Thursday, October 27, 2016

Huizar’s sexual harassment lawsuit not an issue for voters; Lincoln Heights kitchens now renting to indie food makers

MOrning Report

  • A sexual harassment lawsuit and an extramarital affair  did not appear to have any impact on the campaign of Jose Huizar, who was reelected by a wide margin in the Council District 14 race. “He could have three more affairs … and I would still support the guy,” said voter Josef Bray-Ali.   L.A. Times
  • L.A. Prep in Lincoln Heights is renting more than 50 commercial kitchens to artisinal food makers. L.A. Times

The Eastside Events calendar is intended primarily for one-time or occasional free and public events in or near the communities we cover. Need more exposure? Click here for Featured Events Marketing.

Eastsider Advertising


  1. Is it ethical to have sex with one’s employees? Is it ethical to promote employees based on sexual favors provided to the boss? Is it ethical for the tax payers to provide legal council to the tune of 200K to the councilman who admitted a sexual relationship with a subordinate employee? Is it ethical to “quietly” settle a lawsuit where there is clearly an exchange of funds going on – likely being paid for by an unknown person/persons who likely have or have had business with the city. Is it ethical to provide triple digit salaries, generous health benefits and pensions to such compromised people. Where are the ethics here?

    Los Angeles deserves the government it elects. Obviously ethical government is not part of the judgement of the voters of CD 14.

    • Is it ethical that I took 2 donuts rather than my allotted 1 donut this morning??

    • Is it ethical to judge some one on their personal moral failings, versus their effective public duty?

      Politicians are human too — it’s what they stand for the the policies they fight for that really matters.

      Either way — who cares? The voters have spoken!

      (See also: Bill Clinton)

  2. Clinton had a short-lived affair with an intern, whereas Huizar had a long-term affair where he returned the sexual favors he was receiving by promoting his mistress into a *public position* with a *six figure salary*. And then the city had to use *taxpayer money* for his legal defense. Do you see the difference here?

  3. Several of the posters here — those who say “it” mattered and those who say it didn’t — seem to have one thing in common. They believe the accusations without any proof. They have that right. In a free country anyone can turn gossip and innuendo into their own personal “facts” — but I’d hate to have any of them serve on a jury as one of my peers. People accuse other people of things for a lot of reasons — only one of which is that they really are guilty. Shame, spit, revenge, indignation — “righteous” or otherwise, and so forth. Add a lot of money to the equation, through a lawsuit, and the prospect of an accuser REALLY telling the truth starts to diminish pretty quickly. Some posters also have in common the belief that the accuser’s ending salary was payment for something other than the job she was supposed to be performing at the time for the City of Los Angeles. A lot of assumptions piled on top of each other don’t even equal one fact, but it should be noted that the accuser left a fairly high paying job with the councilmember and received another similar one with a completely different government entity — which suggests her next employer also thought she was worth the paycheck — unless someone’s willing to also suggest even more piled-on assumptions, Isn’t it just possible that in addition to “sleeping with the boss” (which he admitted happened) she was also a capable executive? Or are we all linear enough to think that in the 21st century a woman can ONLY be sexual (with loose morals, if you’d like) or competent on the job, but not both — something left over from the days when ANY woman who got promoted quickly HAD to be doing something immoral. Shameful that some of those accusations came from female candidates for a high paying job, themselves — that of a City Councilmember.

    For my take, I just hope the councilmember’s wife didn’t see Josef Bray Ali’s glib remark about “3 more affairs” — which wasn’t terribly sensitive to their family life, which Huizar genuinely seems to be working to restore. I hope that all works out, because in the grand scheme of things, in the last 15 years I’ve been a constituent in CD14, I’ve had three different councilmen and one county supervisor who wanted that job (a woman), and of those four people, only ONE, apparently — Jose Huizar — is still “with” (married to or otherwise) the person that shared that public life with them. Everywhere else, it’s divorce and/or separation. I’ll take the course-correcting leader any day. Not everyone can make that work, especially with the pressures of that job — but we all make mistakes. Its what you do to correct them and preserve your family that is the true measure of your character (and usually the harder task).

