Dear OLA'ers:
I have now seen several attacks on one or more members of the National
Lawyers Guild, concerning our work on behalf of defending OLA.
For several decades now I have resisted the temptation to respond to
personal attacks on myself. I do so for two main reasons: 1) they invariably
lead to a "he-said-she-said" back and forth which gets nowhere and only
serves to further inflame the situation. Instead, I prefer to let my work
speak for who I am and what I have done.mindful, of course, that I often
make mistakes in the course of my work for the movement. And certainly,
where comrades offer comradely criticism of my work, I do respond in an
effort to resolve differences and, in many cases, to confess and correct the
error of my ways. An example of the latter is my response to the criticism
over my guests on the Lawyers Guild radio show last week. After receiving
the criticism I explained, in writing, what had happened. I wrote that I had
been home sick for a week, starting the night of the LAPD evictions, and had
then immediately flown to NYC to meet with my lawyer, etc., and go to court
on my criminal case charging me with "resisting arrest" during my arrest at
a OWS protest I had previously attended. I explained that when, in NYC, I
realized I had not booked guests for the first of two shows I wanted to do
on OLA, I called the only two people I happened to have a number with me
for, Scott and Mario, and asked them to join me on the show and to invite
one or more women to join them on the show. (That's how Tamar came to be one
of our guests. She was accompanied by Lisa Clapier from the "media
committee," who I also invited to join us on the air, but Lisa said she
thought Mario and Scott and Tamar would be fine, and enough.)It was only on
Friday morning, after Thursday's show, that I realized some people were
upset with my choice of guests and that at any rate, all requests for guests
were now to go through the "legal committee." Now, since I had been out of
touch for two weeks, I didn't know this. In fact, I thought that, if
anything, such requests should go through the "media committee," who's
number I also did not have with me in NYC and so asked Scott, Mario, et al,
to see if my choices were ok with that committee. Anyway, once informed that
now such requests are to go through the "legal committee" I called my old
friend Julie Levine, explained my screw-up, and asked her how I should now
proceed to book guests for this week's show. She made a number of
suggestions for good guests, but I said I thought I should not just take her
suggestions, but go through the new "legal committee." She readily agreed
and gave me the contact info for Cheryl on the "legal committee" and that is
how I have now booked the guests that will be on this week's edition of The
Lawyers Guild show. In short, in the face of my unwitting screw-up, I
apologized and corrected my process for booking OLA guests on our radio
show.
But what is one to say in the face of another e-mail attacking me
that is so factually baseless it has me meeting in NYC with two individuals
who, as a matter of fact, were in L.A. while I was in NYC defending myself
against the charges of resisting arrest? It would be pointless. So, no.I
don't respond to personal attacks on myself.
2) I also do not respond to personal attacks on myself because
experience has taught me that it only serves to add to the divisions that,
sadly, all-too-often exist within all political movements in this country.
In short, such personal attacks, as in this case, only serve to help the 1%
at the expense of the movement for the 99%, and so it's best to ignore them
and not respond in kind.
I do, however, respond to attacks on others in the movement. I do so
because in some cases the person attacked is so critically important to the
movement that failing to respond would do more harm to the movement than
responding does. Such is the case with the attacks on attorney Carol Sobel,
a former President of the Los Angeles Lawyers Guild and a leader in the
Lawyers Guild nationally. Perhaps more to the point, Carol is recognized
nation-wide as one of this country's premier civil rights and civil
liberties lawyers. The list of cases that she has handled for the movement
over her lifetime would fill a fat book. Her brilliance and tireless work
for our movement is historic and has been recognized as such by a great many
political movements, as well as by organizations of lawyers. But what
particularly upset me in one recent attack on Carol was the suggestion by
the attacker that Carol was in this line of work for the money! Again, the
list of people and organizations in this City, State and Nation who have
been the beneficiaries of Carol Sobel's free work for them, would fill a
very fat book. Carol Sobel simply does not deserve to be the recipient of
such an unfair and profoundly erroneous attack. I can only hope that the
person making the claim did so out of her ignorance and careless disregard
for the facts, and not maliciousness of intent. But in either case, an
apology is due Carol Sobel. (Frankly, it also angers and saddens me to see
others in the Guild attacked since we all worked night and day and, of
course, free-of-charge, to help the OLA movement the best we knew how. And
we continue to do that.)
