Category Archives: Los Angeles Area

Obama USC Rally Liveblog

It’s almost trite to point it out by now, but if there’s an enthusiasm gap out there, it’s not evident in the early voting, and it’s not evident at rallies like this one today at USC, where an estimated crowd of 40,000 is thronging to hear the President talk about what’s at stake this election season.  Even though things are getting started more than a wee bit late and getting in through security was a hassle, this eclectic crowd of voters is eager in anticipation.  Sitting here on the media riser, the atmosphere is electric.

Liveblog is below the fold.



Our own Calitics alum and current FDL correspondent Dave Dayen in the press pool

EDIT BY BRIAN: I added the press release from OFA about the speakers at the rally below David’s wonderful commentary.

Antonio Villaraigosa up to speak, rallying the crowd.  Talking about the diversity of the crowd, encouraging everyone to get out and vote.  Talking about big Republican money people: “If they were part of the problem then, they’re part of the problem now.”  Hitting outsourcing and tax cuts of the rich.  “The choice is easy.”

“Democrats have a plan to put California to work, to fix our broken budget, and fix our broken infrastructure.”

The crowd is enthusiastic when he talks about the light rail line in Crenshaw, emphasizing that the previous administration wouldn’t even consider the proposal, but that the Obama Administration has helped make it happen.  That’s why it makes a difference who is in office.

“The pundits say young people like to demonstrate, but they don’t vote.  But you showed them wrong in 2008…We are the change, and yes we can.”  Crowd enthusiastically chants Yes.  We.  Can.  If there’s disappointment from this crowd about the issues that have troubled many of us progressive bloggers, it’s not evident here.

Now Antonio Villaraigosa introduces John Perez.  If there’s a more potent symbol of a changing nation than 40,000 young people cheering on a Latino mayor introduce a gay Latino Speaker of the House at a rally for our first African-American president on behalf of a stellar progressive female Senator who happens to be Caucasian, all under the banner of “MOVING AMERICA FORWARD”, I can’t think of one.  Republicans may or may not make big gains this election.  But unless there’s a drastic realignment, their gooses are simply cooked long-term.  Demography is destiny; Millennials will only become a bigger and bigger share of the electorate.  This crowd is an image of the future; Tea Party crowds are an image of a dying past.

Perez: “We want everyone in this country to succeed and live their own American dream…when all the votes are counted, we are going to shock the world.  The Speaker of the House will continue to be from California…President Obama will still be leading our country.  We’re going to send a message to the teabaggers, make sure they know: we love our country, we want our citizens to succeed.  We want everyone to have healthcare…We respect every part of our Constitution.  Hell, we’ve even read it.  We have better ideas, we have better candidates, and in Barack Obama, we have a better President.

Them’s fightin’ words.  Wish more Democrats spoke with that sort of clarity.  Easy to see why John Perez is the right choice for Speaker.

Rabbi Denise Eger now up to speak.  Begins with an invocation in Hebrew.  Mentions the deaths-by-bullying in the hope of creating safer schools with a respect for differences and diversity.  Just another reminder that for all the supposed Neocon support for Israel, the American Jewish community knows who their friends are–and it isn’t the American Taliban.

Next up: pledge of allegiance and national anthem.  National anthem sung by Cheryl Lee Ralph.  Sadly, it continues to be an unsingable tune.

And now the volunteer coordinator for Organizing for America.  Reminds everyone of where they were on November 4th when Obama was elected.  Then reminds people about September 4th 2008, when the polls were looking bad, and the ubiquitous “it’s good for John McCain” line.  Tells the story of the hundreds of thousands of people who showed up to demand to know how they could help, sending Californians all over the country to help the cause.  “It’s 2010 and it’s time for you to stand up California once again.”  “Stand up for the people who put this country on their shoulders and saved it from a second Great Depression.”

“We’ve got 11 days left California.  It’s time to stop asking what change can do for you, and time to start asking what you can do to bring about change.”  Not sure that message will really sell–but if Democrats survive this election without a bloodbath, it will be without question be in part due to OFA turnout efforts.

“If you can’t make phones calls or knock on doors, bring food and water for the people who do.  Every little bit helps.”  Amen to that.  Getting volunteers to the local Democratic club offices has been a challenge in Ventura County.  The question is whether the enthusiasm for rallies and parties will turn into enough phone calls and boots on the ground.  In the end, field drives turnout, and turnout is what will make the difference in lots of these races–including Barbara Boxer’s.

A children’s chorus sings “All I want to do is shine.”  Crowd surprisingly gets pretty into it.  Now the famous Trojan marching band and cheer squad.  Cheers erupt.  But John Perez speaks first as they prepare, introducing Shobana Ramamurfi (sp?), a community organizer with OFA.  Significant accent, and I don’t think it’s an accident.  The diversity theme is huge at this rally.  Jewish, South Asian, Hispanic, African-American, White, Asian.  This is America.  This is the future.

Shobana mentions that she finally got her citizenship right before the November 4, 2008 election.  That she had been walking and phoning for Obama before she was even eligible to vote for him.

“I realized that I needed to make the change a reality.  In 2009, I became an Organizing for American community organizer.”  Mentions that the economy is growing, and that after healthcare reform, she doesn’t have to worry that health insurance companies will deny her coverage because she has diabetes.  It’s a pre-existing condition.

“This election in 2010 is just as important as the one in 2008.  So I’m asking you today, please get out and vote.  If you don’t, you’re letting somebody else decide for you.”

Now up comes Kuttner from House Kumar Kal Penn.  He apologizes for pranks he may or may not have committed on the USC campus while as a student at UCLA.  As a fellow Bruin alum, I applaud.

“Because you voted, the President was able to sign comprehensive healthcare reform into law…Because you voted, our friends are coming home from Iraq.  And because you voted, we now have a President who saved the country from a total economic collapse…That’s all because you guys voted.  But there’s a lot left to be done, and it won’t get done unless we vote again…I know if you turn on the TV recently or listen to the cynics, it’s easy to forget about the power that young people still have…We still have to pass comprehensive immigration reform…we still need comprehensive environmental legislation…we still need to act on Darfur…we still need to do something about DOMA and DADT…There’s way too much at stake to stop now.  Can you bring 10 friends with you to the polls?”

Kal Penn introduces the USC marching band.  Marching band plays the USC fight song.

Coming into today, I was wondering if the rally would come off more as an enthusiasm rally, or a desperate plea for volunteers from a crowd eager to just see the President.  From the sound of it, this crowd really does seem genuinely engaged and desirous of working to help get Dems elected to keep focusing on the issues that matter.  We’ll see if local Dem/OFA offices see an influx of volunteers this weekend.  One can only hope…

USC Marching Band is followed by Ozomatli.

Jamie Foxx comes up to huge applause.  Reminds crowds of the speaker who said she was exhausted defending Obama.  He gets the crowd to chant “We are not exhausted!”  Interesting take.  I understand that with 11 days to go before the election, the Obama Admin has to use this tack to rally volunteers.  But it comes off as grating to those who know that things could and should have been different–and that more folks would be motivated if they had been.

Next up comes Kamala Harris, who speaks briefly about the support behind this campaign.  Including netroots support, mentioned by name.  But oddly enough, never mentioned that she is running for Attorney General.

Jamie Foxx back up.  Jamie is nothing if not one heck of an entertainer.  He can move a crowd.  Gets everyone shouting “Vote!  Democrat!”  Impressive.

Hilda Solis up now.  “Over the past two years, Democrats made progress toward delivering change…while Republicans have done everything possible to halt that process…Democrats overcame Republican obstructionism to enact Wall St. reform, laying a stable foundation for economic growth…Democrats overcame Republican obstruction to pass student aid reform to get subsidies from big banks, to make college more affordable for students like you.  And Democrats overcame Republican obstructionism to pass the Affordable Care Act, so that young people like you can stay on your parents’ insurance until the age of 26.”  “Recuerda: su voto es su voz…Vamos a luchar…que viva Obama, viva las Democratas!”

Back to Mr. Foxx.  Shouts of Yes We Can, Si Se Puede, and Yes We Will.  

