent more than $200 million to clean up the site, and Congress passed the Superfund law holding polluters accountable.

[edit]
Aftermath
Today, the residential areas on the east and west sides of the canal have been demolished. On the west side, all that is left is an eerie, flat plain, crossed with abandoned residential streets. Some older residents on the east side chose to stay. Their houses stand alone in the middle of the demolished neighborhood.

Some new development has begun, though the containment area is still enforced. A home for the elderly, a community center and a playground have been built against the thin, chain-link fence that separates "toxic" from "safe".




Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal"


Tuesday, September 21, 2004
SECRET REPORT ON TOXIC HAZARDS AT BELMONT
If you already have RealPlayer installed, watch the full interview via Streaming Video now!

PRESS RELEASE

Los Angeles, CA. District Attorney Steve Cooley has yet to make public the "secret report" he cited as proof there are no environmental risks on the LAUSD million Belmont Learning Center site. According to Ed Scott who served on Cooley's Task Force investigating Belmont, a member of the District Attorney's staff hired the consulting company who prepared the report without the guidance from oil, gas, and environmental experts serving on the investigation Task Force.

When asked why the District Attorney would not want to reveal the results of the environmental report, Scott said he was more concerned about why the Task Force experts investigating Belmont never saw the report. Based upon references in Steve Cooley's 2003 Final Investigative Report on Belmont, Scott said it appears they didn't actually do soil sampling and soil testing which would determine if methane gas and hydrogen sulfide or other dangerous chemicals and carcinogens are present.

Full Disclosure has requested a copy of the "secret report" from the D.A.'s office and a response is pending.

This part two of the Ed Scott interview with Leslie Dutton on the Emmy Award winning Full Disclosure is set to air world-wide on the Internet 24 hours a day, 7 days a week on Tuesday, September 21, 2004 via Streaming Video at http://www.fulldisclosure.net For the first 30 days the program will be provided to viewers FREE as a public service and thereafter available online in the program catalog. The program will also be featured on 40 cable systems throughout California for the next six months.

Full Disclosure host Leslie Dutton has been conducting a series of interviews entitled "BELMONT: The World's Most Expensive High School". Costs to date for the development are $175 million. The Los Angeles Unified School Board has already approved an additional $110 million for demolition, reconstruction and completion of the on the Belmont campus, which was built on top of one thousand closed oil wells and is plagued with methane gas and other toxic substances. Unbudgeted remediation cost estimates vary from $14 million to $107 million. On Tuesday, June 22, 2004 the LAUSD board approved the project's environmental impact report, paving the way for completion of the stymied project.

This program and other Belmont programs can be viewed at http://www.fulldisclosure.net via video streaming on demand.

A cable channel guide with airtimes is available here on our website.

Full Disclosure Network™ 337 Washington Blvd. #1, Marina del Rey, CA 90292
(310) 833-4449 fax (310) 919-2890 www.fulldisclosure.net


Tuesday, September 14, 2004
COVER-UP BY LAUSD & D.A. COOLEY, EXPERT SAYS
If you already have RealPlayer installed, watch the full interview via Streaming Video now!

Los Angeles, CA. District Attorney Steve Cooley and officials of the Los Angeles Unified School District are still covering up criminal behavior and dangerous conditions, according to Ed Scott, a former member of the D.A.'s Belmont Task Force investigation of the ongoing Belmont High School construction project.

In a two-part interview on Full Disclosure, Scott pointed out that although his name and those of other experts were used in the District Attorney's March 2003 Final Investigative Report on Belmont "at no time did anybody from the District Attorney's office ask us to review the findings of this report or ask us to concur with the findings of this report."

In describing the Belmont investigation Scott said that the LAUSD removed consultants who questioned operations and procedures and replaced them with people who would produce desired results.

This part one of a two part interview with Leslie Dutton on the Emmy Award winning Full Disclosure is set to air world-wide on the Internet 24 hours a day, 7 days a week starting on Wednesday, September 15, 2004 on the website at http://www.fulldisclosure.net For the first 30 days the program will be provided to viewers FREE as a public service and thereafter available online in the program catalog. The program will also be featured on 40 cable systems throughout California for the next six months. Click here to access our cable channel guide with airtimes.