Finally, if we hope our wonderful new movement for social and economic
justice prevails, we will have to be much smarter about recognizing who are
comrades and friends really are. For my part, I know that my enemies are not
the people in this movement, even those who sometimes engage in behavior
very hurtful to me, or to our movement. Rather, they are all my, and your,
comrades, and should be treated with respect and affection by all of us in
this movement. Certainly, I and the National Lawyers Guild stand ready, as
always, to defend all of our comrades in our movement regardless of what
faction or sub-group within our movement they may or may not happen to
represent. Indeed, every day now in the Guild office I continue to receive
calls for help, both from OLA and from numerous other L.A.-area occupations,
and I and other Guild members are pleased and thrilled to be able to answer
these calls for our help.
In Solidarity,
Jim Lafferty
17 Comments
Getting Along
Submitted by cleansweeper on
I am currently in Lincoln, NE and have visited the occupy camp here. I am also very familiar with the people of NE in general. If we expect to create any forward movement in this effort, we need to be careful of how we treat one another and how we appear to the public. I realize that some of the members have been in it from the beginning; however, as people join in and try to support, the internal political problems are going to start turning people away. Most of the people here in NE have no idea what we are about and see us as a bunch lunatics hanging out in tents and without a message or concept of what we are doing. The film shown before the "eviction" raid on the civil rights movement made some very powerful statements about how the non-violent movements need to be careful of their image in the press and by general observers. I just want to express my sadness when I see internal problems dulling the point of our sword.
We do the right thing because it is the right thing to do!
ditto to the National Lawyers Guild Members
Submitted by JohnSisk on
Jim I agree with what you've written as well as those in the comment above from Cleansweep.
However, it would first appear that you (as the Leader and Point Man at) The National Lawyers Guild would need to set an example for the method of conduct that you wish for others to extend to you and your members.
In short, go to this official Occupy Los Angeles Website and type in "Proposed Lawsuit" in the search parameters box. Then read the rather scathing, misguided and misinformed comments coming from your own members Sue Basko and "Mathew from the Legal Committee".
Their own comments occurring very early into our movement and efforts seem to exemplify better than any other the very type of behavior which you claim is soooooo unfair when directed to your members. (ie, uninformed, irresponsible, immature and totally detrimental to gaining momentum, credibility or even recruitment)
And they were referring to our Committee's ALSO COMPETELY VOLUNTARY (free of charge) efforts benefitting our movement regarding a lawsuit which addresses the very topic now gaining NATIONAL traction in our news media. And a periodical written by me (A Letter to CAS) which not only factually documents this rampant problem but is 100% verifiable in our nation's Public Records.
In short, for those who practice what they preach it then makes it much easier to gain credibility and followers. (and thanks for the good work you've done so far)
John Sisk--Point Person on the Public Service Office Corruption Committe at Occupy Los Angeles
Awww, shucks [shrug]
Submitted by ctizzie on
I'm really impressed with the "awww, shucks" attitude of this clarification. I admit, it's a pretty engaging narrative. However, I find it wholly disingenuous for the author to maintain that - with all his experience helping movements like this:
It reminds me of the Latinized legal principle of "ignorance is not an excuse": Ignorantia juris non excusat. See, even if I were to lend every benefit of the doubt to Mr. Lafferty regarding the (quite glaring) notion he only has two, OccupyLA contacts (what with cell phones, internet, and other tools of instant, mass-communication available to many in this country), it strains the limits of credulity to believe those two contacts just happen to also be the most controversial, divisive, and some would say - unscrupulous - characters involved at OLA. On what planet, during the occupation, was Mr. Lafferty living on that these two lightning rods of division were his "only two contacts?"
See, it is an untenable position to maintain that Mr. Lafferty himself isn't keenly aware that the General Assembly is regarded as the only authority which can speak on behalf of the movement. That's not to say guests can't go on radio shows. That's not to say people can't speak about what they are going to do going forward. However, the precise nature of his themed show was the notion of "Occupy 2.0"M - an odious, corporatist-lingo incorporating construct if ever there was one, which distinctly focused on what the movement was going to do, as a whole, going forward. That Mr. Lafferty's choice of guests, fully apprised of the importance of the General Assembly and certainly aware that his two comrades-at-the-negotiating-tables were regarded very warily by the general population of Occupiers, was a matter of happenstance and not design - is something of a "magical bullet theory" that isn't to be taken seriously. After all, a lawyer would certainly be well acquainted with the ethical notion of "the appearance of impropriety," wouldn't they?