    • hopalong chastity

      Any conclusion made about the long term viability of councilperson huizar’s marriage or the sincerity of his efforts to preserve the marital union would be premature up to this point.
      Now that mr. huizar has won election to another 4 year term in office, the next 6 -12 months should reveal whether his marriage actually goes forward or progresses to a dissolution.
      If the marriage was in a state beyond recovery or repair, it would still be in the financial best interest of the councilperson’s spouse to postpone the public break-up until after huizar had guaranteed another 4 years of steady employment and income with the city council.

  4. Make up your mind, people . . . is he Bill Clinton, or Teddy Kennedy? Is his wife Hillary or Joan. Or are they neither?

    (Once again, the “women” in this scenario — both of them — are ALL just in it for the money, right? Big paycheck (“:obviously” undeserved), lawsuit settlement, husband’s pension? They all need to have men support them, none could make it one their own, despite having degrees and professions of their own. Really?

    What a cynical world the blog posters of THIIS world live in. No one (especially public servants) is interested in repairing a marriage, keeping a family together raising children in an undivided home. No, they’re JUST in it for the MONEY!.

    We don’t even get the Madonna/whore complex story from these misogynists; women are all just dependent money-whores. Time to RAP about those greedy “B’s” and “H’s”. (Pardon my rant, but I’ve had the misfortune of having unselfish, altruistic females in my life — and can’t really relate to these biased, cynical POVs).

    • I don’t care if it’s a man or a woman we’re talking about. If a person is blowing the boss, and said person goes from making $40k to $140k in the course of a year, it’s reasonable to suspect that something is rotten. And when the taxpayers are footing the bill, it’s extra rotten. Some might even say corrupt.

  5. I suppose for everyone here it would be better to emotionally abuse nearly all of your staff over the course of many years than it would be to have an affair with one of them? Ms. Molina’s treatment of her staff was notorious, even to the point of her causing her employees to cry in public meetings. What kind of human being treats others with such disdain? In the end, her mistreatment of so many people was probably her undoing, as not many wanted to support her bid to unseat the incumbent.

    And we’re all to believe that the moral failings of Mr. Huizar in breaking his vows to his wife are the only moral considerations that were worth discussing in this race?

    I, for one, believe that Ms. Molina got what she deserved: a ballot-box obliteration. As for Mr. Huizar, if he has truly done wrong, his day will come too. But for now the voters have spoken quite clearly, and they want him to remain in office.

  6. For me, I really do not factor marital infidelity/personal failings into my political choice. I do certainly factor failings like propping/paying off up a mistress with a job on the tax payers’ dime and related legal fallout on the tax payers’ dime. But, in the end, I still voted for Huizar because I think he has and will continue to make many more dimes for tax payers through his deft riding herd of the area’s development than the dimes he stole for his side chick.

  7. I guess I’ll just have to stand corrected on some f this. I really had NO idea so many of the posters here had access to the accuser’s City personnel files and knew for a fact what kind of job she did and how much it was worth to the City of Los Angeles over the time she worked downtown.

    Can one of the folks here assessing what she must have been worth as a mid- to senior-level manager, and WHY she was promoted and received pay raises commensurate with her job titles over those several years, please help a confused guy out here and POST links to the public records they’re looking at — her performance reviews and such. I used to know a CEO who was just certain that ALL highly paid office “girls” only got where they were using sexual favors (of course he died of old age in the 1960s), So these similar suppositions are obviously (in this new, more enlightened age) are obviously because someone’s reading employment records I haven’t been able to see yet

  8. I think Huizar has done a great job in CD 14, and I voted him a week ago. But his supporters should not kid themselves — this affair was a huge ethical mistake. It would be a firing offense in many companies (and the usual course of life at many others, but I digress…).

    The salary of public employees is published, so it’s possible to know what her salary bumps were; they have been part of the news reports on this story. The fast increases create the appearance of a quid pro quo of some kind.

  9. Whatever taxpayer money was/wasn’t misspent on Huizar’s legal battles, is chump change compared with the kind of longterm fiscal damage Molina was capable of. Anyone who writes op-eds in favor of the 710 boondoggle, and then has the gall to try and paint themselves as some fiscal watchdog is hard to take very seriously. And then she tried to make the claim that downtown needs to preserve surface parking lots… LOL!

Post a Comment

Please keep your comments civil and on topic and refrain from personal attacks. The moderator reserves the right to edit or delete any comments. The Eastsider's Terms of Use and Privacy Policy apply to comments submitted by readers. Required fields are marked *