And now…Jerry Brown.  “We don’t scapegoat anybody.  When I see the power of the Sun, we don’t need Saudi Arabian oil or Texas gas.  We have California sun.”

“We can create the green jobs of the future for everybody that’s here.  And California has a place for all of us, not just the ones at the top…Gandhi said we have enough for our need, but not enough for our greed…We’re going to win it for the least powerful, because we can empower them to the power of the future.”

Jerry Brown is really coming into his own.

Jamie Foxx back.  He’s an energetic MC, and doing a great job moving the crowd, but as Dave Dayen noted, he hasn’t announced what office any of the speakers are running for.  You can’t take for granted that everyone already knows…

Barbara Boxer at the podium: “I look at you, and I think: We.  Will.  Win.”  

“These are difficult times, and I don’t sugarcoat it…The other side, they want to take us back.  Back to the Bush policies.  They did not work, did they?  You know what the other side is doing?  And the president and I were talking about this?  They are trying to depress voter turnout.  They are hoping that you notice the choice in this election.  They even sent out an ad telling Latino voters to stay home.  Well, we are not staying home.  We will vote, and we will win, because we are the people of California…”

“The pollsters have already decided who will win.  But there’s one problem, we haven’t voted yet!”  Not sure I like this approach from Boxer.  She’s ahead in most polls–no need to act like she’s behind.  Also, a lot of us have already voted by mail…

“The other side has special interests with them.  They have Karl Rove with them.  They have Grover Norquist with them…And I know they have Dick Armey with them.  But we have our own army.”  Me, I cheered at Dick Armey.  He and his tea party crowd are a great asset for Democrats in Delaware, Kentucky and Alaska.  The stronger his influence, the better off we are.

And now…the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

“You know, Jamie Foxx is pretty good at this.  We have to recruit him!  Might have to make him shave his goatee though.”  Mentions all the speakers.  POTUS seems in good spirits.  Still has insane charisma at the podium.  He’s in his element here.  The more he appears like this, rather than in a stuffy press room, the better.

“In just eleven days, you have the chance to set the direction of this state and this country not just for the next 2 years, but for the next 5 years, 10 years, 20 years…You can defy the conventional wisdom that says that young people are apathetic, that you can’t beat the cynicism in politics, that all that matters is the big money and negative TV ads.  You have the chance to say Yes We Can.  Si se puede.

“I don’t want to fool anybody, even though this is a magnificent crowd, because this will be a tough election.  This has been a difficult election…Families saw their cincomes between 2001 and 2009 drop by 5%…Families couldn’t afford to send their kids to college…couldn’t afford to take their kids to the doctor…we lost 4 million jobs before I took office, 600,000 the month after that…we hadn’t seen anything like this since the 1930s…My hope was that in this moment of crisis, we could come together and both parties would put politics aside.  That we would come together to meet this once in a generation challenge, because while we are proud to be Democrats, we are prouder to be Americans.  And there are plenty of Republicans who feel the same way out there.  but the Republican leaders in Washington made a different calculation.  They took a look at the mess they had left me, and said, boy, this is a really big mess.  Unemployment will be high for a while, and people will be angry and frustrated.  So if we just sit on the sidelines, and point their finger at Obama and say it’s his fault.  And that you would forget who caused the mess, and ride the anger to election day…But you haven’t forgotten.  Their whole campaign strategy is amnesia.  So you need to remember that this election is a choice between the policies that got us into this mess, and the policies that will lead us out…I don’t know about you, but I want to move forward, Trojans.

“Now, it would be one thing, if the Republicans who made this mess went into a summer retreat summer, said, you know we screwed up, and came up with some new ideas…But that’s not what happened.  The Republican…Chairman came up with exactly the same plan…The Republican plan is ‘you’re on your own’…I don’t bring this up because I want to reargue the past, it’s because I don’t want to relive it.  We tried what they’re selling, we didn’t like it, and we’re not going back to it.  Imagine that these folks drove a car into a ditch, and it was a really deep ditch, and they did nothing to get the car out of the ditch.  So I and Barbara and Antonio put on our boots and climbed down into that ditch, and it’s hot and there are flies down there, and even though Barbara Boxer is small she’s pushing too.  And Republicans are all standing at the top of the ditch, and we say, why don’t you help out.  They say, no, that’s alright, you’re not trying hard enough.  You’re not pushing the right way.  And we finally get the car out of the ditch and on level ground, and admittedly the car is banged up, fender’s bent, and it needs a tuneup.  But it’s on level ground.  And we get a tap on our shoulder.  It’s the Republicans, and they want the keys back.  And we tell ’em, you can’t have the keys back.  You don’t know how to drive.  You can be in the car, but you have to be in the backseat.  Because the middle class is in the front seat.

When you want to drive, what do you do?  You put it in D!  You don’t put it in R, you dont’ want to go backwards.  You want to go forwards.

“There’s a lot of families still hanging on by a thread, that’s what…keeps me fighting…We know that the government doesn’t have the answers to all our problems, we believe that government should be lean and efficient, and like the first Republican President Abraham Lincoln, who by the way could not get a nomination in today’s Republican Party, we believe that government should do for the people what the people cannot do better for themselves….

That is the America I know, that is the choice in this election.  This election is a choice, and if we give them the keys, which will happen if you don’t vote.  They’ll give tax breaks to companies that ship our jobs overseas.  We want to give tax breaks to companies that keep our jobs here in america…I don’t want companies that make solar panels and wind turbines making them in Asia…I want them made right here in the United States by American workers.”

“They want to cut education by 20%.  And this is a time when the future of our country depends almost entirely on the education of our people.  Do you think that China is cutting education by 20%?  That South Korea is cutting education by 20%?  Those countries aren’t playing for second place.

“So instead of giving unlimited subsidies to the banks, we want to give that to students like you so you can afford an college education…The other side has already promised to roll back health insurance reform and wall st. reform.  We want to make sure that health insurance companies can’t deny you coverage when you get sick.  That the law that syas you can stay on your parents’ health insurance, that that remians the law of the land…We want to make sure that taxpayers aren’t stuck with a Wall St. bailaout becdause somebody else took unwarranted rish.  We will oppose privatization of social security…so somebody else can take it and hand it over to Wall St…”

“Millions of dollars in special interest groups calling themselves Americans for Prosperity or Mothers for Motherhood.  I made that last one up.  But you don’t know.  Who’s financing those negative ads against Jerry Brown, and Barbara Brown.  And they’re doing it because of a supreme court decision Citizens United, which shows you how important it is who nominates Supreme Court Judges.  I’m proud that I nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court!

That’s why it’s so important that all of you get out to vote.  If all of you who fought for change in 2008 get out to vote this time, we will win this election…You didn’t get involved just to elect a president…you got involved because the decision we make will shape the lives of our children and grandchildren for decades to come.”

“I understand the last two years haven’t been easy.  I know a lot of you are thinking back to election night, and beyonce was singing and jamie was there, and it felt like a big party, but I told you this was gonna be hard.  But I told you power concedes nothing without a fight.  We’ve been grinding it out day by day and inch by inch…change is harder than I expected, and we haven’t gotten everything done that I hoped for you.  Maybe someone you know is out of a job, or a neighbor has a foreclosure sign.  But don’t let anybody tell you that our fight isn’t important, that we haven’t made a difference.  Because of you…there are small businesses that can keep their doors open even in the midst of a recession, we have brough home thousands of brave men and women in Iraq, we are going to fight to end Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, because of you we are going to fight for an energy policy in America.  Don’t let them tell you that change isn’t possible.  Here’s what I know.  Change is always hard.  If our parents and great grandparents, if they had listened to the cynics 200 250 years ago, we wouldn’t be here today.  This country was founded by people doing what had never been done before, battling the biggest baddest empire on earth.  We’re going to found a new kind of country.  And we hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…The cynics didn’t believe it.  And then, when we had to perfect that union and fight a civil war, the cynics didn’t believe it, that we could free the slaves.  If our ancestors had given up and listened to the cynics, we couldn’t have gotten through the depression, and gotten civil rights and women’s rights.  The journey we began together wasn’t just about putting a President in the White House, it was about a movement for change…if we work for it, there’s nothing we can’t achieve.  If you knock on some doors and make some phone calls, we won’t just win this election, we will restore the American Dream, not just some, but for everybody.  God bluess you, god bless the United States of America.”