Full Disclosure host Leslie Dutton has been conducting a series of interviews entitled "BELMONT: The World's Most Expensive High School". Costs to date for the development are $175 million. The Los Angeles Unified School Board has already approved an additional $110 million for demolition, reconstruction and completion of the Belmont campus, which was built on top of one thousand closed oil wells and is plagued with methane gas and hydrogen sulfide.. Unbudgeted remediation cost estimates vary from $14 million to $107 million. On Tuesday, June 22, 2004 the LAUSD board approved the project's environmental impact report, paving the way for completion of the stymied project.

This program and other Belmont programs can be viewed on our website http://www.fulldisclosure.net via video streaming on demand.

L.A. Daily News: Chronology of the Belmont Learning Center 1988-92

Belmont no crime but ...
A disaster of biblical proportions, D.A.says

By Beth Barrett, L.A. daily News, March 3, 2003
Staff Writer

LINK

A two-year investigation of Los Angeles Unified School District's unfinished Belmont Learning Center found a "public works disaster of biblical proportions" but no criminality, Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley said Monday.
Cooley said he was disappointed that the $1.6 million investigation failed to unearth evidence that would have led to criminal prosecutions over the $166 million downtown high school, which sits atop a shallow oil field and an earthquake fault.

"Would I have liked to haul someone in by the collar? Absolutely ... It would have been a happy day," Cooley said during a news conference at which he described how prosecutors had felt a deep and "visceral" anger toward what the LAUSD had done.

"But we have to go where the facts lead us and that's where we went."

Superintendent Roy Romer said while "we are all very sorry mistakes were made on this project, ... what this is talking about is the old LAUSD. We are completely different now."

"We have put in place many of the changes and environmental controls that are suggested in the reports," he said. "We are confident of our ability to move forward with the aggressive building program that taxpayers have supported to relieve overcrowding the district."

Romer is exploring whether Belmont can be salvaged, possibly in a new reconfiguration on the site, and at what cost.

School board President Caprice Young said she was surprised there were no indictments, adding, "Everyone needs to take the findings to heart." Board member David Tokofsky, who has been a leading critic of Belmont, said plans for the 5,000-student school were faulty from the start.

"Whether it's malfeasance or misfeasance, it never made sense for kids educationally," Tokofsky said.

Prosecutors said the report underscored the importance of a strong and independent inspector general.

LAUSD Inspector General Don Mullinax produced an exhaustive report on Belmont in September 1999, and referred seven key players to federal, state and local prosecutors for possible violations of environmental, hazardous waste and education laws.

No agency prosecuted based on those referrals, and Cooley attacked District Attorney Gil Garcetti's finding of noncriminality during the 2000 campaign, which Garcetti lost. Cooley said he broadened this investigation's scope, but still found no financial crimes, including bribery, grand theft or securities law violations.

Mullinax declined comment.

Roger Carrick, Mullinax's former special counsel on Belmont, issued a statement charging Cooley with lowering the bar for environmental compliance "when it comes to protecting our children and their schools."

"Mr. Cooley should be ashamed of himself. Today Mr. Cooley simply reaffirmed his office's prior whitewash of Belmont."

Cooley said the investigation was anything but a whitewash.

"I know what our office did. I know what the lawyers did in this case. I'm very pleased and proud of what we did," he said.

This was the second high-profile District Attorney's Office investigation within five months to end without prosecutions. In November, Cooley declined to file charges in 82 Rampart cases investigated by the Los Angeles Police Department, citing insufficient evidence and the unrealiability of former rogue cop Rafael Perez as a witness.

Cooley said the LAUSD bungled Belmont from the outset by not using a competitive bid process, and warned the district against ever again using a "design build" process in which taxpayers risk paying more.

Dominic Shambra, who oversaw Belmont for the LAUSD until he retired in January 1998, felt vindicated.

"So we're clear, what's the news? It's not a surprise."

Shambra said Belmont was the victim of its own "complexity," and of union and political forces. "It was strictly bad politics."

But Shambra said he agreed with the D.A.'s assessment of the district at the time.