The truth is - Lafferty himself had to face that General Assembly when he brought to it a proposal -conducted by the self-same small cabal of autonomous, unaccountable, non-horizontal agents of division he himself participated in - to accept 10,000 Sq. Feet of office space in 'exchange' for ceding Solidarity Park to the forces of state repression.
Considering the topic of his discussion on the NLG Show that day was primarily about strategies going foward, it's nothing if not ridiculous to presume that someone of such experience, intelligence, and general commitment to the success of OLA would have made such an egregiously ignorant mistake. No, instead, I would presume that the two divisive characters Mr. Lafferty leaned on for his show were done so because they share Mr. Lafferty's hierarchic notion of the movement itself. That these self-styled "leaders" should serve as mouthpieces, and with Mr. Lafferty's unqualified support and direct participation with (to the exclusion of the rest of the movement) shows how little he understands the central tenets of the movement. If that is - indeed the case... or if he just willfully chooses to ignore those tenets when it suits him...
In point of fact, as a member of the General Assembly at Occupy Los Angeles, I am not really sure how Jim Lafferty became involved. His presence at our assemblies was strikingly rare for someone who was ostensibly "negotiating" on our behalf, and who considers himself a "part of this movement." One would think a position of a negotiator would necessitate some level of interaction with the movement itself. If OLA was Mr. Lafferty's clients in such negotiations - he did a demonstrably bad job representing its interests, considering he only met with said "clients" (the GA) after his "deal" had been written up. I don't know many other lawyers representing people who act like that, to be honest.
But let's stay focused: the point is - individual lawyers within the NLG have acted amazingly towards occupiers. Carol Sobel, in particular, as noted here - has offered her tireless service to the movement and to all its participants, without regard to whether or not they are members of some self-styled cabal that proclaims its own authority outside of the General Assembly. I personally applaud Carol (and many other NLG members') work in this regard. But the NLG isn't some monolith. It isn't a law firm. Individual lawyers within its ranks can (and do) perform all sorts of legal services, with or without the banner of the NLG guiding their behavior.
As President of the local chapter of the NLG, however, Mr. Lafferty cannot claim such exemplary work. In fact, he has yet to represent a single occupier in court - and again - his only participation at OLA has been conducted without openness, transparency, horizontalism, or even modest communication with the movement. That's precisely why he only knows Mario and Scott. These are facts that cannot just be disregarded out of convenience for the author of this specious narrative.
It's time for Mr. Lafferty to be forthright, to not resort to baffling statements of personal ignorance to excuse his own unscrupulous behavior - and perhaps - to join us at the ongoing General Assemblies he seems to be (at least on air) so curious about.
-Craig Toennies
Member of the General Assembly of OLA
right fucking on man. very
Submitted by Mahayana on
right fucking on man. very nicely written!
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves - in their separate, and individual capacities. -Abe
Personal testimony and witness
Submitted by charliehbryan on
I was at the Occupy Los Angeles General Assembly the evening of Sunday, November 27 (the night when eviction was first threatened), having served as a Shadow Moderator that great evening and witnessing Ron Kovic's stirring invocation to open the GA.
I also personally witnessed Jim Lafferty attempt to make sure that people who were in the street on 1st St did not get arrested out of ignorance of the choices they had available to them. Specifically, a short time after the GA had concluded that night and while People's Mic was occuring, Lafferty approached me at the South steps to inform me that a mass of protesters were in the street on 1st St. and in imminent danger of being arrested. Lafferty asked if i could find anyone else on Facilitation. I set off and found Elena (one of the moderators of that night's GA) on the North Steps and, after we both returned and located Lafferty, the three of us attempted to direct people on 1st Street back towards the South steps.
I mention this because Lafferty selflessly gave of himself that night when no one was paying much attention. No one was holding a gun to Lafferty's head and forcing him to try to make sure that protesters knew the choices available to them, nor was any advantage obtaining to Lafferty as a result of his efforts. He took these actions on his own behalf and not at my or anyone else on Facilitation's urging. And his and Elena's efforts bore fruit, as I saw many people leave the street that night to re-congregate on the south steps (avoiding, I think, almost certain arrest and\or brutality at the hands of the LAPD).