—-

You know, for all the pixels spilled about the mistakes and inadequacies of the Obama administration, there’s no question about the difference between the political parties.  And there’s no question Barack Obama is an extraordinary politician.

But again, the real measure of the success or failure of an event like this is whether the people here will actually get out and work to make a difference in the election.  Time will tell.

EDIT BY BRIAN: I added the press release from OFA about the speakers at the rally.

Background on Speakers Participating in the “Moving America Forward” Rally with President Obama in Los Angeles, CA

Organizing for America Rally Features Senator Barbara Boxer, Attorney General Jerry Brown, the Honorable Hilda Solis, Representative Diane Watson, California Assembly Speaker John Perez, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, District Attorney Kamala Harris, and Actor and Singer Jamie Foxx. Ozomatli performs live.

Los Angeles, CA- Today, Friday, October 22, 2010, at the latest “Moving America Forward” rally in Los Angeles, CA, President Barack Obama was joined by Senator Barbara Boxer, Attorney General Jerry Brown, the Honorable Hilda Solis, Representative Diane Watson, California Assembly Speaker John Perez, District Attorney Kamala Harris, and actor and singer Jamie Foxx. Ozomatli also performed. The following is a brief background on some of the speakers participating in the Los Angeles rally today:

Senator Barbara Boxer: Senator Barbara Boxer has been serving the people of California in Congress for nearly two decades. Throughout her career in public service she has been a strong advocate for California’s families, children, businesses, and environment. She currently serves as the Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, and also serves on the Commerce, Science, Transportation, and Foreign Relations Committees.

Attorney General Jerry Brown: Attorney General Jerry Brown has been a public servant in California for most of his adult life. During his previous terms as Governor, Jerry Brown cut taxes and built up a large surplus for the state. He has always worked for good government, equal rights, and protecting the environment.

The Honorable Hilda Solis: Before joining President Obama’s Cabinet, Hilda Solis served the 32nd Congressional District in California. Throughout her career, her priorities have included expanding access to affordable health care, protecting the environment, and fighting for working families. She has also been a strong advocate for creating new “green collar” jobs.

Congresswoman Diane Watson: Diane Watson represents the 33rd Congressional District of California. Watson is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and is the Chairwoman of the Subcommittee on Government Management, Organization, and Procurement. She also serves on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and is the Chair of the Congressional Entertainment Industries Caucus.

California Assembly Speaker John Perez: John Perez represents the 46th Assembly District of California and currently serves as the Speaker of the California Assembly. He has spent his life fighting for better wages, healthcare, and benefits for working families and continues to do so in the Assembly. He is also the first openly gay person of color elected to state office in California, and is a strong advocate for the LGBT community.

Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa: Antonio Villaraigosa has been serving as the Mayor of Los Angeles since 2005. He is the first Latino Mayor of Los Angeles since 1872. Since taking office, he has worked to build coalitions to fight for the pressing needs of Los Angeles: education, transportation, public safety, and economic development.

Kamala Harris: Currently serving as the District Attorney for San Francisco, Kamala Harris has been a prosecutor for over 20 years. In office, she has focused on cracking down on violent crime. She has increased conviction rates for serious and violent offenses; expanded services to victims of crime and their families; created new prosecution divisions focused on child assault, public integrity, and environmental crimes; and launched innovative re-entry initiatives to prevent recidivism.

Jamie Foxx: Jamie Foxx is a talented actor, musician, and comedian. He has won both a Grammy Award and an Academy Award for Best Actor. He supported Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign.

Ozomatli: Ozomatli is a Grammy Award-winning band formed in Los Angeles. They are known for their blend of musical sounds ranging from hip hop and salsa to Jamaican ragga and jazz. In September of 2009 they performed at the Congressional Hispanic Caucus Institute’s Awards Gala with President Obama and the First Lady as the guests of honor.

Ashlie Chan: Ashlie Chan is a senior majoring in Communication, minoring in Spanish, and simultaneously pursuing her master’s degree in Communication Management at the University of Southern California. Born and raised in Arcadia, CA, she is the current president of the USC Helenes, the official hostesses of USC; is a former Undergraduate Student Government Vice President; and is senior advisor for the Alpha Lambda Delta honor society.

Marquis Olison: Marquis Olison is a writer and actor from Chicago and a graduate of Northwestern University. He worked tirelessly in the Los Angeles headquarters for Obama for America during the 2008 Presidential campaign and currently organizes volunteers across Southern California to reach out to voters for the midterm elections.

Shobana Ramamurthi: Shobana Ramamurthi is a Community Organizer for Organizing for America, volunteering up to 30 hours per week to support issues like health insurance reform and to turn out voters in the midterm elections. Shobana voted for the first time in 2008 after becoming a citizen because she was inspired by Barack Obama’s candidacy. Originally from India, Shobana is a dentist and lives with her husband and two sons in Fremont, California.

Since taking office in January 2009, President Obama has made major strides in pulling the economy from the brink of a depression, reforming the health insurance industry to give power back to consumers, and reforming Wall Street practices so that Americans are never again left footing the bill for the mistakes of bankers. The President is rallying support for Democratic allies who will continue to support his agenda to strengthen the middle class, rebuild our economy, and improve the American education system so that our children can compete in a global economy.

The Los Angeles, CA rally will be the fifth in a series of “Moving America Forward” events with the President. The President has held events in Madison, WI; Philadelphia, PA; Washington, DC; and Columbus, OH.

###

Organizing for America (OFA) is a grassroots project of the Democratic National Committee. OFA’s network of volunteers and staff is actively working in all 50 states to promote the President’s agenda for improving the country. Since 2009, OFA supporters have played a key role in helping strengthen America’s middle class by creating jobs, passing health insurance reform, building a clean energy economy, improving education, and reining in the excesses of Wall Street.

Teacher Rated Poorly by LA Times Commits Suicide

Even though education experts slammed the LA Times for ranking LA Unified teachers based on a flawed metric emphasizing test scores above other factors, the Times went ahead and published the article anyway. Last week we learned that the lowest rated teacher was, in fact, a successful and beloved teacher who eschewed the tests in order to ensure her students had the English language skills they needed for a lifetime of success.

Today comes a much more dark and tragic story of another teacher who was given a low ranking in the flawed LA Times article. Rigoberto Ruelas, a teacher at a school in South LA who had been missing, was found dead of an apparent suicide in the Angeles National Forest above LA:

“Based upon the entirety of the investigation, the evidence indicates he took his own life in this tragedy,” Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Capt. Mike Parker said….

KABC-TV Channel 7 quoted family members as saying that Ruelas was distraught about scoring low in a teacher-rating database recently made public by The Times. He had been missing since Sept. 22. South Gate Police Officer Tony Mendez told KCAL-TV Channel 9 that Ruelas was unhappy at his database ranking….

In the database, Ruelas is listed as “less effective than average overall.” He rated “less effective” in math and “average” in English.

The president of United Teachers Los Angeles, which has come out strongly against the public release of teacher names and “value-added” ratings, released a statement calling on The Times to take down the database, saying the union “predicted there would be problems.”

The Times issued a statement of “sympathy” for the family, but they have still not retracted their extraordinarily flawed articles and rankings. This shows why the Times was reckless to arrogate to itself the task of providing a high-profile and flawed teacher rankings system.

As billionaires and hedge funds are launching their own effort to privatize public schools under the guise of “reform,” it’s more important than ever that we get educational assessments – of schools, teachers, and students – right. The Times has gotten it very wrong, and the consequences have now become tragic.

UPDATE: UTLA is calling on the LA Times to take down the flawed teacher rankings:

United Teachers Los Angeles President A.J. Duffy called the publication of the list of teacher ratings “despicable,” and the union — which had opposed publication of the list — issued a statement calling on The Times to remove it from its website.

“UTLA is appalled at the L.A. Times,” Duffy told KCAL. “We predicted there would be problems. This teacher was a great teacher by all accounts — loved by students, parents, and respected by his colleagues.