"The district needed to be hit; they didn't know what the hell they were doing," he said. "I admit the district needed to be turned around."

Prosecutors investigated whether Shambra might have been bribed by Kajima to support selection of the development team, but found he had not been.

The $6,279 check from Kajima Construction Services on March 20,1999, went to a firm, N.S. Construction, owned by Shambra's son, Nick, who endorsed the check to his father for partial repayment of debts.

"Dominic Shambra's interpretation of the circumstantial evidence of the $6,279 check is reasonable, consistent with the evidence, and points to innocence," the report said.

Shambra's attorney was Curt Livesay, whom Cooley since has hired to be his second-in-command. Cooley said Livesay recused himself from all aspects of the Belmont investigation.

Scott Wildman, the former Burbank-Glendale assemblyman who led the state's review of Belmont, called the report "really disappointing."

"That's amazing," said Wildman, now a consultant. "This fiasco, I think, was rife with stretching the law at least. We did our Assembly report, and we felt clearly this could be classified as a toxic waste area."

David Koff, a Hotel and Restaurant Workers Union Local 11 researcher who was a key critic of the project, questioned the report.

"I doubt we've heard the last of Belmont, any more than we've heard the last of Rampart. I don't think the report tells the whole story."

Anthony G. Patchett, who headed the Belmont Task Force until Cooley removed him July 21, 2001, said the report contradicts what was in the LAUSD inspector general's report and the findings of his investigation.

Patchett said grand jury time reserved for Belmont was canceled, and that he was gagged last November -- after having left the task force -- in an advisory letter from Cooley's office not to disclose anything he learned during the investigation.

Cooley said Patchett "passionately" believed there must be criminal culpability involved in such a public works disaster.

But the D.A. said that over a three-day briefing period in July 2001, it became "very clear" that the criminal theories presented were not supported by facts.

Cooley said the grand jury was used to subpoena financial records, but that the 343 witnesses cooperated voluntarily with investigators.

INVESTIGATION HIGHLIGHTS

Here are the highlights of Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley's Belmont Learning Center investigation:

ENVIRONMENTAL:

" The District Attorney's Office concluded that the school site is not contaminated with hazardous waste, as defined in California's Hazardous Waste Control Law. Methane and hydrogen sulfide gases were the product of an oil field and, as such, not subject to state law.

" The site could be managed satisfactorily by installing a mitigation system, as is done at similar building sites in Los Angeles.

" The Los Angeles Unified School District, Temple Beaudry Partners and Turmer/Kajima "acted in a reasonable manner" in attempting to address the soil's gas problems as they were discovered.

DEVELOPER SELECTION:

" Attorney David Cartwright, with the firm O'Melveny & Myers, did not have a conflict of interest in working on Belmont for the LAUSD, while the firm had a business relationship with Kajima International. Cartwright was not a "public officer," the firm had at most a "remote interest" and the LAUSD had waived any potential conflict.

OPENING MEETING LAW:

" Some LAUSD Board of Education meetings may have failed to comply with the state's Brown Act, but "intentional misconduct" could not be established. The board has since modified its open meeting practices and now appears to be in "full compliance" with the law.

BRIBERY:

" There was insufficient evidence to prove that Kajima bribed or attempted to bribe LAUSD Planning Director Dominic Shambra. "There is a legally viable alternative explanation of funds passing between them."

SECURITIES LAW:

" Neither failure to disclose possible retail use for a part of Belmont nor environmental concerns met the legal test of "material omission" in issuing tax-exempt securities.

" The district was "fully committed to preserving" the tax-exempt status of these certificates of participation.

SUBCONTRACTOR BILLING:

" A review of each claim of a billing violation showed that "neither (Temple) Beaudry Partners, nor Turner/Kajima, nor the six subject subcontractors intentionally overbilled for work performed on the project." The LAUSD's breach of contract and its handling of the project after it was shut down were the main sources of billing problems.

CONSPIRACY:

" The theory of a conspiracy was "highly speculative" and did not meet the "stringent evidentiary requirements" for a criminal prosecution.

" There was no direct evidence from a purported co-conspirator, insider or knowledgeable witness of an illegal agreement, which would be needed to prove a criminal conspiracy.

