Dear DWP Commissioners: Moore and Kaye Emails

Please include this email and the
two attached PDF files as public comment regarding Items 22, 23, 24, 25
and 26 on your agenda for your meeting today, March 18, 2010, at 12:30
p.m.

The
Board should refuse to vote on Items 22-26 today at all, because the
Board has not given the public adequate notice of the meeting.  I
believe the legal minimum required is 72 hours notice.  Nor was there
any particular “emergency” justifying shorter notice.  I gather Mayor
Villaraigosa has planned the proposed rate hike for weeks.  There is,
therefore, no good reason to deny the public at least 72 hours notice.

The
proposed rate hike would violate Article XIII C of the California
Constitution because it would constitute a “special tax” requiring
approval by two-thirds of the voters.  Villaraigosa knows it’s a tax,
which is why he tried to get voter approval for essentially the same
proposal last year; this was “Proposition B” on the ballot, referred to
as “Measure B” by the public, and it was defeated.

Though
characterized as a “fee,” this charge is in effect a “special tax”
because it would apply to virtually everyone in the city rather than to a
discrete group for a discrete service.  Don’t take my word for it.
 Have your legal team look at the California Court of Appeal case where a
city tried to impose a “fee” on all telephone users to pay for its
9-1-1 system.  The Court struck it down as an illegal tax.  The same
thing will happen here if you impose this fee.  I myself am thinking
seriously about filing a lawsuit if the City tries to impose this tax
without voter approval.

Less than a week
ago, Villaraigosa has told the public that his rate hike proposal would
cost the average customer just $2.50 per month.  In fact, however, the
average customer would have to pay nearly 15 times more than that.  (See
the attached PDF files for details.)  Hence, the overwhelming majority
of the public has been misinformed about the impact of the proposed rate
hike.  This aggravates the problem created by your giving less than 72
hours’ notice of the meeting.

4.  A Massive
Rate Hike During This Recession Would Be A Disaster 

Unemployment
in our city is at 13.2% according to the latest figures.  Families are
struggling.  Businesses are struggling.  We need to make it more
affordable, not less affordable, to live and do business in Los Angeles.
 If you want more money for power programs, then stop characterizing
the DWP’s profit as “surplus funds,” and stop transferring that profit
to the City’s reserve fund each year.  

There
is no legitimate reason to expand the ranks of DWP employees in the
name of solar power.  After all, solar power can be installed on
buildings owned by individuals and businesses.  Rather than hiring more
DWP employees — at above-market rates, and with massive pension
obligations — the Board should instead ensure that any new solar
program relies on the private sector.  For example, rather than hiring
DWP employees to install solar systems, the DWP could instead provide a
rebate or rate reduction to people who buy solar systems from private
companies.  This would promote competition and efficiency:  the
companies that deliver superior service at reasonable prices will
thrive.  That won’t happen if the DWP has a monopoly on installation.

Walter Moore
WalterMooreSays.com

Link to Attachment1, Link to Attachment 2

From Ron Kaye
Dear Commissioners:

You are all people of importance and respect
in the community. I urge you to not soil your reputations by an
imprudent action regard DWP rates today at an illegal Special Meeting.

You have canceled your last two meetings, both of which occurred
after the release of the PA Consulting report. Today’s agenda contains
many routine matters that show that your failure to provide 72 hours
notice is a violation of state law and makes any action you take subject
to litigation that could indefinitely delay imposition of higher rates.

PA Consulting has made it clear that the justification for the .8
cent rate increase is the DWP’s under-collection of more than $100
million due to higher coal and gas prices dating back more than two
years — further proof that there is no emergency to justify suspend the
public’s right to adequate notice. The Commission should have dealt
with the issue when prices rose sharply before the economic recession,
not now without a full public debate and not as part of a larger package
of questionable rate hikes.

The mayor has politicized this process and poisoned the debate with
false statements that do not reflect DWP policies, all the more reason
you must behave deliberately and transparently with regard to these
matters. His proposal for a surcharge is on its face a tax that is
subject to a public vote under Prop. 218. 

The heart of the PA report is the DWP’s lack of transparency in
terms of its policies, particularly the lumping together of many
disparate factors into the ECAF so that costs and benefits can be
clearly understood in each of the elements.

It would be irresponsible of you to act on these matters in any
regard since you have failed to adopt a strategic plan that would allow
the public to understand and evaluate the policies of the DWP.

You
have approved a massive lump sum payment to DWP workers, including
costly retroactive raises for many, and a long-term contract. These
actions were taken in the face of what we are not told is the DWP’s
financial distress.

You have a sacred trust to serve the public and the public interest,
not
simply the interests of the mayor, DWP management or its union. Do not
betray that trust.

Please include this email as part of the
record on all items involving rate increases. Further, I request under
the California Public Records Act all documents that are included in the
material upon which you have called this meeting and which any of you
has used as the basis of decisions you might make.

Sincerely,

Ron Kaye