“I will be reaching out to Superintendent (Ramon) Cortines and Deputy Superintendent (John) Deasy to join forces to implore the L.A. Times to take the names of individual teachers and test scores off the website and cease and desist from publishing any in the future.”

Good to see UTLA fighting back against the LA Times’ indefensible use of methodologically flawed data. It was bad enough that the Times went ahead and published the rankings in the first place. Now that someone has died as a result, the Times should do the responsible thing and take them down.

How the LA Times Got the Teacher Ratings Wrong

Last month the Los Angeles Times decided to publish their own “ranking” of teacher “effectiveness” in the LA Unified School District, based entirely on test scores. The move was extremely controversial, and the Times was slammed by education experts for their flawed methodology.

Today, however, comes a story that proves just how flawed and misleading the LA Times teacher ratings really were. It’s a story of a recently retired LAUSD teacher who was ranked as “the worst” by the LA Times – a ranking that came as a huge surprise to her former students:

Faye Ireland knows that she was a good teacher. She doesn’t depend on test scores to tell her that. She has stacks of letters from former students, enduring relationships with their parents and a reputation for managing the most challenging kids on campus.

But it bothered Ireland plenty when she was publicly branded “least effective” last month in The Times’ ratings of elementary school teachers. The ranking, in an online database with the “Grading the Teachers” project relies on students’ progress on standardized exams to measure teacher effectiveness.

What happened? Is Ireland just making herself sound good to cover up a flawed teaching style?

Nope. What happened is that by actually giving her students – particularly her ESL students – the help and instruction they needed, instead of wasting time on a test, she made a huge and positive impact in the lives and in the educational futures of her students, but at the expense of her “ranking” in some bullshit test-driven metric:

Ireland knew that if they landed in ESL programs in middle school, they would have few chances to take challenging academic classes. “Their parents worked with me like crazy, and we got them through all the things they had to do.”

By the end of each year, “every one of my students was fluent in English,” she recalled. “That’s what I set out to do.”

Other teachers warned her that her test scores would take a hit…

But she was looking beyond the test, beyond the classroom, even. “I wanted to transition those kids into English. I wanted them to know they could accomplish this, that nothing was off limits to them.”

In other words, she could have done what the state and the LA Times wanted – teach to the test – or she could have actually paid attention to her students, understood their actual educational needs, and made sure those needs were met so that they can thrive in their later years of schooling.

She did the latter, and that’s what makes a truly great teacher. By any standard her work would be seen as a huge success, and she would be held up as a model educator.

That is, under any standard except the one the LA Times used to brand her as the “least effective” in the entire LAUSD.

Now it’s possible that Ireland succeeded in some areas, was weaker in others (such as test scores). Only a full and comprehensive evaluation of teachers that includes an assessment of all their skills and accomplishments can truly tell whether a teacher is “good” or not.

That is precisely what the teachers’ unions are calling for. And that is precisely what the LA Times rejected in their reckless and flawed ratings, based only on test scores – which as most teachers, parents, and students understand, should not be the only thing education is about.

Ireland’s story shows what will happen if the attack on public schools, led by people such as US Education Secretary Arne Duncan and the LA Times, succeeds. Schools will become full of students who are taught to do well on a test, instead of having their other educational needs met.

If that’s what the education privatizers want, then that’s their choice. But for those of us who actually want good schools with good teachers in them, we would do well to continue to push back against the flawed LA Times teacher evaluations, and ensure that whatever LAUSD and California come up with next to assess teachers, that it is holistic and not focused on tests to the exclusion of actual educational needs.

Education Experts Slam LA Times Teacher Assessments

There’s a reason why a newspaper should not be making public policy on its own: their interest is in getting eyeballs and readers, not in providing policy tools that are actually useful.

At right is a short but very effective and informative video from Daniel Willingham, an education policy expert, explaining how the method used by the LA Times to evaluate teachers – known as “value-added measures” – is deeply flawed as a basis of comparing teacher effectiveness. The LA Times acknowledged these shortcomings in their Sunday article, but blew right past those concerns and used the flawed method of analysis anyway:

No one suggests using value-added analysis as the sole measure of a teacher. Many experts recommend that it count for half or less of a teacher’s overall evaluation….

Nevertheless, value-added analysis offers the closest thing available to an objective assessment of teachers. And it might help in resolving the greater mystery of what makes for effective teaching, and whether such skills can be taught.

In response to this, Willingham explained further why the LA Times was wrong to use “value-added measures” and offered his own thoughts as to why the Times did it despite the widespread concerns from education policy experts about the usefulness of such data:

I think their reasoning might be revealed in the story’s subheadline: “A Times analysis, using data largely ignored by the LAUSD, looks at which educators help students learn, and which hold them back.” LAUSD is the Los Angeles Unified School District.

I’m guessing that the editors at the Times are frustrated by the inaction of the LAUSD on teacher evaluation, (or on school quality in general) and they are trying to goad them into doing something.

This seems likely to me as well, though I don’t think the Times was merely interested in getting UTLA and other teachers’ unions to accept some sort of ranking system. They seem interested in promoting the idea of merit pay itself, as their Tuesday editorial on the issue made clear:

When one teacher’s students improve dramatically while those of another teacher down the hallway fall back, and those results are consistent over years, schools are irresponsibly failing their students by placing them with ineffective teachers, and continuing to pay those teachers as though they contributed equally.[emphasis mine]

Predictably, President Obama’s right-wing Education Secretary Arne Duncan praised the LA Times, and his shock doctrine-style “Race to the Top” program forces states to adopt these kind of unproven measures to be eligible to win federal education grants. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s own Education Secretary added in the same article that this suited their ideological agenda of “creating a more market-driven approach to results.”

Other education policy experts slammed the LA Times, including Diane Ravitch:

This has the odor about it of naming and shaming. It’s going to create dissension on school staffs. It’s going to have parents say, “I want my kid in the class of those who are in the top 10 percent,” and I don’t know how you squeeze 100 percent of the kids into the classes of 10 percent of the teachers.

Of course, that’s the entire point of the whole merit pay and charter schools discussion – to introduce “market forces” that cause parents to demand exactly that – try to squeeze 100% of the kinds into the classes of 10% of the teachers. As with any “market force,” you can then blame student failure on either themselves, their parents, or their teachers, for failing to win in the marketplace.

In the market, if you fail it’s your own fault, and nobody should be expected to help you. When applied to public policy, this means governments can be let off the hook for needing to ensure every child gets a good education – and it also means private companies can start gaming the “education market” to make money off of those students and teachers who succeed, while ignoring the growing numbers of those who don’t.

Which is exactly how the LA Times report is being used. Just look at this post on NBC’s Prop Zero blog from Joseph Perkins:

What is needed by the parents of underachieving students mired in failing public is a financial assist from their state government in the form of a school voucher that can be used for tuition at non-public schools.

It is the best way to the level the educational playing field between California’s haves – parents who send their kids to the state’s best schools – ands have nots – those whose kids are least proficient on the state’s standardized tests.

So it’s back to vouchers again. And merit pay. And other right-wing policies designed not to help all children learn, but to destroy the public school system in order to impose their right-wing ideological agenda on California’s children. It suggests this McSweeney’s satire of parents demanding other kids follow Ayn Rand’s sociopathic philosophy isn’t far from the mark.

Willingham agrees that these policies are flawed. But he also believes that the teachers’ unions cannot simply resist this, and should instead get out in front by offering their own solutions:

I have said before that if teachers didn’t take on the job of evaluating teachers themselves, someone else would do the job for them. The fact that the method is they are using is inadequate is important, and should be pointed out, but it’s not enough.

No one knows better than teachers how to evaluate teachers. This is the time to do more than cry foul. This is the time for the teacher’s unions to make teacher evaluation their top priority. If they don’t, others will.

He’s probably right about the politics here. Still, I think teachers are better off making a stronger attack against the right-wing policy outcomes that these metrics are designed to produce. If they can turn the public against test-based pay, against vouchers, and against privatization, then they’ll have a better chance of producing some sort of teacher evaluation process that is more holistic, less focused on the short-term, and less damaging to the quality of education in this state.