March 20, 2002 Education Week
Los Angeles Revives Beleaguered
Belmont Project
By Andrew Trotter

LINK

The Los Angeles school district, facing an urgent need to relieve overcrowding and seat thousands of new students, is pushing forward with construction of the vast Belmont Learning Center, the controversial facility that is believed to be the nation's most expensive public school.

The school board voted 6-1 last week to allow Superintendent Roy Romer to negotiate a contract with a construction group to finish work on the partially completed school, which rises above real estate that includes part of an oil field. The 737,000-student district, the nation's second largest, expects to bring the final deal to a vote within 90 days.
The board halted work on Belmont in 2000 after environmental testing of the 34-acre site revealed the presence of poisonous hydrogen sulfide and methane in the soil and a bitter public debate erupted over the potential health risk to students. ("L.A. Chief Recommends Abandoning Belmont," Jan. 26, 2000.)

Many Los Angeles residents doubted the school would ever open. But in December, at Mr. Romer's urging and after an independent panel of experts concluded that the site could be made safe, the board decided to restart the project.

"This is a victory for the children of Los Angeles," Mr. Romer said in a statement, which also noted that the planned 4,000-student high school would reduce the number of students bused out of their neighborhoods when it opens two or three years from now.

"This is a huge vote of confidence that we're going to be able to build all the schools [needed]," said school board President Caprice Young. The district plans to open 78 new schools over the next five years while adding on to 60 existing buildings.

Ms. Young, who voted to stop the project two years ago, reversed her stance last week, because "we're under new management," she said in an interview. "Two years ago, we had a completely incompetent facilities staff. It's not the case now."

Safety Precautions
The cost to finish the school is from $67 million to $87 million, officials said. Added to the $154 million the district has already spent on the site, that apparently would make the school the most expensive ever built in the nation.

As a result of the Belmont saga, the California legislature passed a law requiring potential school sites to undergo an environmental review by the state's Department of Toxic Substances Control before new schools are built.

The new construction contract, to be negotiated with the nonprofit Alliance for a Better Community, is to include the installation of an elaborate system of pipes beneath the entire 34-acre site, not just the portions that were the focus of concerns. The so-called "active mitigation" system, recommended by the expert panel, would draw hydrogen sulfide and methane out of the soil.

The system would cost $10 million to $15 million. In addition, a monitoring system to detect minute levels of toxins would be operated by an outside contractor, at a cost of $150,000 per year for 30 years, district officials said.

September 2002:

Public-interest lawyers sue for students, parents
By Helen Gao
Staff Writer

Outraged that the District Attorney's Office has not prosecuted anyone for the Belmont Learning Center fiasco, two public-interest lawyers have filed a lawsuit on behalf of students and parents, seeking restitution from companies involved in building the environmentally plagued downtown campus.
Attorneys Mark Adams and Roger Carrick filed suit late Thursday, one day before the three-year statute of limitations was to run out for Los Angeles County District Attorney Steve Cooley to file charges on alleged environmental crimes. Cooley expects to issue a report in the future.

"It's fair to say all of us involved in this effort believe you couldn't look at yourself in the mirror and say I have a chance to do something, but didn't,' said Carrick, who helped the Los Angeles Unified School District investigate the Belmont scandal.

"This lawsuit may not succeed, but we could not let a deadline pass without fighting for the children. It's absolutely astonishing that corporations in the heart of the city that affects children would get a pass from the district attorney.'

Filed in Los Angeles Superior Court, the 27-page suit charges a host of private corporations and individuals with fraudulent concealment, misrepresentation, conspiracy, grand theft, illegal deposit of hazardous substances, unlawful business practices and conduct in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act.

The allegations in the lawsuit largely mirror findings of a Sept. 13, 1999, report by LAUSD Inspector General Don Mullinax, who found widespread wrongdoing, incompetence and gross mismanagement of the Belmont project.

Among the defendants named in the suit are developer Temple Beaudry Partners, one-time district counsel O'Melveny & Myers, and architectural firm McLarand, Vasquez & Partners, as well as construction giants Kajima Urban Development Corp. and Turner Construction Co.