Based on what I personally saw and know to be the truth, I think Lafferty should be granted the presumption of honesty and these innuendos recognized as speculative only and speculation unbecoming a movement as great as Occupy.
Charles Bryan
Member of the General Assembly of OLA
Member of Facilitation Committee on the night of November 27, 2011
important correction
Submitted by occupierkc on
I want to point out that's Jim's notion that anything can be approved by or must pass through the "legal committee" for approval is a complete misunderstanding on his part. Only the GA has this ability. I'm not sure why Jim thought this, but it is untrue. Certainly, some of the individuals upset about Mario's appearance on the show were legal committee members, but many people in OLA in general were upset about his choice.
John, when was your committee
Submitted by lizsavage on
John, when was your committee formed and approved By the GA?
I posted this as webmaster, so writing Jim a Letter here is not replying to him, but to me. Just an FYI. I have not made him a login to the site. Just wanted to "clarify" this is the Web Team passing down info emailed to us.
And Ctizzie, We have a lot worse to deal with regarding people who claim to represent the Occupation. The guest choice may have been one that was a bit polarizing yes, but remember it could have been much worse! Jim was just trying to get us more air time, and make sure we are being heard. (And TY for standing up for Carol, I met her the first week, and shes wonderful, and an amazing allie to have on our side!)
Did you know there are people vaguely related to occupy who do shows claiming to be the voice of occupy? There are a few out there. There are also random other people creating websites, and blogs, and other forms of media, which is out of our hands.
Also In my opinion, if people are so worried about who speaks for us, they really should have been more proactive listening to the people MSM interviews on site. There have been countless times where people who just walked off the street, people spoke out against us, people spread dis-info, downright INSANE people who were jumping in front of every camera they could find. And the words of the sane, rational, focused, people were many times minced, and taken out of context, to benefit them!
Last night I had a discussion about someone who claimed they were on our peacekeepers, who no one could verify, and did an interview with a radio station about his "mental illnesses" great!
We need to stay focused here, and instead of attacking each other, we need to stay on task and continue to fight the bigger fight.
Peace!
My words represent myself and not Occupy Los Angeles. @lizsavage on Twitter
Public Service Office Corruption Committee
Submitted by JohnSisk on
Liz you cannot be serious!?! lol
Ask your boyfriend (Daniil)
He can give you the date and time we proposed our committee and it was consensed by 100% GA consensus. As well as the date and time we proposed to place the lawsuit on our official OLA website with the explanatory publication (A Letter to CAS)
Something that, as you know, was never actually done by you. But, then again, as evident from several of the posts I see here above. I'm not the only one who has 1st hand knowledge that the Occuypy LA General Assembly really is not followed by this particular movement. But, instead, a few behind the scenes seemingly operating the media portion of the group.
Have a great day.
John Sisk
The GENERAL assembly
Submitted by 3rock on
First, Apologies to Jim & Carol, young movement, Younger Generation learning. From a mostly outside, older liberal, who appreciates your goodness.
2nd, I like Mario, characters are characters, but I like ALL people.
I know a bit about Mario. I've lived in Hollywood for 35 years. From about 1990 to 2000, he was a constant presence on Hollywood Blvd., dressed in a South American Politburo or a Dictator Generals uniform, complete with hat, medals and attached toy rocket ships, planes, the works. A bit transformerish looking, a bit. Though a few other eccentric, dresser ups would appear from time to time, he was a constant.
Drew a lot of attention, tourists took pictures.
He sort of disappeared from the blvd., about the time the abundance of story characters appeared. I then would see him at flea markets. His costume had changed to flowing, different fabric, whatever.
Point being, whatever the term, Mario craves attention. Nothing wrong with that.
The bad thing is I think he thinks the GENERAL ASSEMBLY is his & everyone lets him to where he's always standing there interrupting & saying "fuck Obama" i.e. someone higher then his persona.
So that Jim or anyone would think because he had been given the "stand there always" spot at general assembly, a deserved representative of OLA, when in reality he is a harmless someone with an attention addiction, is not Jim's fault.
It's not anyone's fault, the movement is young, but interruptions are not conductive to good mental workings, i.e. a good productive General Assembly.
PEACE
"I know a bit about Mario. ..