Teachers Take Issue With LA Times “Evaluations”

In a major front-page story on Sunday, the Los Angeles Times rated teachers based on student test scores they’d obtained from the LAUSD:

Seeking to shed light on the problem, The Times obtained seven years of math and English test scores from the Los Angeles Unified School District and used the information to estimate the effectiveness of L.A. teachers – something the district could do but has not.

The Times used a statistical approach known as value-added analysis, which rates teachers based on their students’ progress on standardized tests from year to year. Each student’s performance is compared with his or her own in past years, which largely controls for outside influences often blamed for academic failure: poverty, prior learning and other factors.

Though controversial among teachers and others, the method has been increasingly embraced by education leaders and policymakers across the country, including the Obama administration.

Although the Times article later acknowledges the limitations of this method, they still plowed right ahead and are using it – with the names of actual LAUSD teachers – to evaluate teachers in a massively public way:

No one suggests using value-added analysis as the sole measure of a teacher. Many experts recommend that it count for half or less of a teacher’s overall evaluation….

Nevertheless, value-added analysis offers the closest thing available to an objective assessment of teachers. And it might help in resolving the greater mystery of what makes for effective teaching, and whether such skills can be taught.

As most of you know, I was a teacher myself, teaching history and political science at the University of Washington and at Monterey Peninsula College from 2002 to 2009. I love teaching and hope to do more of it someday. I also taught a graduate seminar on pedagogy (the study of teaching), where we extensively examined the literature on student testing and teacher evaluation.

In both my experience as a teacher and my review of the literature on the topic, it is extremely clear that it is a very bad idea, highly likely to produce misleading results, to rely solely on test scores to evaluate either student learning or teacher effectiveness. Testing is very useful, but it is NOT the only way to evaluate a teacher.

That in turn is a primary reason why you haven’t seen districts like LAUSD publish this information. They and teachers alike prefer to conduct more holistic reviews that don’t reduce teaching to test scores. And that’s why UTLA is slamming the LA Times article:

One of the biggest critics is the L.A. teachers union. The head of the union said Sunday he was organizing a “massive boycott” of The Times after the newspaper began publishing a series of articles that uses student test scores to estimate the effectiveness of district teachers.

“You’re leading people in a dangerous direction, making it seem like you can judge the quality of a teacher by … a test,” said A.J. Duffy, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, which has more than 40,000 members.

Why would it be a “dangerous” direction? Because by naming teachers and providing a flawed ratings system for those teachers, it gives the public a deeply misleading view of teacher effectiveness. And it can undermine public support for teachers as a result.

The LA Times would have done better to not take into its own hands the making of education policy for the LAUSD. That’s a matter more appropriately done by parents, teachers, and the school district, in collaboration with each other. So I share the UTLA’s concerns with how this analysis is unfolding and proceeding.

Why Bell – and Maywood – Matter

So there’s been a LOT of discussion in Southern California over the last week or so about the situation in the small city of Bell, one of the hundreds dozens of incorporated cities in Los Angeles County, where top city officials were making truly stunning salaries, nearing $800,000 in one case.

The story is being pushed hard by the right, which sees an opportunity to undermine both government and public employee unions – although these salaries weren’t the product of a union contract, conservatives are ignoring that detail to imply that Bell is symptomatic of a bigger problem of “overpaid” public workers, so that we should simply impoverish everyone instead of making the relatively minor fixes to address the occasional abuse of the system.

But another story in the region has gone relatively underreported. Maywood, which borders Bell to the north, has laid off its entire police force and contracted with the LA County Sheriffs Department to police their city. In the SF Bay Area, San Carlos is considering a similar move. Here in Monterey, the Peninsula cities have been considering integrating their fire services, and already Pacific Grove has contracted with Monterey to oversee its fire services.

The real issues aren’t that government is incompetent or that public workers are greedy, as the right-wingers would have us believe. Instead the truth is that California’s city governments are in need of some fundamental reforms – including city consolidation – and that we need to do a better job of ensuring residents are fully engaged in the process of local government.

Joe Mathews and Mark Paul have argued that one problem is that we simply don’t need all these cities, especially in Southern California – there’s no need for these populations to be divided up into dozens of small cities. I tend to agree here.

The only reason cities like Bell, Maywood, South Gate, Huntington Park, and Compton – among the other so-called “Gateway Cities” – existed in the first place as separate cities and not part of the city of Los Angeles was a desire to maintain racial segregation. In an excellent book about the mid-20th century history of this region titled “My Blue Heaven: Life and Politics in the Working Class Suburbs of Los Angeles, 1920-1965”, historian Becky Nicolaides explained that many of these cities incorporated to prevent being annexed not just by the city of LA, but by the LA Unified School district. The goal was to keep nonwhite residents out of these white working-class suburbs and to keep white students from having to share a school with other students of color in the LAUSD.

For a while it succeeded. My dad was born in South Gate in 1957, at a time when my grandparents recall the city being uniformly white. The nearby Watts Riots in 1965 began a trend of white flight to the suburbs (my family had moved to Orange County several years earlier) and in the 2000 census, South Gate was reported to be 92% Latino. Many of the other Gateway Cities also have large Latino populations, some of which are undocumented and therefore denied full citizenship in this country.

Steve Lopez made this point in a recent column:

Those cities have largely poor, immigrant populations that are too busy working to pay close attention to City Hall, which means they can be easily exploited. Voter turnout is low, in part because many residents are undocumented and even many legal immigrants aren’t yet qualified to vote. And there’s not much media presence because of cutbacks by everyone in the industry, including The Times, so the rascals are left to steal with impunity.

“It’s a very predatory type of mentality,” said Cristina Garcia, a Bell Gardens resident who is an adjunct professor at USC.

The right-wing is already trying to reject this argument. Pete Peterson (not the same person who is trying to destroy Social Security and Medicare, unsure whether they’re related) writes in Fox and Hounds Daily that Lopez is wrong:

First, even understanding that there may be a sizable number of undocumented residents in cities like Bell, with a stated population of 36,000, the special election, which allowed the city to set its own pay for the city council back in 2005 was won on a vote count of 336 to 54.  A quick addition and division shows that about 1% of the total city population made the decision to put the municipality on its ruinous course; there’s low turnout, and then there’s civic malpractice. It stretches credulity to believe that 99% of the city’s residents could not have been more involved – either directly through the ballot box, or indirectly through reading local press – in Spanish or English. Certainly, Bell’s citizens are engaged now, as the hundreds protesting around City Hall demonstrate.

Peterson’s claim is basically that it’s the residents’ fault for not showing up. But he simply dismisses Lopez’s reasons without any real explanation. It’s not just the number of undocumented residents, but the fact that if 99% of the city’s residents aren’t engaged, then there is some kind of structural problem.

Should city council meetings be held on a weekend? Should the city undertake more aggressive ways to reach out to the public, instead of just assuming that whoever shows up shows up and if they don’t, tough luck?

Or do we need more fundamental reforms, such as same-day voter registration, a comprehensive immigration reform to bring more people into the ranks of the voting population? And should we finally examine some kind of local government reform, whether it’s city consolidation with neighborhood representation structures or something else entirely, like turning LA County into a kind of Madrid-style city-state with dozens of elected representatives?

Joe Mathews wonders if Bell has ended local government reform:

Bell’s leaders may have set back the cause of restoring more local control over finances. While the particulars of each proposal are different, several good government groups are arguing for allowing local government to keep more control over tax revenues. But it’s hard to make the case for trusting municipalities after the abuse of power in Bell.

I disagree here. What’s more likely is that Bell will fuel the desire to return power to local governments so that Orange County isn’t “subsidizing” Bell, or that Carmel isn’t “subsidizing” Seaside. Cities with more prosperous residents and more effective governments will want to cut themselves off even further from places like Bell, Maywood, Vernon, and others that have had problems in recent years.

At the end of it all, we ought to conclude that here, the system worked. The free press learned about the story, and the public demanded and have now won action to address the abuses. Compare that to the private sector, where Goldman Sachs still spends over $1 billion in bonuses even after helping destroy the economy, and the rest of us are essentially powerless to stop it.

I’m not surprised the right-wing has been silent as the night on that matter.