The lawsuit also lists as defendants David Cartwright, a partner at O'Melveny & Myers, whom the school district unsuccessfully sued for rendering bad legal advice; Dominic Shambra, a retired LAUSD administrator who conceived the Belmont project; Kenneth J. Reizes, a project executive for the Belmont developer; and Ernesto Vasquez, an architect.

Doug Dowie, spokesman for Kajima, the leading partner in Temple Beaudry Partners, declined to comment, saying the firm has not yet seen the lawsuit. Other defendants did not return phone calls for comment. Many had denied any wrongdoing. The District Attorney's Office also did not return a call for comment.

The suit demands restitution for parents of 10,000 students who otherwise would have been able to attend Belmont, their neighborhood school, if it had opened as originally scheduled in 1999.

The board halted construction of Belmont in January 2000 because of environmental concerns. Sixty percent built, the school has already cost the district some $175 million, and about $100 million is expected to be spent to complete the campus.

As Belmont sits unused, Carrick contends that children's education in the neighborhood is getting shortchanged because they are forced to attend overcrowded campuses or ride buses to faraway schools.

"We want to get for the children the value of the education they would have enjoyed in a new school with a new curriculum, with a new group of teachers and administrators who are dedicated to their neighborhood,' said Carrick.

Among the plaintiffs is parent Fernando Contreras, who has two children, Veronica and Geraldo, who would have gone to Belmont if the school had opened. The Contreras' home was condemned to make way for the school.

"It's been twenty-something years that (school officials) have been promising they are going to build schools,' said Contreras. "I don't know how they ended up spending all this money and not built anything.'

When children ride buses to attend faraway schools, he said, they miss out on before- or after-school programs and therefore are disadvantaged and deserve restitution.

No current school district employees or former school board members are named in the suit, even though they have been faulted in the past for their role in the development of Belmont. Carrick said he chose to focus on private corporations because he felt they were most responsible for the debacle. The district, he said, had relied on them for their expertise.

Both Carrick and Adams are veteran public-interest attorneys. Carrick has worked with the city attorney against tobacco companies on secondhand smoke and fought to stop the spraying of pesticides in Los Angeles to kill fruit flies. Adams has spent years in the Belmont neighborhood fighting against slumlords.

"Belmont represents everything that is wrong with the LAUSD,' said Adams.

"It does really represent everything that is wrong with how L.A. operates. How can it be that a public agency spends $175 million on a school that never opens, and nobody is jailed for that? How can that be?'


Full Disclosure Network" 337 Washington Blvd. #1, Marina del Rey, CA 90292
(310) 833-4449 fax (310) 919-2890 www.fulldisclosure.net
PRESS RELEASE

Thursday, August 19, 2004
FROM Full Disclosure's ARCHIVES 2003 :: LAPD POLITICS & THE MAYOR
Los Angeles, CA  From the Full Disclosure Archives historical interviews on timely topics which relate to current affairs, THESE are MUST SEE programs, for the content, which predicted what is happening right now. Released TODAY August 19, 2004, for viewing on the website at www.fulldisclosure.net.

According to retired LAPD Assistant Chief David Gascon, Los Angeles Mayor Jim Hahn wanted to become mayor and needed to get the Rampart scandal behind him right away. "That is why he told the Council the Federal Consent Decree was in the City's best interest."

James Hahn pushed the L. A. City Council to adopt an agreement that will cost millions of dollars and hundreds of police officers. Gascon told Full Disclosure host Leslie Dutton in a program that was originally cablecast in 2003. Gascon's 2003 prediction of costs and officers required to comply with the Federal Consent Decree has proved accurate, as the Los Angeles City Council Budget Committee has struggled the past two years to provide necessary funding to meet the Court's demand. LAPD Chief William Bratton has confirmed the cost will be in the hundreds of millions of dollars and 300 police officers are assigned to implement the monitoring process.

When asked if L. A. Police Chiefs were vulnerable (to political pressure) LAPD Assistant (retired) Chief Dave Gascon told Full Disclosure Network" , "A Police Chief cannot say "No" to the Mayor

 
© 2003 The E-Accountability Foundation