Submitted by tovangar2 on
"I know a bit about Mario. ...From about 1990 to 2000, he was a constant presence on Hollywood Blvd., dressed in a South American Politburo or a Dictator Generals uniform, complete with hat, medals and attached toy rocket ships, planes, the works. ...Though a few other eccentric, dresser ups would appear from time to time, he was a constant.
Drew a lot of attention, tourists took pictures."
OMG, is that true? That's the funniest, most Freudian thing I've read in ages. What an image!
General part II
Submitted by 3rock on
I'm relatively new to OLA, I think Mario & Juan are the same person, if not I don't know who Mario is. Juan is the GENERAL. OLA has it's leader Juan. I don't know why but I'm not in the mood to become one of the Juan percent, sorry. When you are making tshirts & bumper stickers, I'll commit more til then, I have to get my existence back on track.
Best Wishes
Mario & Juan
Submitted by audiotruther on
are not the same person, nor is either one the leader of OLA , we are all Leaders when, we take actions that benefit the movement.
General III
Submitted by 3rock on
I tried to watch the livestream of the GA tonight, at one point a very nice gentleman was speaking, whose natural rythym was to one side to the other. Juan starts mimicking him with him & his bike rocking & I don't have a clue what the guy said. And that's all cute to you OLAers. You won't straighten out your GA and personal hard block form me. I'm walking away! Thank You but No Thanks. I'm not into making fun of shy people by an attention freak for your pleasure.
Re: Apology to Carol Sobel
Submitted by TechnoZeus on
Hi Jim. I missed the comments and the context, but I do know that you have worked very hard to protect and defend the people who have made so many personal sacrifices in the process of our attempts both as individuals and as part of an amorphous movement of movements to better the world we live in and right the many wrongs we have been fighting, and I thank you. That said, if you feel that Carol Sobel deserves an apology, I would like to make sure that she gets one, and since I am the only person that I personally have the right to demand such a thing of, please pass this on from me...
I, Donald Arthur Kronos, personally apologize to Carol Sobel for any statements or actions on the part of myself or my comrades which have had any adverse effects upon you, emotionally or otherwise. Additionally, I would like to offer an apology to anyone else who has been inconvenienced or insulted or caused any anguish as a direct or indirect result of my words or actions or as a result of the words or actions of anyone with whom I am associated by way of our attempts to bring about positive change. The whole process is so far from an exact science and I personally believe that errors are made on all sides, as the only way to completely avoid actively making mistakes in anything this big and complex is not to try, which is itself a HUGH passive mistake which all too many people NOT INVOLVED in the movement are making. So, thanks to everyone who has been willing to risk making or being effected by active mistakes rather than to simply watch those making the biggest mistakes ruin our world. Thanks for being amongst those willing to make a positive difference, and please accept my apology since I believe I am as capable of making such mistakes as anyone else and I really am sorry they get made at all.. but I'm glad we've got the guts to carry on anyway because I do believe it's all worth the bother in the long run.
Actor, Activist, etc., Donald Arthur Kronos, Ph.D.
Adventurer and problem solver by reputation, Actor by profession and peaceful Activist at heart - Donald Arthur Kronos, Ph.D.
http://DonaldKronos.info
Attorneys are ...
Submitted by audiotruther on
freaking expensive, so doing some pro bono work on behalf of the movement is extremely commendable and should welcomed far as I'm concerned.
Where is the outrage?
Submitted by Lowflyin_Lolana on
And what is the progress on the lawsuit?
Truly----Is Occupy LA pursuing action against the mayor, the city, and the LAPD/LASD? And if not, why not?
You were MADE AN EXAMPLE OF. You were brutalized. Unlawfully. Held in solitary for misdemeanors. And I come on here to see what's going on with this and I get these pale excuses from supposedly well-meaning people who don't sound in the slightest outraged by what happened to these protesters---here and across the country?
What the hell?!!!!
Inclusiveness means to INCLUDE ALL
Submitted by JohnSisk on
Hi Lowflyin_Lolana and thanks for your comment
To answer your question: “And what is the progress on the Lawsuit?”
Well…….it seems to be dead in the water as evident from an email which I sent recently to the UCLA Professor (Dr. Steven Kwok) who has sat on that committee since its inception and has even gone out of his way to spread this information, attempt to gain a consensus and educate and recruit our followers through setting up twitter and Google accounts etc. on his own.