Why Antonio Villaraigosa’s 30/10 Plan Matters

Last year, when Los Angeles mayor Antonio Villaraigosa won an underwhelming 55% of the vote in his re-election bid, David Dayen wrote here at Calitics that this was due in part to Villaraigosa’s inability to finish what he started:

The enduring image of the Villaraigosa tenure is a crane alongside a half-built skyscraper. He is full of good ideas that never get the follow-through they deserve.

In 2010, Villaraigosa is working to shed that image through one of the most important and innovative proposals California has seen in a long time. It’s known as the 30/10 plan and would deliver the long-desired build out of a true mass transit system for Los Angeles by the end of this decade. It is Villaraigosa’s moon shot – and is essential to Los Angeles’s future viability.

30/10 is a shorthand for building in 10 years the mass transit projects projected to take 30 years to complete that voters approved in the 2008 Measure R sales tax increase. The projects include flagship routes like the Subway to the Sea (at least as far as UCLA), but also important workhorse lines like the regional connector, Crenshaw light rail, extending the Green Line to the LAX terminals, and finishing the Expo Line out to Santa Monica. It also includes routes out to the suburbs, such as the recently-approved Gold Line extension to Azusa, the Gold Line eastside extension toward San Gabriel, and even commuter rail along the West Santa Ana Branch line – all the way into central Orange County.

The key to the 30/10 plan is getting the federal government to loan Metro (LA County’s transportation agency) the money to build these projects now, to be repaid using Measure R sales tax revenue over the next 30 years.

Congress is quickly warming to the idea. Senator Barbara Boxer was the first to champion the 30/10 plan, and is being joined by Senator Dianne Feinstein and other federal officials who hail the 30/10 plan as a model for accelerated funding of mass transit.

For all its innovativeness, the 30/10 plan isn’t the ideal way to fund mass transit. The federal government built the interstates on the 90/10 plan: the feds paid 90% of the construction cost and the states only 10%. That model ought to be applied to mass transit as well. Until it is, the 30/10 model is the next best thing.

That’s because LA, like the rest of the state, has no time to lose in building out a mass transit network that can handle the travel needs of its population. As oil prices rise later this year, part of a long-term trend upward that will lead to a sustained price of $175 a barrel by 2017 according to Deutsche Bank analysts, the LA economy will grind to a halt unless more effective mass transit options are provided.

Even without the price spike, the traffic-choked nature of Southern California means that there would be significant economic benefits to mass transit. Fewer time spent in traffic is more time spent with family or innovating new ideas. Fewer dollars spent on driving leads to a Green Dividend that has already pumped more than $2 billion into the economy of Portland, Oregon. It will also provide for greater housing affordability – the most affordable places to live in SoCal are those nearest mass transit. Villaraigosa isn’t just going to put people back to work with 30/10, he’s going to ensure that the whole economy can continue to function in a post-cheap oil era.

Notably absent from this is the role of the state government. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has been waging a war on mass transit, trying to kill it by slashing operating funds. Already he may have claimed a high-profile victim in the form of Caltrain.

The 30/10 plan will need those state operating funds to be restored, and that ought to include a higher statewide gas tax. If it was good enough for Tom Campbell it’s good enough for California. Prices at the pump will rise anyway, but voters won’t notice even a 10-cent increase. Trust me on this, I lived in Washington State when the gas tax rose by 10 cents between 2005 and 2007. Nobody noticed.

As we can expect Meg Whitman and Steve Poizner to continue Arnold’s war on mass transit (and therefore, a war on California’s future), we can hope that Jerry Brown wins back the governor’s office and that he will reverse this trend. If Brown loses, however, Antonio Villaraigosa’s 30/10 plan would make him an extremely compelling candidate for the governor’s office in 2014.

No matter who occupies the governor’s office, the 30/10 plan is a model not just in California, but around the world. As Jarrett Walker, an Australian transit blogger, put it this week, the 30/10 plan will make LA “the transit metropolis”:

The big-picture Los Angeles talking point is still an inspiring one: The most aggressive mayoral transit advocacy in America is coming from the largest American city that was mostly designed for cars. And because film and television will always tell this city’s story to the world, the rise of transit in Los Angeles will be a globally resonant event. Is anyone studying how film and television images of how people travel in Los Angeles are evolving over time? Those things really matter.

For those reasons and more, let’s hope Mayor Villaraigosa is successful in his push to make the 30/10 plan real and secure Los Angeles’s future prosperity. Villaraigosa’s “enduring image” would no longer be the construction crane and the unfinished skyscraper, but the Subway to the Sea and a more sustainable transportation system for the region.

(30/10 map from The Transport Politic)

“Profiles in Cowardice” Gov Lite Candidate Hahn: Ax Private Workers, Not City Workers

From the Los Angeles Daily News today comes one of the more sickening stories I have read about the LA City Council mishandling the operation of the City of Los Angeles. Unlike many cities in financial meltdowns, the LA Council is actually blamed by bond rating companies for the financial disaster–NOT JUST THE ECONOMY. Council Member and Lt. Governor Candidate Janice Hahn was singled out for her words and recommendations without knowing the impact of her recommendation. As the Daily News said:

Last week it stopped being funny.

L.A. council dithers as city nears fiscal cliff

Those were real tears in the City Council chamber as members of the various public employee unions made their case why 4,000 of them shouldn’t be fired due to the budget sinkhole that promises to swallow us all.

Moved by the tears, Councilwoman Janice Hahn proclaimed, “It’s time for us to lay off private contractors and keep our city workers!”

In Hahn’s world there’s a hierarchy of sorrow. A city worker losing his job is somehow worse than you losing your job. Unemployment is clearly more tragic if the laid off worker has a union card in his wallet. This must come as a great comfort to the thousands upon thousands of private sector taxpayers in L.A. who have been fired over the past 18 months. Sure you lost your job and your health insurance. OK, so you’re upside down on your home, your taxes have been hiked and your pension has plummeted, but at least you are not one of those poor city workers who might lose his job.

Janice “Evita” Hahn cavalierly suggests firing private contractors, as if their children’s stomachs fill themselves. Fired is fired, Ms. Hahn. Nonunion tears are just as salty.

All three credit agencies cited the same reason for their pessimistic view of Los Angeles: The mayor and City Council have been MIA during this financial crisis – a crisis largely of their own making.

The Daily News goes on to detail that the LA City Council REPEATED ignored the advice of the financial folks that work for the City to act or more folks would loose their city jobs. As the Daily News put it:

The Spring Street Ostriches continue to twist like Cirque du Soleil aerialists as they try to come up with any reason to avoid doing anything. Every day of delay layers an additional $380,000 in debt.

If someone ever writes a book about our current generation of L.A. politicians the title will be “Profiles in Cowardice.”

The highest paid City Council in America continues to dither while this great city crashes on the rocks of insolvency. To add insult to injury, Janice Hahn and Company are only interested in drying the tears of the public employee unions and the special favored few.

H/T To LA DAILY NEWS and Writer Doug McIntyre

Link to Full LA Daily News Story: http://www.dailynews.com/ci_14…

Anthony Adams’ Head Saved From Pike

Back in the February budget battle, notorious right-wing SoCal talk show hosts John and Ken put the heads of Republican legislators who voted for the tax increases on sticks as a threat of grassroots wingnut revolt. Their primary enemy became GOP Assemblymember Anthony Adams (AD-59), who they targeted with a recall effort, gathering and submitting signatures to put a recall on the ballot. It was to be the biggest demonstration yet of the power the KFI duo have over California politics – and the Republican Party.

Except they failed.

We learned today that the recall effort will fall 11,000 signatures short of qualifying for the ballot, according to the random sampling projections. John and Ken turned in 58,000 signatures but the sampling projects less than half – about 24,500 – will be valid, short of the 35,825 they needed to make the ballot.

Chalk this up as a pretty big FAIL on the part of John and Ken and their own SoCal version of the teabagger movement. Armed with one of the West Coast’s most powerful radio signals and one of the highest rated shows in the region, they still couldn’t muster the signatures to even get this before voters.

On Twitter I noted that if they couldn’t get the recall on the ballot, maybe John and Ken aren’t so powerful after all. Anthony Adams agrees. Once again, the great anti-tax revolution of 2009 is a mouse that failed to roar.

