The Guss Report – Los Angeles Mayor Garcetti’s poker “tell,” an unintended physical tendency that hints at what lies beneath, is a slight nervous grin when speaking dishonestly in close proximity to others.
It was on display last Thursday when KCBS’s David Goldstein reported on fraudulent fire inspections at the Los Angeles Fire Dept. He asked the mayor whether he had ordered the removal of LAFD corruption whistleblower Deputy Chief John Vidovich. “I have never had that conversation. Never will. Never have…Categorically false. Never had a conversation,” Mr. Garcetti doth protest. For those keeping score, that’s four nevers and a categorically false.
But the reason Mr. Garcetti may have repeatedly said conversation is because, according to a well-placed insider, the dirty work may have been conveyed by Mr. Garcetti to LAFD Chief Ralph Terrazas via Nr.Garcetti’s Chief-of-Staff Ana Guerrero.
Cue the Violins
Mr. Garcetti went on to say, “I love John Vidovich. I love my chief. And I let (Terrazas) manage the department.” That’s two professings of love and a punt, sports fans.
The problem is, if Mr. Garcetti allows Mr. Terrazas to manage the LAFD, why then did Mr. Garcetti – in almost perfect proximity to massive union donations to Mr. Garcetti’s re-election campaign – create a post for Mr. Vidovich to serve in his office for the remaining few months of his career prior to Mr. Vidovich’s upcoming retirement? What would putting Mr. Vidovich there accomplish in such a short time…other than to get him out of the union’s way? Does Mr. Terrazas create positions for people in the mayor’s office?
Asked by Mr. Goldstein what role money played in his decision to move Mr. Vidovich, Mr. Garcetti said “zero percent.”
Ahem.
Mr. Garcetti has yet to explain whether the fraud allegations, each instance of which would be a felony given the dollar value of each inspection, have been referred to District Attorney Jackie Lacey, or why, specifically, Mr. Vidovich was removed if he was doing such a great job exposing the fraud and inefficiency.
Returning those funds to the union or, better, donating them to charitable causes like fighting veteran homelessness or my personal favorite, free spay/neuter in the city’s poorest communities, would be a win-win for all except Mr. Vidovich, whose reputation was permanently damaged.
Mr. Goldstein’s report was a matter of personal pride for me. CityWatch publisher Ken Draper asked me to look into the story this past summer after the L.A. Times published what appears to be a now discredited, unbalanced storyline driven by Mr. Garcetti’s office.
My original CityWatch story on the subject, which was the first to challenge Mr. Garcetti’s claims, led to one by Hillel Aron at the L.A. Weekly.
And my second article on the subject led to Mr. Goldstein’s story.
The Times does not appear to be ready to clearly and directly correct its original story. But that might change sometime next year if the City of Los Angeles writes Vidovich a check with six, perhaps seven, figures on it. But doing so will only compensate Mr. Vidovich. It will never make the original public narrative disappear.
If and when that check is cut, Mr. Garcetti will say, as politicians always do, “The city denies all wrongdoing, and makes this payment because settling is cheaper than litigating.”
And when he does, Mr. Garcetti will grin.
Mr. Guss, MBA, is a contributor to CityWatchLA.com, KFI AM-640 and Huffington Post. Follow him on Twitter @TheGussReport.