I’ve posted that email exchange here below:
12/13/11
From Steven Kwok
To #Occupy Los Angeles: Corruption Committee
Dear all,
I have set up this google group so that we can discuss and plan
various matters related to our work on the Corruption Committee.
First question: what is the status of the lawsuit against the DOJ and
House Judiciary Committee? Has the GA given approval to file it under
the name of Occupy Los Angeles?
Second: what are some of the other things we can do?
If anyone has any ideas, please post, that's the purpose of this
forum.
Best,
Stephen
12/13/11
From John Sisk
To occlacorruption@googlegroups.com
Hi Stephen
Thank you for your inquiry. Unfortunately, we still have never been able to even secure a spot on our official Occupy Los Angeles website as yet where interested followers may access and read the proposed lawsuit and publication. Daniil did post the lawsuit on the front page of our website for a few days but never did finalize posting an identifiable and accessible copy of the publication explaining it.
A measure that was consensed by the GA (with a 100% vote in favor of) not once but twice.
As such, all we got in responses were either from the 3 hatchet men (attorneys) sponsored by Jim Lafferty's "Lawyers' Guild" lol
Or
others who claimed they were unable to fully understand the lawsuit because they were unable to access the publication which would have explained in elemental detail the importance of such endeavors by our committee but were thoroughly behind such proposed measures in principle.
Therefore, unless and until we can impress upon Daniil or Media or Web-Media (or this seemingly invisible hand which soooo many have complained about previously in our Occupy Los Angeles movement) the critical imperativeness of obtaining a "well dispersed dissemination of this material along with an identifiable consensus amongst our followers" then I really see no merit in proceeding further with any filing until we are able to do so. In short, once we effect this dissemination it may very well be that our followers do not wish to pursue such measures. However, we're NEVER gonna know one way or the other what they think until we get this information in front of them and give them a chance to read, digest it, ask questions, post concerns or support, etc.
Thanks again for the check up Steven
John Sisk
Now Lolana I’ve met and spoken with Jim Lafferty several times during our encampment and to be honest with you…… I like Jim. He’s an affable and likable guy. But I can also honestly tell you as a trained and tested litigation attorney (of 20 years) who has practiced at the very highest levels of the law right here in this very City (Los Angeles) there is NOT ONE self-respecting, competent attorney in this nation who is going to be concerned with or be a member of something called “THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD”. Lol
In short, this is a revenue generating entity (admittedly even by Jim himself) created by him and run entirely by him ( a 1 man operation). Again in short, there is a well-respected and internationally recognized “SCREEN ACTORS GUILD” and a “WRITER’S GUILD” based in this city sooo apparently Jim thought it a good idea to attempt to run on the coat-tails of those two organizations and form his own corporate identity called the “LAWYER’S GUILD”.
Why Jim is no longer a member of the California State Bar (at least any attorney search fails to identify him) is unknown to me. But does that mean his charitable services to the movement are worthless? Well of course not!! Though it bears noting here that you sometimes get what you pay for in life.
Now Dr. Robert Strong (on our Committee and a LA County employee) had to go and personally confront Daniil (who controls all content placed on our official OLA website) to inquire exactly why a measure passed by our GA twice still failed to appear on our website. And Daniil’s response (as evident from his girlfriend’s post above from Liz Savage ( or Beth) was that he was unable to discern that this measure had ever passed through our GA. An anomaly which he then went and checked from our Live Stream archives and immediately rectified by placing the lawsuit on the website for a few days (though never actually posting an accessible copy of the critically important attached publication “A Letter to CAS”)
I was then, immediately thereafter, informed by a gentleman very high up on our Facilitation Committee at OLA that: “Jim said he was having to take a lot of heat from the posting of our proposed lawsuit on the Official OLA website”. I even asked Jim, personally, about this particular event.
The point is, these are just some of the MANY problems that our movement seems to face at the behest of those few self-appointed leaders which sooooo many have complained about throughout the movement thus far and, of course, which seem to repel sooooooo many exceedingly competent people who could help us in order to appease the whims of the few who appear to be soooo devisive, perhaps unqualified and even incompetent in our movement.
Soooo maybe we should be taking a closer look at some of these problems up front now rather than dismissing the rather rampant dissent concerning transparency under the banner of promoting unity. So that we may become exponentially more effective at recruitment, educating the public regarding our message, etc.
John Sisk—Point Person on the O LA Public Service Office Corruption Committee
Pages