LACDP Summit Lunch Liveblog: Coalition Building

Following is the liveblog of the LACDP Summit Lunch Panel on Coalition Building with:

  • Assemblymember De La Torre
  • Peggy Moore of OFA
  • Henry Vandermeir of the CDC
  • Arisha Michelle Hatch of the Courage Campaign
  • Dorothy Reik of PDA
  • Gary Vaughn of SEIU 721

This very interesting panel was moderated by Assemblymember John Perez.  

John Perez:  Great to be here, we’ve got a great panel of people who have been involved in coalition politics.  People use the term “coalition” in many different ways, some not so good, such as Bush’s “coalition of the willing”, some good such as when progressive groups come together.  Coalitions are a coming together of different groups for a shared interest.  They’ve identified that interest in themselves, and someone else.

First and foremost, you have to frame the issue around which people will coalesce.  Second, you need to have trust between the partners.  Third, there has to be a mechanism to mitigate when coalition partners have a dispute.  Last, there have to be ways to measure success, and ways to build on that success to move forward.

One example of a coalition coming together on a specific approach will be presented by Assemblymember Hector De La Torre.

Assemblymember De La Torre: AB1060 is a bill that requires that all alcohol sales at grocery stores be done where there is a human checkout person who will check all the codes.  Currently you can go to an automated stand with only one person monitoring 4 or 6 machines.  One person can’t monitor all of this, and it’s not just about minors.  It’s also illegal to sell alcohol to someone who is already drunk.  If you aren’t next to the person and able to check, you can’t tell.  Also, teenagers have figured out how to bypass the the freeze mechanism to get around the alcohol sales barrier.  No one is saying that the alcohol has to be locked away like cigarettes, just that a human has to be at the checkout.

Labor is with us on the bill, but it couldn’t be UFCW versus the grocery stores.  So we need to build a coalition.  Young people, parents’ groups, PTA, MADD, etc.  And it was hard, because there were other issues including Mike Feuer’s lock device bill.  It took a while but we were able to convince them that this was in their interest and necessary.  And in the end, UFCW never appeared publicly as the supporter of the bill, but rather PTAs and MADD and those other groups.  You have to figure out who the best spokesperson and the best face for the issue is.  It’s nice to be right, but winning is important.  You have to have the right face on it.  And AB1060 is still on the Senate Floor, so please sign in favor of it.

Question: These machines are anti-employee!  We need to boycott any stores that have them.

De la Torre: I get askede a lot about whether it’s a labor bill.  It’s not: it’s about how we conduct business in this state.  We the people get to decide how business is conducted in the state.

Perez: That was a great example of how to build a coalition.  In terms of format, we’re going to take 20-25 minutes to go through the panel.  Each panelist will take about 4-5 minutes to give their presentation, then I will moderate the Q&A.  First presenter is Peggy Moore.  Peggy is Political Director of OFA, has organized various campaigns for social justice in Oakland.

Peggy Moore: OFA serves as the President’s field team.  The election last year was exciting and folks got involved who had never been involved in a campaign before.  It was an historic movement, but getting into office was just the beginning of making the change.  OFA was created so that we can support the President on the ground.  Staff of 9 in California, but we’re in 48 states.  We have a phenomenal group of volunteers, and we were phonebanking our hearts out from one congressperson to another, depending on who we needed to give our love to.  Right now it’s all about supporting the healthcare agenda.  But pretty soon it’ll be energy, and immigration and other issues.  So we’re working with HCAN, labor, done press conferences, actions, phonebank, etc.  And when we move to education, we’ll be expanding our coalition building.

We are a part of the DNC.  OFA is a project of the DNC.  Our structure works where we have community organizers who create neighborhood teams.  We want to have people ready and waiting on the ground in an instant when we need to support the president.  We have 150 to 175 organizers ready on the ground.  We’re training people to be ready for action.  The issue is transferrable, doesn’t matter what it is.  We’re just trained to be on the ground and help people organize.  We’ve also been working with Learn to Win.

Perez: Thank you Peggy. Next up is Henry Vandermeir, serving in second term as Chairman of the CDC, and Political Director of the Orange County Democratic Party.

Henry Vandermeir: Obviously, one of the things from the party’s point of view from the coalition point of view is to get our own party working together.  With over 400 clubs across the state, getting them to cooperate is important.  Or if there is a speaker coming and you don’t have enough people in your club, invite people from other clubs to come.  Work together on it and help activate people and get a candidate elected.

It’s important to reach out to PDA, Wellstone and all the other groups out there.  We’re all working toward the same goals.  Not a single one of all these organizations has the resources to do what needs to be done in California all by themselves.  So we need to make them realize that in order to make things happen in this state, we need to cooperate.  Leave our egos at the door when you walk in, work together, quit worrying about “these are our people, these are our precint leaders”.  That’s what gets us into trouble.

There have been issues getting cooperation between clubs and OFA.  We need to reach out to them and make sure that we’re all working together.  It’s not rocket science, it’s all common sense.  That’s what we need to do at the club level.  We cannot reinvent the wheel, we don’t have the resources individually, we need to work together on all of this.

Perez: Next is Arisha Michelle Hatch, the Southern California field manager of the Courage Campaign.  She’s responsible for organizing volunteers on a county by county basis.

Hatch: We’re like MoveOn.org but for California.  We like to call ourselves the greenhouse for the grassroots, in that we have a lot of different members with a lot of different interests.  I work for the Equality Program, which was established after the passage of Prop 8.  We sent out a viral video ad called Don’t Divorce Us, which got a lot of new members.  While many of those are interested in marriage equality, most are interested in healthcare, and secondarily education.  I joined Courage because they were trying to emulate what Obama did during the election.  The Equality Program was founded because every 4 years, California does a great job exporting labor and talent to the battleground states to the detriment of California, so we’re out here to build a permanent progressive infrastructure in California.  In terms of Equality, it’s not just about marriage: it’s about making sure the playing field is level in all areas such as education and healthcare.

Perez: Next is Dorothy Reik, Vice Chair of Progressive Democrats of Los Angeles, delegate to the CDP from the 41st assembly.  Led a series of forums on single payer healthcare, Gaza, food safety, etc.  She comes to us through the peace movement, and her club has close ties to the Topanga Peace movement.

Reik: PDA was started by Tim Carpenter after the 2004 DNC convention.  The idea was to further our progressive agenda by working inside and outside the party.  That means working with groups that don’t traditionally work with the party.  We have six issues: healthcare for all.  We don’t support hte public option, and stick to that.  We’re upset about the removal of the Kucinich Amendment.  We want out of Afghanistan and Pakistan, and want to end all wars.  We want economic and social justice, everyone should be treated equally.  And as far as right to marriage, we want everyone to be able to marry.  Clean and fair elections, which we don’t have in this country: we can’t have voting machines at the front end or the back end either.  Stop global warming, environmental issues we’re on the front lines working against the corporations who want to keep overheating our globe and world until our children don’t have a world to work in.  If you think oil wars are bad, wait until we get water wars.  And accountability, because Obama’s Attorney General won’t prosecute for torture.  We want Obama to address our issues, not Obama’s issues.  We want OFA to work with us, and take directions from us, because we believe Obama has been taking directions from the corporations.

We have conference calls where you can talk to Tim Carpenter.  I get jealous listening to OFA talking about paid staff.  Outside of Tim Carpenter who gets a stipend, almost all of our people are volunteers.

Perez: Final panelist is Jerry Vaughn.  Public Relations Director of SEIU 721, the largest public employee union in CA since 2005.  721 represents more than 80,000 public works from Santa Barbara to Orange County to the border.

Gary Vaughn: With such a large region like that, we have a diverse region that we represent.  Social workers, sanitation workers, RNs, attorneys.  We’ve worked with OFA on various issues and a number of other orgs.  Oftentimes, unfortunately, we are good at making use of other organizations, but we have a difficult time reciprocating.  We don’t have a permanent structure in the community, but rather come in to help win an election.  That’s where we can make improvements to build coalitions.  And we can work better with people on the other side of the ideological divide.

