Perhaps L.A. City Leaders Need To Appoint A Second Set Of City Leaders To Do Their Jobs
In the silly, bureaucratic tangle we call Los Angeles City Hall, where there's much more tussling over the nearest TV news crew than there is actual problem solving, the solution to many a major problem, even when there is zero gravy to go around, is to hire a big gun to take care of business.
That was the case Monday when city leaders suggested that L.A. needs a "collections sheriff" to get about $540 million owed to L.A. back into city coffers. You see, City Hall hasn't been very good at collecting on tickets, debts and other accounts receivable.
That kind of cash could have solved spring's historic budget mess downtown. Now we need to hire someone to do the job when city workers have been laid off and libraries have taken two days a week out of their schedules? Onetime mayoral candidate Walter Moore, our commenter du jour, isn't having it:
A "collection sheriff?!"
What the -- I see there are little eyes here, so I'll choose my words carefully -- heck is the MAYOR supposed to do? How about the CITY ATTORNEY?
Wouldn't collecting money be within their job descriptions?
I'm way tired of "pass the buck." Got discrimination suits in the Fire Department? Create a new inspector general.
Spineless, brainless City Council refuses to say "no" to the DWP? Create a new position for someone to deal with the DWP.
Why don't we just appoint an entire new second City Hall, to do the real work, while all the photo-op loving, boycott-passing, living brain donors currently holding public office can continue to pretend to matter?