Question from Deana Igelsrud: I’m the e-board rep from the 47th district and co-chair of CA Majority Rule.  A lot of your volunteers were new to the process and excited about the election.  Many of the more seasoned veterans are more interested in the issues.  How do you build coalitions with new people and keep them engaged when it comes to issues?

Perez: Part of the difference is between building an electoral coaliton and a governing coalition.

Peggy: We all supported Barack, but many of us have issues with how he’s handling healthcare.  So we’ve had camps and trainings to invite people to participate.  We are organizing people around healthcare.  We’re online, calling structures we have in place.  And then when it comes to education and energy, those issues pop in too.  People will show up based on their passion.  Our job and focus is to teach people to organize effectively in their communities.

Perez: It seems like every election cycle, you see a peak of activism, but then some people drop off, and some stay involved.  So people who were involved in 2004 now see themselves as old hands.  How has that experience been, Peggy?

Reik: PDA truly is a movement.  We reach out not only to Democratic clubs to work with us, but we also reach out to other groups in the city and the state to groups like One Care Now, and the group standing against the Three Strikes Law.  So we try to reach people and bring them into the Party and into the progressive movement who may not have been politically involved before.  If someone came to me interested in food safety legislation, we did a forum for that to help teach people about that.

Thom O’Shaughnessy: How do we follow and deal with these three tenets: 1) learning how to agree to disagree, 2) how to marry orthodoxy with pragmatism, and 3) how to trade horses in a soft IOU for working on each other’s issues?

Gary Vaughn: We don’t have an answer to those dynamics.  When we have 30 asks of the legislature, given what we can accomplish, can we make 30 asks effectively?  Maybe we need to bullet down to 3 or 4.  Others would say no, we have to push all our issues.  But in other circumstances, we need to know what we have to walk away from the table having gotten.  Our first rule is, do no harm, especially since we have so many budget cuts.  And let’s look at who is doing the work.  And certainly, having wealthier Americans and Californians paying more is worth looking at.

Perez: There’s been a significant debate about gay marriage, given CA and ME.  One complaint is that the LGBT movement hasn’t been involved in coalition politics, that they ask for help but don’t necessarily provide it.  Arisha, what are the challenges in bringing people out of their comfort zone?

Arisha: Courage is well-situated to work on this issue.  Courage is multi-issue unlike some of the other organizations.  One of the things we’re trying to stress in our organizing work is trying to get people to show up, and stress the importance of showing up for community organizing work.  One of the things we’ve been trying to do is stress the importance of not being a one-issue movement.  Bringing people along in their feelings about marriage equality is important, but has to be paired with helping with the issues that matter to them.

Carolyn Fowler: These are not, or shouldn’t be competing organizations.  What is the best way for organizations to reach out to the clubs?

Henry Vandermeir: One of the things you need to do is find out who you’re actually going to talk to.  Know what your resources are.  Common sense would tell you we have all the contact information for all the clubs.  If we want OFA to contact them, well, why not just go to the source?  Make it easy.  It’s a two way situation though.  We don’t just need to contact the presidents.  They also need to contact us.

Peggy: We work closely with the CDP, and getting a list of all the clubs.  We’re going to be at the eboard meeting coming up next weekend.  Coming up and saying, this is who we are and how we work together.

Dorothy Reik: We do it the old-fashioned way, pick up the telephone and call up the club leaders in our area, see if they’ll cosponsor, or join our food safety or other forum.  We have organizing calls, ways to reach out to club presidents and other people, and would love to work with OFA and other groups.

Question: Republicans by and large stand together and are united in their ranks.  We have as Democrats got not to do that among ourselves.  If you don’t like something Obama is doing or whatever, that’s fine and do it in private.  But in a public forum, I find it very offensive to be attacking Obama and what he’s trying to accomplish.

Perez: I’ll take that as a comment.

Question: We have a challenge of people not voting for candidates or working for candidates, and focusing instead on issues.  They need to work for candidates as well.

Gary Vaughn: We do trade with candidates: we work on your campaign, and we’d like you to work with us on these issues.

Question: I’m very disappointed in Organizing for America.  And I love PDA.  You’ve had time to organize your people, and i’ve been to several OFA house parties.  But they don’t teach people how to organize.  They don’t have to join a Democratic club, but they are afraid to even visit a club.  You are spending money giving orders, call this person and say that, not teaching them how to think.  I would like to see Obama people not be afraid of us.

Perez: People take various tones, some more positive and some more critical.  I would ask us to be as productive and respectful in our discourse as possible.  Sometimes it’s hard not to feel the passion we feel about these issues.  There is concern with the difference between a bottom-up approach and a top-down approach, so speak to those issues.

Peggy Moore: I’m proud to work for OFA.  And I’m a president of an East Bay Democratic club.  I understand some of those frustrations that people might have.  But there is a focus we have.  We decided that the issue was healthcare, and this is how we’re going to organize around healthcare.  And there are some groups that think we should be approaching it in a certain way.  I’m not going to be on the street with Organizing for America, challenging the President.  That’s not going to roll.  Other organizations can do that, and they have every right to.  By pushing Single Payer, we may have gotten a public option, which wasn’t on the table before.  But we have a job and responsibility, and we have other issues to deal with as well.  We listen to people about how to do our job better.  We are training people to do the job, and we’ve been around less than a year.  And a lot of the people who voted for Obama and who need healthcare are not Democrats.  So it’s important that we continue to have these conversations.  I will come to a Democratic club and have a conversation with you, I’ll give you my card.  We may not always agree, and I’m OK with that.

Perez: It is a very difficult transition to go from being an activist to running an electoral campaign, and then move to how to govern.  Understanding that as a legislator, understanding that I had to choose often between a number of undesirable options, it’s very difficult.  But it is incredibly valid for us to be frustrated and to express that frustration, because we too came to the campaign with expectations and we want to see many of those expectations met.  So thank you for your openness and commitment to working with all the clubs, and you hear the frustration expressed, and after all these years in the wilderness we want to get as much as we can as quickly as we can.

Question: The point was to encourage Obama activists to get involved in the clubs.

Peggy Moore: We do encourage people to participate.  We have several members from the Obama campaign, that once the campaign was over, were looking for a place to go.  And some of the members have participated in the Democratic clubs.  And some of the clubs are better than others.  And when you get them in the door, we need to keep them in the door.

Eric Bauman: We need to be careful about putting fingers in people’s eyes.  There are Obama activists who don’t like the Party or our movement.  Just as there were Dean activists with the same perspective.  We need to be figuring out how to do this together.  The other side is together and working together.  We need to work together and stop poking fingers in each other’s eyes.

Question: I’m from the John Muir Democratic Club.  How do we raise consciousness of a particular Get Out of Afghanistan bill?

Henry Vandermeir: As far as getting resources, you need to figure out which organizations are going to be more receptive to what you’re working on.  As mentioned previously, some organizations are particularly focused on certain issues, so it has to be a targeted campaign.  Same thing goes for organizations, you have to figure out which organizations are going to be helpful and cooperative, and which will not.

Perez: Just take a last minute from each of you to talk about any takeaway messages in terms of investing in coalition politics.

Dorothy Reik: We need to work together, but we need to give our message to the powers that be to tell them what we think are the best policies.  We need to elect Democrats, but not just any Democrats.  We need to elect the Democrats who are in favor of what we believe in.   We have one of those, Marcy Winograd, running against Jane Harman.

Gary Vaughn: When we talk about coalitions, we have to try to make connections outside of our norm, including with moderates and conservatives.  Break through the partisanship.

Peggy Moore: Thank you for giving me the opportunity.  I need all of you, your mentorship, need you to keep us on track.  We’re working for a better America.  I want to personally invite you over to the opening of our new office at Centinela and Jefferson in Culver City on Thursday.

Arisha Michelle Hatch: I’m personally a baby of the Obama movement.  I challenge you as leaders and organizers to plug into the energy of the movement, and challenge you to question whether you’re creating an environment conducive to plugging in.

Henry Vandermier: Tolerance is a virtue.  If people agree with you 50%-75%, then consider yourself lucky.  Remember that when you go to work on coalitions.

Perez: I want to thank the panel, and bring back Eric Bauman.

Eric Bauman: Thanks to our moderator Assemblymember Perez.